Religion v. Science... again?

[jurrz12]

I remember hearing that species with the "religious" trait are going to suffer technological penalties. This is a very well-worn trope in these sorts of games... and that's part of the problem.

It's a cliche. And to be honest, it's one with some pretty uncomfortable implications and is rather inaccurate. Most historians now believe that the idea of a science-religion conflict is an invention of 18th and 19th century philosophers and doesn't hold up to historical scrutiny. Most people who try and defend the idea of a religion-science binary will bring up Galileo and the Creationism debate but then get stumped for examples.

And of course, there's the issue that there is some anti-religious prejudice latent in this idea.

It's cool that there is a religious trait in the game, but I don't feel that it should play up the (in my opinion, incorrect) idea of a binary choice between science and religion. It's a tempting path to go down because so many other games have done it, but I hope Paradox can be a little more creative and think of less problematic ways of making the religious trait matter.

 

[Winterwolf00]

A civilization that for example is ruled by dogmatism and strict adherence to a doctrine is going to be less open to new ideas.
Think less Italian Renaissance and more Ori from Stargate.

Religion doesn't necessarily require extremism but if it's the primary aspect of their society then it will probably be dogmatic.
You could have a culture who is very spiritual and loves everyone but the religious aspect would be in the background.

 

[Taghan]

For what it's worth I agree with the OP. It's a mid-Victorian cliché that needs to die, hard.

 

[yerm]

It's a stereotype and a fallacy at this point. Because modern times poses a religion vs science conflict in the developed world, we extend this to various places it doesn't belong, from eu4 to apparently Stellaris, and ignore that religion and science have spent more time going hand in hand than in conflict in human history. Considerably more.

This is coming from an atheist, by the way.

If religious belief pushes for innovation and discovery, why would science be stifled? All that's really necessary is for said religion to NOT take on the role of trying to explain the unexplainable, which is unfortunately how most of our world religions have developed. As soon as you divorce religion from the role of supernatural explanation, or isolate it to a philosophical pursuit, there's no necessary conflict at all.

 

[Taghan]

All that's really necessary is for said religion to NOT take on the role of trying to explain the unexplainable, which is unfortunately how most of our world religions have developed.

On the subject of clichés...

Because modern times poses a religion vs science conflict in the developed world

...which it doesn't, outside of US-style fundamentalism, hence the OP's complaint.

 

[ringhloth]

Religion in Stellaris isn't "well, I go to church most Sundays." It's closer to "PURGE THE HERETIC. BURN THE DISSENTERS." It's far more extreme than 95% of religious people around, and when you look at those 5% you say, well, yeah. They're not exactly keen on the science.

Besides, we don't know what these technological penalties are. There's not really "you get x points a month, and being super religious makes you require 5% more."

 

[dav77-b]

The problem of religion that if the discoveries dont suit the believes, the discoveries have to be rejected. Till a religious society can accept the new discoveries with massivly reinterpretations of holy texts it can take some time. In game terms, religion slows science down. Ofc it depends on the believes. A creationistic religion is massive contraproductive for science. A religion that focuses on souls and sees knowledge as food for the souls, will probably increase sciencetific development.

 

[Winterwolf00]

The problem of religion that if the discoveries dont suit the believes, the discoveries have to be rejected. Till a religious society can accept the new discoveries with massivly reinterpretations of holy texts it can take some time. In game terms, religion slows science down. Ofc it depends on the believes. A creationistic religion is massive contraproductive for science. A religion that focuses on souls and sees knowledge as food for the souls, will probably increase sciencetific development.

Hopefully they don't see souls as food...

 

[jurrz12]

A civilization that for example is ruled by dogmatism and strict adherence to a doctrine is going to be less open to new ideas.
Think less Italian Renaissance and more Ori from Stargate.

Religion doesn't necessarily require extremism but if it's the primary aspect of their society then it will probably be dogmatic.
You could have a culture who is very spiritual and loves everyone but the religious aspect would be in the background.

The Italian Renaissance actually happened, Stargate didn't.

The thing is, we can theorize these things, but there's very little actual examples to bring forward, Galileo excluded. Historically, the Muslim caliphates and the Catholic Papacy were both heavy patrons of the arts and sciences, and they were both the heads of their respective religions.

Theology generally only conflict with science in the same areas all academic disciplines conflict with each other- on the peripheries. The goals and methods of the two disciplines are different, so they don't generally obstruct each other.

And again, why the binary? Does every species have to be either ultra-zealots or atheist?

 

[Thure]

Were did you hear this? And I'm sure if this is the case... it's just for the fanatic religious trait. Fanatic religious would be something like ISIS...

The problem of religion that if the discoveries dont suit the believes, the discoveries have to be rejected. Till a religious society can accept the new discoveries with massivly reinterpretations of holy texts it can take some time. In game terms, religion slows science down. Ofc it depends on the believes. A creationistic religion is massive contraproductive for science. A religion that focuses on souls and sees knowledge as food for the souls, will probably increase sciencetific development.

No. Not necessary. Actually the Catholic Church and it's institutions are the ones who bring science forward during the Middle Ages and the renaissance. Many scientists worked for the church or were churchmen themself. The Catholic church never had big problems to accept new things. They addopt them into their believe very fast.

 

[ringhloth]

Does every species have to be either ultra-zealots or atheist?

No one is saying that. What I might say instead is that if a species is defined by their religiousness far more than any other ethic, then they're zealots. If a species isn't particularly defined by their religiousness, then it isn't important enough to mention.

 

[ringhloth]

No. Not necessary. Actually the Catholic Church and it's institutions are the ones who bring science forward during the Middle Ages and the renaissance. Many scientists worked for the church or were churchmen themself. The Catholic church never had big problems to accept new things. They addopt them into their believe very fast.

