Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Dumpshock Forums _ General Gaming _ religion in gaming

Posted by: craigpierce Sep 16 2006, 01:22 AM

ok, so i'm not necessarily a proponent of religion in gaming - though i do think that an RPG where religion is tied in somehow, but is not the foundation of the RPG, could be cool.

so if you know of any religion-centric RPGs already out there, have any views on adding religion to an existing RPG, ideas for ways to make an RPG where religion would somehow be a factor (kind of like DnD has gods and character alignments), or reasons why religion in an RPG would be stupid, you can post here.

Posted by: Derek Sep 16 2006, 02:23 AM

Umm, don't you think D&D qualifies? I mean, it has a huge number of gods, clerics who try and convert the heathens, actual embodiment of evil and good (devils/demons and solars/planetars), etc...

Or, do you only mean your religion?

Honestly, I'm not trying to be rude, or condescending, but Christianity is not the only religion out there. There are plenty of others, both fantastical, and based in real life religions. Just because it is not Christian-centric, doesn't mean religion doesn't exist in the game, or is not a major part of it.

And if you are specifically looking for a Christian themed RPG, there was one out there, made in the mid-80's. Can't remember the name, but the short version is that it was a terrible flop. It was attacked by the RPG crowd for being a relitively poor RPG, and attacked by the Jack-Chick crowd for even daring to try and bring D&D and Christianity together. Kind of like Christian rock was heavily attacked in the 80's by the religious right, as well, which is kind of sad, because there is some really good Christian rock that could do a decent job of both rocking, and attempting to convert folks.

Anyways, religion exists in gaming, and is alive, well, and strong in some games.

Dave

Posted by: nezumi Sep 16 2006, 02:37 AM

I love religion in gaming. Religion is an important part of any culture and really should be included in order to make a rounded world. The mysticism and mystery created by religion also makes for excellent plots, and I regularly bring in factors from Cthulhu cults, Mesopotamian myths and yes, even Christian dogma behind my plots.

Posted by: Frag-o Delux Sep 16 2006, 02:54 AM

Depends on the game, in a D&D setting real world religions dont fit in my mind.

In games like SR I think they fit just fine. I like the idea of the Knights Templer, the order of the sylvestrines, voodoo, santeria and all that. Some of my characters are religious to a certain degree. Much like the stereotypical mafia goon being a religious person and what not.

I have a Voodoo Hougan and I did a lot of research for that character. Sure SR had plenty there to play one in the SR world. But I also went and found as much as I possibly could about the religion. For instance, one group of followers specifically says Ghede is the protector of children, so thats an aspect I role play an an aspect Im waiting for the Gm to exploit. I chose Ghede dont know why I just liked him. I found out all I could about that Loa in particular and how he reacts and interacts with the other Loa so I could roleplay the character correctly. I also made sure the GM had all the information I did so he would role play the Loa correctly. Im no where near fluent or well indocterinated in that religion but I feel comfortable enough that it was played correctly and with respect.

Any character I play gets that treatment wether athesist or full blown catholic, or some other religion like buddist or taoist. Personally, I still dont have a religion, I think most of it is hocus pocus for people to find something to believe to make the world make sense. To me the world makes sense much better with out religion. But Im not going to stand in the way of anyone that wants to practice a religion, as long as you dont bother me with it. I think if all those books were taken as ideas for the way people should live and get long that would be great. But when you start killign each other over whos right or wrong its just silly. I mean its like the old beer commercials, tastes great less filling. WHO GIVES A FUCK? just drink and be merry, in the end well find out who was right.

The only time I was happy to see a catholic preaching was when I was leaving school with an idea for a character and I wanted him to be catholic and by chance this guy was there handing out bibles. So I had a bible now to read and base a religious doctorine to the character I made. Other then that I would have had to do some internet searching.

Posted by: Bull Sep 16 2006, 05:22 AM

Just popping in with a pre-emptive "be careful". Religion is always a tricky subject, should always be approached respectfully (regardless of which religion you're speaking of), and can very quickly devolve into an argument. Don't let it.

Posted by: Critias Sep 16 2006, 05:54 AM

My answer is a sound "eh - maybe." Like many other adult/serious/real-world/controversial themes, it's almost entirely dependent on how it's handled, and (more importantly) the people involved in the game.

