|
Post by ATP Kraken on Oct 5, 2016 23:25:28 GMT
During Ancient Greek society, especially in Athens, the Greek religion was not too powerful, and philosophy, which is simply science that skips experimentation and goes straight to logical conclusions, flourished. Later, after the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church strengthened its grip and forced its ideas upon the people, and people who made radical discoveries who are hailed today, were heretics then. Ex: Galileo and his astronomical theories, which have been proven and relied upon by space missions. Even then, during the Renaissance, some inventions that align with the ruling (Church) power, like the Gutenberg printing press (It first printed the Bible), spread quickly. Geometry was actually divine and architecture was a homage to God. Still, the church founded schools, but it dismissed radical theories, the ones that truly explain our world, like the quantum electron model that the periodic table was built around and describes electronegativity.
|
|
|
Post by Mouthwash on Oct 6, 2016 13:25:31 GMT
Is there something you want to discuss here?
|
|
|
Post by ATP Kraken on Oct 7, 2016 1:03:40 GMT
Not particularly. I wrote this after the Renaissance unit in History class and scanning the Scientific Revolution chapter to realize a phenomenon in relation to Thrive's society stages. Church power can also be replaced with edit:ideological power.
|
|
RoboTrannic
Spacefaring
haunting deviantart
Posts: 1,005
|
Post by RoboTrannic on Oct 7, 2016 21:48:03 GMT
its really a story of aceptance that you have been lied to about god heven and hell
|
|
|
Post by tammio on Oct 7, 2016 22:04:41 GMT
BUt Churches also preserved the knoledge of the past. Withouth the Monastaries preserving roman manuscripts and roman knoledge the renaiscance (the REBIRTH) could not have happened. The Church were those who promoted literacy, who remembered the feats of the romans and the wisdom of the old. Without the building of cathedrals, arcitecture and mathematics would not have advanced. Without the Church (protestant expecially) the scientific revolution could not have happened; many early scientist were Protestant priests. It is easy to bash the (Catholic) church for cracking down on percieved Heretics, but we often forget that these things are never black and white. Under the Church Theology florished, arguably just another "branch" of Philosophy; religious teachings influenced the great philosophers of the early moddern era. What would Kant, Rousseau and have Birnbaum been without the teachings of the Bible to argue with or against (or the Tora in Birnbaums case?) And the greeks what did they do with Sokrates again? As Wilhelm von Humbold (Alxander von Humbold's older brother, and was one of the most important german liberal thinkers) stated quite correctly: all "old" societies (like the greeks and Romans for example) placed less focus on teaching their people critcal thinking than they placed on "correct" and "moral" thinking. The Greeks weren't the democratic nice guys we often percieve them as, and the church wasn't allways only burning wiches and hunting down heretics
|
|
|
Post by Mouthwash on Oct 8, 2016 5:58:17 GMT
Not particularly. I wrote this after the Renaissance unit in History class and scanning the Scientific Revolution chapter to realize a phenomenon in relation to Thrive's society stages. Church power can also be replaced with government power Your big epiphany was "religion inversely correlates with science and reason?" There's a large movement dedicated to that idea, y'know. It's hard to believe you've never been exposed to any argument along those lines.
|
|
|
Post by holomanga on Oct 8, 2016 15:18:30 GMT
This would be covered under the arbitrary mechanics of the relevant religion (http://thrivegame.wikidot.com/arbitrary-mechanics). Populous and Intolerant religions reduce science, though the list is probably out of date or otherwise greatly preliminary.
|
|
|
Post by Mouthwash on Oct 8, 2016 17:40:51 GMT
This would be covered under the arbitrary mechanics of the relevant religion (http://thrivegame.wikidot.com/arbitrary-mechanics). Populous and Intolerant religions reduce science, though the list is probably out of date or otherwise greatly preliminary. What about these "tenets" from the Civ IV mod History Rewritten? --- DIVINITY ---Animism
Pantheism
Polytheism
Henotheism
Monotheism
Atheism--- ASPIRATION ---Fertility
Prosperity
Order
Preservation
Salvation
Enlightenment--- MORALITY ---Hedonism
Purity
Altruism
Honor
Duty
Judgment--- REVELATION ---Folklore
Divination
Scripture
Rationalism--- TOLERANCE ---Insularity
Proselytism
Intolerance
Syncretism
Pluralism--- WORSHIP ---Sacrifice
Ceremony
Meditation
Prayer
|
|
Vultblooop
Multicellular
Ree, normies out please.
Posts: 36
|
Post by Vultblooop on Oct 13, 2016 7:28:13 GMT
well isn't this a Belgiumstorm
pleasedontkillmeifthatsuncensoredgodhelpmewearealldoomedishouldjustkillmyselfwouldntthatbefun
|
|
|
Post by mitobox on Oct 14, 2016 2:39:25 GMT
well isn't this a Belgiumstormbr]m Darude: Belgiumstorm? Anyway, I think it's a mercy that we're a fairly small community. Otherwise, this would erupt into Defcon 1 nuclear flame war. And not the kind that's fun to read.
|
|
Skyguy98
Spacefaring
Lord of the Skies (pic found by atrox)
Posts: 1,637
|
Post by Skyguy98 on Oct 14, 2016 3:05:45 GMT
I love nuclear flames!
But in relation to the topic at hand, Religion is a great motivator, either for or against such a thing as science. Some of the earliest thinkers were religious and curious about mans relation to god, some of the best kept, no matter how biased, records of some periods are the bible and missionary accounts. At the same time overzealous ideas and refusal to look outside the main source of ideology can be greatly hampering to society and science. Its really an interesting topic and discussion piece, but you know some things are sacred to talk about and such.