It's a new age, though. The advancement isn't things like preserving old texts, or opening up education to a wider audience, but instead it's cloning, terraforming, heavily modifying genomes, cybernetics, creating life from nothing, and breaking and bending the laws of nature, things that might seem to be playing at god. Yes, in the past, religion has preserved technology. That doesn't necessarily mean that in the future, they'll be accepting of it. Even now, many religious extremists use their doctrine to justify going against science and destroying history. Again, they're extremists, and not representative of the whole, but extremism is what the zealotry trait is.

 

[jurrz12]

No one is saying that. What I might say instead is that if a species is defined by their religiousness far more than any other ethic, then they're zealots. If a species isn't particularly defined by their religiousness, then it isn't important enough to mention.

I don't think this is fair. There are many people who would say that religion is most important to their lives who aren't going around lopping heads- most clerics, for example.

 

[jurrz12]

It's a new age, though. The advancement isn't things like preserving old texts, or opening up education to a wider audience, but instead it's cloning, terraforming, heavily modifying genomes, cybernetics, creating life from nothing, and breaking and bending the laws of nature, things that might seem to be playing at god. Yes, in the past, religion has preserved technology. That doesn't necessarily mean that in the future, they'll be accepting of it. Even now, many religious extremists use their doctrine to justify going against science and destroying history. Again, they're extremists, and not representative of the whole, but extremism is what the zealotry trait is.

People always make the future sound more intimidating than it will be. Five hundred years ago, how much of our modern technology would seem insane to the peoples of the day? And yet in our modern age, we realize that it has ultimately changed human nature very little.

Besides, if they're so anti-science, how'd they get this far (FTL etc.) anyway?

 

[RHKINC]

I agree that it is an overdone penalty. Why can't a scientist believe God created evolution as the perfect hands off system for life? Why can't a big bang have been lit by a match held by an unknown force projecting matter into existence from the infitessimally small black hole? Meh, it can be modded out I'm sure.

 

[aitaituo]

Were did you hear this? And I'm sure if this is the case... it's just for the fanatic religious trait. Fanatic religious would be something like ISIS...

No. Not necessary. Actually the Catholic Church and it's institutions are the ones who bring science forward during the Middle Ages and the renaissance. Many scientists worked for the church or were churchmen themself. The Catholic church never had big problems to accept new things. They addopt them into their believe very fast.

Yes, that is why the Church banned the use of crossbows. It's always amazed me how low the rate of literacy was in medieval Europe, given that they were working with alphabetic writing systems using 30 characters or less. It's almost as if there was some sort of effort to keep basic information out of the hands of most of the population and when that effort mysteriously lost political power, there was a massive explosion of technological advancement.

Of course, I wouldn't be making that point so snarkily if it didn't seem like a reactionary statement was demanded by other posters to persuade them from their positions, just as Enlightenment philosophers felt it was necessary to argue God to death.

Humans, in general, are anti-scientific. You can look at any ideology and find strongly anti-scientific positions within it, even among groups of scientists. I once met someone who was against GMO crops, because we should only eat natural foods, but wanted to genetically engineer people. I can only shrug.

For the game, I hope that every trait has pluses and minuses to the chance of discovering every possible technology. Pacifists are not likely to see the military applications of phlebotinum, but would certainly see it's use for mining.

 

[ringhloth]

I don't think this is fair. There are many people who would say that religion is most important to their lives who aren't going around lopping heads- most clerics, for example.

Individuals, yes. Billions? Trillions?

People always make the future sound more intimidating than it will be. Five hundred years ago, how much of our modern technology would seem insane to the peoples of the day? And yet in our modern age, we realize that it has ultimately changed human nature very little.

Besides, if they're so anti-science, how'd they get this far (FTL etc.) anyway?

They might not be completely anti-science. They're anti-some-sciences. Things that are a little less on the religious side. Like, a zealous Catholic society would never advance heavily into birth control methods, but that has nothing to do with cars. That's probably the type of penalties we'll see for very religious societies: Many technologies will be fine, but a few will go against the church's standards. Remember that there's no tech tree, and you don't generate research points. It's more based around events.

 

[Ilightmaster]

Break the clichés guys.

 

[Captain_Crunch]

Before I start I just want to make it plain that while I am an atheist I have no issue with peaceful worshipers of any god(s).

It seems to me at least that since they are taking cues and bits from other popular sci-fi franchises that of course they would go with this stereotype since it has been in a lot of sci-fi. The best example I can think of in this case is the Covenant from Halo, who had intense religious motivation AND hi-tech weaponry, but still suffered slight tech drawbacks thanks to their zealous nature. Of course they were glad to gain new technology, but their understanding of advanced things they found from the long-gone Forerunners was limited to the scope of their religion and how the prophets (the ruling class) wished to use it. It does sound like the trait is meant to take on a more zealous note not unlike the current human imperium from warhammer 40k, which states some forms of technology to be heresy and meant only for destruction.

I feel that bringing too much history and real life situations into this is a bit much, since the game seems more geared towards the fantastic and usual elements of the genre, but to bring in a real life situation (and dancing on the edge of starting a forum-fight) I would equate it to ISIS in space. If people really don't like it then as was said it can probably be modded out, but based on the direction that the developers are taking with the game and its influences I think it's perfectly fine for the religious trait to have a tech drawback...if it is based in a similar zealotry of course.

Basically, it's a game based on epic sci-fi conventions so of course the cliche will be there. There wouldn't be a point to put a religious trait in there otherwise.

 

[jurrz12]

Individuals, yes. Billions? Trillions?

There's no frame of reference for a sample size that big.