I tend to dislike real world religion-as-stats being present in RPGs (as I've mentioned a few times in reference to Shadowrun's stats-and-modifiers for various wiccan/pagan/whatever magical belief system), because I'm wary of writer biais rearing it's ugly head. I liked it just fine when MitS had a suggested listing of Totems for various religious beliefs (Thor or St Michael as Dragonslayer, Athena as Wise Warrior, whatever) -- because multiple faiths had multiple choices, and those choices overlapped with other faiths. Thor isn't a better totem than St Michael, the two are fair and even and balanced, in other words.

I disliked (on principle) the various modifiers given for different pseudo-real world belief systems in a seperate book (SOTA'64, maybe?), wherein wiccans got one set of mods, pagans another, etc. What if my real-life gaming group is made up of a bunch of people that follow those real-world faiths (a not impossible concept), and someone doesn't like that someone else's religion is "better" than theirs, in-game? What if the writer of some SR source material is really into his religion, and gives it unrealistically potent statistical modifiers, and gives religions he doesn't like so much shitty ones? It's a mess I'd rather avoid wholly, and one I thought Shadowrun had avoided, by simply giving all real-world faiths comparable (and even interchangeable) statistics.

Posted by: Firewall Sep 16 2006, 09:20 AM

Really, my religion does not affect how I roleplay as much as why I roleplay. I want to tell stories, either from outside (as the GM) or inside (as a player) because that is my role in life.

If you want a game with religion, Pendragon (currently White-Wolf, used to be Chaosium) is Arthurian legend with religion (all applicable religions) at its core. Any knight can have a religion but Pendragon rewards those whose virtues and vices are appropriate to their chosen gods.

Posted by: craigpierce Sep 16 2006, 03:33 PM

QUOTE (Derek)

Umm, don't you think D&D qualifies? I mean, it has a huge number of gods, clerics who try and convert the heathens, actual embodiment of evil and good (devils/demons and solars/planetars), etc...

i do, which is why i said

QUOTE (craigpierce)

(kind of like DnD has gods and character alignments)

only (and i'm sorry i wasn't clearer) i'm talking about real-world religions (all of them, any one you want, not just christianity) - and i'm also interested in the idea of a more religion-centric RPG...DnD's religions are present, but not nearly the main theme of the game, unless a group wants to make it so.

QUOTE (Derek)

And if you are specifically looking for a Christian themed RPG, there was one out there, made in the mid-80's. Can't remember the name, but the short version is that it was a terrible flop...Kind of like Christian rock...

i figured there had to be at least one of those out there - and i would expect it to flop.

Posted by: craigpierce Sep 16 2006, 03:41 PM

QUOTE (Bull)

thanks bull - i actually made this thread because we almost hijacked another and i felt a separate thread would be a better place to get this out.

though i say please delete it if anyone starts flaming...all views welcome for discussion but flaming gets us nowhere.

Posted by: craigpierce Sep 16 2006, 03:56 PM

thanks to Frag-o and Critias for their SR related thoughts - some good points

Critias - i don't have SOTA'64...now i want to pick it up to see what they've done in this area

and thanks to Firewall for his Pendragon suggestion as an RPG that already has religion integrated into it. have they (chaosium/white-wolf) designed the game in such a way as to promote religious-based campaigns/plots; or is religion in Pendragon much the same as in DnD, where it's present but could easily not be a main theme?

Posted by: eidolon Sep 16 2006, 03:56 PM

I use it in-game when it is appropriate. D&D gods and their clerics, a fictionalized god when you're doing something like In-Nomine, etc.

If a character in a game is religious and it's part of the character, that's acceptable.

Not acceptable: a player trying to bring his/her religion to the group during or in the context of gaming (this is gaming for fun, not "real life conversion time"); a player making other players uncomfortable due to their religion or lack thereof (be it the player is religious and trying to be preachy, or a player is mocking another for their religion, or anything like that).

If it's a group of friends, and everyone knows one another well, and they want to discuss something like that during a day of gaming, that's one thing. But to bring it to a situation where it's not necessary just to stir things up? Not acceptable.

I'm not religious, and in "RL", I have very strong opinions about the issue. However, gaming is not RL, even when it's an allegory or metaphor for it. I have no compunction regarding religion and the portrayal of it in games. (I have a great idea for a Catholic priest that has some issues with thinking he's directly in touch with the Almighty, ala Braveheart, for example. I can't wait to play him in a SR game.)