As for relation to thrive i know there are going to be some religious incorporation, after all no one can dispute the influence religion has had on civilization, no matter the position taken on the religion itself. The idea of different sliding scales appeals to me, for example on one scale could be open vs closed minded (maybe fancy names and effects) and another could be word of god vs a more non-literal definition. But I don't know
|
|
Vultblooop
Multicellular
Ree, normies out please.
Posts: 36
|
Post by Vultblooop on Oct 15, 2016 4:01:36 GMT
I love nuclear flames! But in relation to the topic at hand, Religion is a great motivator, either for or against such a thing as science. Some of the earliest thinkers were religious and curious about mans relation to god, some of the best kept, no matter how biased, records of some periods are the bible and missionary accounts. At the same time overzealous ideas and refusal to look outside the main source of ideology can be greatly hampering to society and science. Its really an interesting topic and discussion piece, but you know some things are sacred to talk about and such. As for relation to thrive i know there are going to be some religious incorporation, after all no one can dispute the influence religion has had on civilization, no matter the position taken on the religion itself. The idea of different sliding scales appeals to me, for example on one scale could be open vs closed minded (maybe fancy names and effects) and another could be word of god vs a more non-literal definition. But I don't know it gets boring after you flame for over 2 years.
|
|
|
Post by cosmosis on Oct 16, 2016 16:13:12 GMT
Why did we even create religion in the first place? To "answer" questions regarding our existence, etc? Is that not what science does today? Can we then not say that religion, back when our current ways of generating answers were not yet implemented, is an outdated approach to scientific methods of asking and answering questions? The spiritual aspects of religion, are they not simply "side-effects" of not having the means to answer certain questions, to seek out facts?
|
|
Skyguy98
Spacefaring
Lord of the Skies (pic found by atrox)
Posts: 1,637
|
Post by Skyguy98 on Oct 16, 2016 17:51:16 GMT
Are those questions rhetorical?
|
|
|
Post by cosmosis on Oct 16, 2016 18:06:52 GMT
Are those questions rhetorical? I feared that they might seem to be such!.. they are not, no.
|
|
Skyguy98
Spacefaring
Lord of the Skies (pic found by atrox)
Posts: 1,637
|
Post by Skyguy98 on Oct 16, 2016 18:21:45 GMT
The creation of "religion" is founded in the mystisal realm really. The idea that there is more out there and that there has to be a reason for things like death and seasons. Some argue that religion was used as a means of control and unity, after all nothing holds a people together better than fear of consequence. But I do see what you mean, it was often also an attempt to explain the natural world to some,the why really, while there were others who attempted to explain the how and the why. The problem with really knowing is that the foundation of modern "religion" can trace its ways all the way back to the first people, while we aren't able to observe and ask so the best we can do is educated guesses
|
|
|
Post by Mouthwash on May 24, 2017 9:22:10 GMT
The creation of "religion" is founded in the mystisal realm really. The idea that there is more out there and that there has to be a reason for things like death and seasons. Some argue that religion was used as a means of control and unity, after all nothing holds a people together better than fear of consequence. But I do see what you mean, it was often also an attempt to explain the natural world to some,the why really, while there were others who attempted to explain the how and the why. The problem with really knowing is that the foundation of modern "religion" can trace its ways all the way back to the first people, while we aren't able to observe and ask so the best we can do is educated guesses Western scientific tradition developed out of the notion that God, a perfectly rational being, had made the universe based on rational principles which could be discovered through investigation. So not only is it wrong to say (as the OP does) that monotheism and science were at odds, it seems that the opposite is true.
|
|
|
Post by mitobox on May 24, 2017 14:30:13 GMT
As far as the thread's topic goes, I'm wondering how we can put in both the "intellectual clergy" versus "burned for anti-geocentric heresy" views of the church in a way that's fun and/or immersive for the player.
If it's not too complicated, then I suggest having groups "evolve" over time. In the context of this thread, at first, the members of a religious body may take it upon themselves to learn about the divine through studying the material. However, as time passes and the body stagnates, it will consider everything "settled science" and consider itself legitimized from its findings. Contrary models of the natural world (heliocentrism, non-abiogenesis) will be seen as threats to the body's legitimacy.
To sum it up, both views of the church may be implemented by giving the church a sense of self preservation. It will stagnate in comfortable times, it will reform if it must, and groups with contrasting opinions may break away (and maybe sail over to that hip new continent some guys found).
Also, belief in the divine may be used to gain something like "legitimacy points" for governments, be they autocratic (divine right/mandate of heaven) or democratic (inaliable rights), as well as offer squads a morale bonus, but that's for another thread.
|
|
|
Post by crodnu on May 24, 2017 14:38:27 GMT
I mean, monotheism (or very vocal monotheists, often with power) and science were at odds a lot of times. Even today we have people arguing that "homosexuality is a choice" based on religion.
Plus (purely from a game mechanics perspective) what disadvantages would an open minded and tolerant religion have? It should be somewhat balanced with both intolerant and closed minded religions and secularism.
|
|
|
Post by mitobox on May 24, 2017 14:45:25 GMT
Plus (purely from a game mechanics perspective) what disadvantages would an open minded and tolerant religion have? It should be somewhat balanced with both intolerant and closed minded religions and secularism. Maybe tolerant religions would give governments less "legitimacy points?" A super strict clergy that preaches about the monarch's divine backing is way more supportive than a laid-back clergy saying, "Well, who knows, maybe we're wrong?"
|
|