QUOTE (Critias)

Missed this somehow while skimming the thread. This is pretty much the general way I feel about it.

Posted by: Frag-o Delux Sep 16 2006, 04:11 PM

We had a guy who played with us for a few sessions years ago. Really good guy, he was reglious I would say. Went to church every sunday and all that. He seen me thumbing through some books one day at work and we got to talking about it. He got so into it he ran out and bought his own copy of the BBB so he could make a character and join our group.

The thing that was so odd. He wanted to play a sniper that thought he was touched by god. He was a "retired" priest. He felt the hand of god give him a new path to follow. He just up and left the church to go kill infidels.

It was pretty damn cool, because the guy really knew th ebible so he was laying down scripture in the middle of fights and it was one of the funniest things I had ever seen.

I would say this was about the Pulp Fiction time, well before Saving Private Ryan. So the character had a bit of uniquness to it.

Posted by: craigpierce Sep 16 2006, 04:12 PM

it's interesting that you say that eidolon...

i've never really put much brain power into thinking about a religion-centric RPG because, frankly, i don't really want one. but the time i have spent thinking about it has led me to one conclusion:

i think it would be hard to create a fun religious RPG because the point of most RPGs is to act out doing things that you would never get to actually do. stuff like being a criminal, living in medieval times fighting fantastic monsters, living in the distant future where you can have cyber body parts and enter the internet matrix-style, et cetera et cetera. but you can be religious in RL, so where's the fun in being religious in an RPG unless it's more of just a character quirk (like Frag-o's friend's character who was a sniper for God) in a game where the basis is something more exciting and/or fantastic?

the challenge would be to create a religious RPG where you can actually make religion the focus and make it fun, but without having to resort to making up your own religions and making it playable for the RL religious and non-religious alike.

Posted by: Derek Sep 16 2006, 04:41 PM

QUOTE (craigpierce)

but you can be religious in RL, so where's the fun in being religious in an RPG unless it's more of just a character quirk (like Frag-o's friend's character who was a sniper for God) in a game where the basis is something more exciting and/or fantastic?

the challenge would be to create a religious RPG where you can actually make religion the focus and make it fun, but without having to resort to making up your own religions and making it playable for the RL religious and non-religious alike.

Well, see, there's the point, I'm not religious in real life, nor militantly anti-religious, so I have played many characters that have been both, and it's fun.

It's kind of along the lines of most computer people in RL don't like playing hackers/deckers in Shadowrun.

Dave

Posted by: eidolon Sep 16 2006, 05:01 PM

And there's where you're going to find your biggest challenge in today's society. Religion, for all its attempts to the contrary, is divisive.

Posted by: Critias Sep 16 2006, 07:26 PM

QUOTE (eidolon)

And there's where you're going to find your biggest challenge in today's society. Religion, for all its attempts to the contrary, is divisive.

Which is, honestly, one of the single biggest shames in the history of humanity. Religions are supposed to draw people together. Instead, they end up doing the opposite.

Posted by: eidolon Sep 16 2006, 07:50 PM

There's a lot of reasons for that, though, and a lot of them are pretty good.

To me, the absolute biggest issue is the lack of a live and let live mentality among certain groups (religious or not). But that's just me.

Posted by: Iron Guardian Sep 16 2006, 08:42 PM

There are several RPG's out there that do have fairly heavy doses of modern religions in them - Deadlands (ie. the Blessed archetype), 7th Sea (religions loosely based upon most western real-world religions), Legend of the Five Rings (like 7th Sea, but loosely based on far-eastern religions), and one put out by Green Ronin I believe using the OGL 3.5 system called "The Rapture(?)" which is Christian/Bible based.

I agree that using religion can be devisive, but if acceptable to all in your group, it can also make for better gaming and even learning.

Posted by: craigpierce Sep 16 2006, 10:50 PM

QUOTE (http://www.holistic-design.com)

Lucifer, the “Light Bearer,” announced his return in August 1945, with the fire of two new suns. When they flashed into existence over two cities in Japan, the last sight thousands saw before their retinas melted were the compassionate and smoldering eyes of the Fallen One. Nothing remained but the faint shadows of their souls etched into the concrete ruins of buildings and streets. A new age had dawned, for Earth had become the Throne of Hell.

Rapture: The Second Coming is a new d20 System edition of this classic game about the end times. Characters fight to aid the celestial armies and save humanity — or join the infernal horde, paving the way for Lucifer’s conquest.

interesting

Posted by: Lagomorph Sep 16 2006, 11:39 PM

QUOTE (craigpierce)

QUOTE (http://www.holistic-design.com)

interesting

This isn't the page I originally found on the subject, but there is some evidence that the name Lucifer isn't actually supposed to be in the bible and is actually a mistranslation.

http://www.treasureoftruth.net/'howl'.html

Sorry, this post is off topic, but my on topic post I decided was too dumb to continue typing.

I think you're right though, craigpierce, about RPG's being about things people don't normally do, and religion is something people normally encounter in real life.

Posted by: dog_xinu Sep 17 2006, 12:11 AM

it will depend on teh game/gamesystem.

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Sep 17 2006, 02:34 AM

I think it's important to be as depressing as possible about religion in your games so as to make the game setting suitably dystopian. Even in D&D make the "good" priests and clerics just as bad as the "evil" ones by making them do things like witch-hunts, by trying to force certain lifestyles on peasants, etc.

Posted by: craigpierce Sep 17 2006, 04:32 AM

thanks to Iron Guardian i got wise and started googling:

http://www.holistic-design.com/RAP/RaptureBooks.htm#Rapture

http://www.holylands.net/

http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=167&

that's enough for me to say that christian gaming is covered well enough. so i think we've concluded so far that:

1) there are many non-religious games having elements of either RL or madeup religions. and, in fact, the religious elements in many games are so present that you could create an entire religious-centric campaign.

2) there are rpgs out there that focus mainly on a christian religious setting.

in my mind, we only need one more list-item to be complete - rpgs with a main non-christian focus. these have proven so far to be nearly non-existant in my searches for:

wicken 0
voodoo 1 - http://www.rpgshop.com/product_info.php?cPath=_1_435&products_id=36728&
buddhism 1 - http://www.tibetrpg.com/!Tibet/index.htm
islam 0

so maybe that's enough to say that there is a market of non-christian rpgs as well - but that's not a real solid bet yet. anybody else got any?

Posted by: craigpierce Sep 17 2006, 04:36 AM

QUOTE (Wounded Ronin)

that's a good take on it...many (most? all?) religions have either been 'for sale' or 'power hungry' (or both) at one point in time or another and that view of it definitely makes a religious setting grittier and more interesting.

Posted by: Iron Guardian Sep 17 2006, 04:48 AM

Actually, the game I was thinking of was called "Testament" I believe which was a RPG set in Biblical times and used the OGL system...came out a few years ago and was produced by Green Ronin I think.

As for non-Christian themed RPG's, there are Legend of the Five Rings and Bushido which involve Buddhism, Shintoism, and Daoism. Other games which touch on non-Christian religions are 7th Sea, Deadlands, White Wolf's previous WOD, and Ars Magica.

Posted by: Frag-o Delux Sep 17 2006, 04:55 AM

http://www.rpgshop.com/product_info.php?products_id=32788

I dont think its particularly aimed at chrisitans. It specifically states you can be a sorcerer working for the pharaoh and etc. Though it is set in biblical times. Though if you look at the examples of the "other" people they do seem to be the archetypical bad guyd, Idol Makers, Magus, Sorcerers and all, the only one that looks like a good guy is the Prophet of God.

Posted by: craigpierce Sep 17 2006, 05:04 AM

http://www.greenronin.com/catalog/grr1019

i like the slogan "You've Read The Book, Now Play The Game!"

Posted by: Critias Sep 17 2006, 11:32 AM

QUOTE (Wounded Ronin)

Well, that's true and cool and all, but only in settings where it's appropriate. In most D&D games, "good" really does mean "good" -- in fact, what's more, it means "Good" with a capital, "I'm a force of nature in the cosmos," sort of G. Your average Neutral Good faith, for instance, really does fit all those positive stereotypes, probably isn't hypocritical, really does do good for the community, etc, etc.

I can see your "dystopian" working for Lawful faiths, sure (though, even then, primarily LN ones). But your average Neutral or Chaotic one? Way less likely to be "as bad as the 'evil' ones." In fact, if they are, I'd wager it's nothing but your own anti-religous slant slipping through -- because, by source material, they're not supposed to be.

Posted by: Firewall Sep 17 2006, 11:35 AM

QUOTE (craigpierce)

wicken 0

If you mean Wiccan (neo-pagan witchcraft) then I suppose http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=692 might fit the bill and is a free download from Drive Thru RPG, to boot.

Personally, I have found that the World of Darkness games (esp. Werewolf and Changeling) integrate a lot of the Earth religions' ideas. They might not have religion at their core but the themes are there...

Posted by: Bull Sep 17 2006, 11:50 AM

The game's not specifically about Voodoo, but I know the authors did a bunch of research into developing a solid system for Voodoo as a big part of the setting for their pirate game http://www.greenronin.com/catalog/grr1018.

Bull

Posted by: Witness Sep 17 2006, 12:08 PM

We're taking a break from SR at the moment and playing Cthulu. Hard to keep religion out of that one!

To the original question: sure I love exploring (lots of different) real world religious themes and history in rpgs. And in films, and in books. And despite being an athiest (now) I quite enjoy playing characters who are preachers (I've had more than one of those and have grown very attached to them) and have tried to play them respectfully.

That is an issue though. If you try to explore these themes in art (and games) then you risk offending religious sensibilities. How do you, craigpierce, feel about the Da Vinci Code? (The subject matter- let's leave the writing style etc out of it). Did you enjoy seeing a discussion of religious themes and an acknowledgement that Jesus really existed, or were you offended by the disagreements with official church canon?

I've been wondering, actually, about the portrayal of Islam in Shadowrun. Given the way things are going, how long will it be before some Imam calls for a fatwa on Shadowrun because its treatment of Islam is in some way seen as offensive and misrepresentative of the 'true word'.

Posted by: craigpierce Sep 17 2006, 02:37 PM

QUOTE (Critias @ Sep 17 2006, 05:32 AM)

QUOTE (Wounded Ronin @ Sep 16 2006, 09:34 PM)

i think this is an excellent point - in a game like DnD the big cities should really have some honestly 'Good' churches.

but i think that including villages in your world that have only 1 church who claims to be 'Good' to draw in the locals, but who are really worshipping some god other than the one they claim to be for power and gold would be an interesting and more realistic plot line. or who don't really worship anything, but use the church as a means to cover-up something they're doing that they don't want the locals to know about; like the head priests having a long tradition of sexually exploiting minors because they are seen as perfectly holy to the community and no one will believe that they really are doing it or are too afraid of going against them.

in that case, this church claims to be something like neutral Good but is really Neutral Evil and on sundays for an hour they read from the book of a Neutral Good god but the rest of the time they have a ritual circle downstairs where they worship some Neutral Evil god.

Posted by: craigpierce Sep 17 2006, 02:54 PM

QUOTE (Firewall)

QUOTE (craigpierce @ Sep 17 2006, 04:32 AM)

wicken 0

If you mean Wiccan (neo-pagan witchcraft) then I suppose http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=692 might fit the bill and is a free download from Drive Thru RPG, to boot.

oops - yes i did mean Wiccan (that's my bad spelling ability showing through).

wiccan 1.5

http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=692

http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=3871

i'm sure that there are probably more witchcraft-based RPGs, but all i found with my quick search, beyond Firewall's suggestion, was the class book i listed above.

and, of course, almost every major RPG incorporates a large amount of magical material - so i'm sure that you can take your favorite system and make it wiccan based - even if you have to buy the class book above to do so.

Posted by: craigpierce Sep 17 2006, 03:27 PM

QUOTE (Witness)

That is an issue though. If you try to explore these themes in art (and games) then you risk offending religious sensibilities. How do you, craigpierce, feel about the Da Vinci Code? (The subject matter- let's leave the writing style etc out of it). Did you enjoy seeing a discussion of religious themes and an acknowledgement that Jesus really existed, or were you offended by the disagreements with official church canon?

i would say that the risk is worth it. it's like Critias said, "Religions are supposed to draw people together" - and what better way to bring people together than through a RPG?

the most important thing for the makers of a religion-based game to keep in mind is their target audience. there are so many flavors of each religion that you need to understand that when you're making a christian-based game, for example, you are probably making a game that only targets one or two of the christian 'flavors'.

take the jehovah's witnesses for example. they read the bible and believe in God and Jesus, but detest spiritism and keep very far away from anything to do with it. so the Holy Lands RPG is out as an option for them because in that game you're fighting demons and monsters and other minions of the Devil. if fact, i don't think you could make an RPG for that group that would be any fun at all since your characters would have nothing to fight against...all your characters would do is go door-to-door and preach (which they do IRL anyway) - you'd have to base the character advancement system on how many people you converted to 'the truth'.

i think that to make a religion-based RPG you'd have to go into it knowing you're going to offend someone, no matter how hard you try not to.

as for the Da Vinci Code - i've neither read the book nor seen the movie. this is not because of any spiritual principals, only my belief that something so freakishly popular can't be very good. i'm sure someone will disagree with that - and all i have to say to you is "Britney Spears".

though i know myself and i know that i can watch a movie about nearly anything (couldn't watch A Clockwork Orange after the rape scene - too realistic) and not be offended. they're make-believe to begin with. secondly, i welcome anyone's opinion, even (or especially) ones that go against what i believe because maybe they know something that will shead new light on what i already know. or maybe i'll think they're idiots - either way, i feel it's healthy to keep an open mind. and if i dismiss something along the way that turns out to be true in the end, at least i can say i did my best to discern right from wrong - and that's pretty much all i can do.

Posted by: craigpierce Sep 17 2006, 03:32 PM

QUOTE (Witness)

I've been wondering, actually, about the portrayal of Islam in Shadowrun. Given the way things are going, how long will it be before some Imam calls for a fatwa on Shadowrun because its treatment of Islam is in some way seen as offensive and misrepresentative of the 'true word'.

is this in SOTA'64? i'm really behind on my FanPro SR

Posted by: nezumi Sep 17 2006, 03:47 PM

I'll answer the Da Vinci Code. I'm a semi-practicing Catholic. Firstly, I hate to say, the writing style is horrible, which put me off on the wrong foot. Ignoring that, I did NOT enjoy Da Vinci Code because it made such a peurile, one-sided, poorly explained mess of religion, Catholicism in particular. It would be like if I wrote a book about DSF and I represented the forums as a group of all males who enjoy blowing things up and every single member is a borderline terrorist who lacks logic and compassion. Brown simply did bad research and propogated wicked (and wrong) stereotypes against everyone who happened to be religious in the book.

If you took the very basic plot (illuminati left a trail across Rome) and took out all of Brown's own anti-religious bigotry, stupid religious characters, incorrect information on religion (and poor writing, poor understanding of science, poor research), even if the Church was cast as the bad guy, I probably would have found it interesting.

If you look at an example like Stigmata, the movie made a few years ago, I DID enjoy that. The Church was cast in a bad light, but they explained it in a way that made sense. The writers didn't put out false information or lie about the Church (or at least not about anything major). I also enjoyed Godfather III, where the Church was involved with a major scandal and several very high officials set up an assassination.

I love stories about the Church and church history. I don't mind when the church is cast as serving an evil role. I DO mind when the author lies about the church to make his story, especially when he paints those lies as truth. I do mind when EVERY SINGLE MEMBER of the religion is evil and/or stupid. Paint a few high up members, but not *everyone*.

Posted by: SL James Sep 17 2006, 04:53 PM

QUOTE (nezumi @ Sep 17 2006, 09:47 AM)

It would be like if I wrote a book about DSF and I represented the forums as a group of all males who enjoy blowing things up and every single member is a borderline terrorist who lacks logic and compassion.

Well, isn't that true? I mean, excepting that doesn't include Snow Fox.

Posted by: Witness Sep 17 2006, 04:55 PM

QUOTE (craigpierce)

my belief that something so freakishly popular can't be very good

Like... Star Wars? Or The Beatles? Or, um, that Jesus fella?

QUOTE (nezumi)

Brown simply did bad research and propogated wicked (and wrong) stereotypes against everyone who happened to be religious in the book.

I think you might be a little guilty of misrepresentation yourself..

[ Spoiler ]

.. and there's more than one sympathetic religious person in the book IIRC. He does a number on Opus Dei, I admit, and I feel your pain there. I can't think of many geneticists that get a positive (much less accurate) representation in fiction. *Shrug*. Still, it has got a lot of people thinking and talking about christianity, and I'd have thought any christian would appreciate the benefits in that.

QUOTE (nezumi)

If you took the very basic plot (illuminati left a trail across Rome)

I think you're confusing the Da Vinci Code with its prequel Angels & Demons (which I personally preferred, as it happens, even though it has some very silly pseudosciencey bits in it like University-owned Mach 11 jets and floating liquid-metal-like antimatter).

Posted by: Witness Sep 17 2006, 04:58 PM

QUOTE (craigpierce)

QUOTE (Witness @ Sep 17 2006, 06:08 AM)

is this in SOTA'64? i'm really behind on my FanPro SR

There's stuff about this in various books, including Shadows of Asia, and more recently Runner Havens.

Posted by: nezumi Sep 17 2006, 05:10 PM

QUOTE (Witness)

QUOTE (nezumi)

Brown simply did bad research and propogated wicked (and wrong) stereotypes against everyone who happened to be religious in the book.

I think you might be a little guilty of misrepresentation yourself..

[ Spoiler ]

QUOTE (nezumi)

If you took the very basic plot (illuminati left a trail across Rome)

You're right, I meant Demons and Angels, I'm sorry. DVC is on my bookshelf and I look at it every day at work, but I haven't read it yet (and I'm not sure if I will). That's why my comments didn't make sense.

I am not of the belief that all publicity is good publicity. I don't mind the Church being portrayed as a tool of a few evil individuals, as a political entity with it's own agenda, as someone the protagonist disagrees with, as a difficult organization to navigate around, or as a secretive and/or tremendously slow moving group. I DO mind when the Church is shown as being made up ENTIRELY of the superstitious, the uneducated, the violent, the hateful, the bigoted, the cowardly, the greedy and/or the power-hungry. If more than 50% of the characters who have personalities are shown to be like that without good reason (for instance, the main character has wandered into St. Mary's Intitute of the Mentally Retarded and Bigoted), I tend to get a little upset.

Posted by: Witness Sep 17 2006, 05:15 PM

QUOTE (nezumi @ Sep 17 2006, 12:10 PM)

I DO mind when the Church is shown as being made up ENTIRELY of the superstitious, the uneducated, the violent, the hateful, the bigoted, the cowardly, the greedy and/or the power-hungry. If more than 50% of the characters who have personalities are shown to be like that without good reason (for instance, the main character has wandered into St. Mary's Intitute of the Mentally Retarded and Bigoted), I tend to get a little upset.

Fair enough, but I don't think that's the case with either book. In Angels & Demons, IIRC, most of the Catholics (apart from the main villain, who reoccurs in The Da Vinci Code but isn't the main villain in that book) are good guys.

EDIT: This is what I'm talking about. Religious folks getting very upset about some perceived slight, that isn't (when you actually check the facts) a slight at all. Sheesh, the Pope himself has just been on the raw end of this exact same thing!

Posted by: SL James Sep 17 2006, 05:25 PM

QUOTE (Witness @ Sep 17 2006, 10:58 AM)

QUOTE (craigpierce @ Sep 17 2006, 10:32 AM)

QUOTE (Witness @ Sep 17 2006, 06:08 AM)

is this in SOTA'64? i'm really behind on my FanPro SR

There's stuff about this in various books, including Shadows of Asia, and more recently Runner Havens.

Plus Year of the Comet, Dragons of the Sixth World, and Loose Alliances.

QUOTE (Witness)

Sheesh, the Pope himself has just been on the raw end of this exact same thing!

Considering his previous job, I'm sure there were plenty of people just itching to jump his shit for being too conservative/hardline, for attacking other religions, or for god only knows what else. And, well... Mission accomplished.

Posted by: nezumi Sep 17 2006, 05:41 PM

QUOTE (Witness @ Sep 17 2006, 12:15 PM)

QUOTE (nezumi @ Sep 17 2006, 12:10 PM)

Can you name a single Catholic in the book who didn't fit one of those statements (being stupid, bigoted, etc.)? How many non-Catholics can you name? A lot of it IS also (admitedly) based on the writing style of Dan Brown. If you'd like, on Monday I can get the book and go through all the statements that characters, including the main character, make which are insulting and/or straight-out wrong.

I don't think I'm alone in this either. I've spoken with non-Catholics, who felt similarly. I haven't met any Christians who have felt his portrayal is fair or balanced. I have spoken with non-Christians who didn't see any slight, but honestly, when it's not your group being discussed, you are less likely to see it. Also, non-Christians are less likely to see things which are simply false. As I said, I'm a stickler for getting the facts right, and that also rubbed me the wrong way.

I also wouldn't say I'm 'very upset'. The question was whether I liked the book. The answer is no, I thought it was terrible. Here are one of the reasons why. Here are examples of stories which did not cast the Church in a favorable light, but which I liked anyway and here is why. No one likes to have the group they associate with cast in a bad light, but there are lines which are tolerable and lines where I simply lose respect for the piece of work which is coming off as insulting. I'm not waving signs or fire-bombing Dan Brown's house. I'm simply answering a question about my reading preferences.

Posted by: Witness Sep 17 2006, 05:58 PM

Yeah it's not my group, so maybe I just didn't pick up on it, like you say. And I'm also going from memory- although looking on-line to refresh my memory I think Cardinal Mortati is one such 'good guy' and there was some Swiss Guard Commander as well, I think. But please yes, go and check for me.

QUOTE (nezumi)

I'm a stickler for getting the facts right

Ahem. *Looks upwards*

Posted by: Critias Sep 17 2006, 06:11 PM

QUOTE (Witness)

EDIT: This is what I'm talking about. Religious folks getting very upset about some perceived slight, that isn't (when you actually check the facts) a slight at all. Sheesh, the Pope himself has just been on the raw end of this exact same thing!

To be fair, though, it's not like religous groups are the only people that do so.

Posted by: Witness Sep 17 2006, 06:14 PM

No I guess not. It's a human failing, but I'm sure it can't be improved by philosophies that place more importance on faith and feeling than evidence and reason.

Posted by: craigpierce Sep 17 2006, 07:59 PM

QUOTE (Witness)

QUOTE (craigpierce)

my belief that something so freakishly popular can't be very good

Like... Star Wars? Or The Beatles? Or, um, that Jesus fella?

ok...i'll give you star wars.

the beatles i won't - i only consider them good, not very good

and which Jesus do you mean

Posted by: craigpierce Sep 17 2006, 08:02 PM

QUOTE (Witness)

QUOTE (craigpierce @ Sep 17 2006, 10:32 AM)

QUOTE (Witness @ Sep 17 2006, 06:08 AM)

is this in SOTA'64? i'm really behind on my FanPro SR

There's stuff about this in various books, including Shadows of Asia, and more recently Runner Havens.

ok, well, that proves my point: i'm really not up to date with FanPro SR...the bulk of my SR time has been spent on SR3 mainly using books that originated from FASA.

Posted by: Witness Sep 17 2006, 08:06 PM

QUOTE (craigpierce)

QUOTE (Witness @ Sep 17 2006, 10:55 AM)

QUOTE (craigpierce)

my belief that something so freakishly popular can't be very good

Like... Star Wars? Or The Beatles? Or, um, that Jesus fella?

ok...i'll give you star wars.

the beatles i won't - i only consider them good, not very good

and which Jesus do you mean

You know... that fella who plays poker.

Posted by: craigpierce Sep 17 2006, 08:42 PM

QUOTE (Witness)

QUOTE (craigpierce @ Sep 17 2006, 02:59 PM)

QUOTE (Witness @ Sep 17 2006, 10:55 AM)

QUOTE (craigpierce)

my belief that something so freakishly popular can't be very good

Like... Star Wars? Or The Beatles? Or, um, that Jesus fella?

ok...i'll give you star wars.

the beatles i won't - i only consider them good, not very good

and which Jesus do you mean

You know... that fella who plays poker.

oh ya. well, you can't argue against a guy who can cut a banana in half by throwing a playing card at it

Posted by: Firewall Sep 17 2006, 09:12 PM

QUOTE (craigpierce)

oh ya. well, you can't argue against a guy who can cut a banana in half by throwing a playing card at it

Unless you are still playing SR3 and took missile-mastery. (or if you were Gambit and could blow stuff up by throwing playing cards at them)

Posted by: craigpierce Sep 17 2006, 09:53 PM

QUOTE (Firewall)

QUOTE (craigpierce @ Sep 17 2006, 08:42 PM)

oh ya. well, you can't argue against a guy who can cut a banana in half by throwing a playing card at it

Unless you are still playing SR3 and took missile-mastery. (or if you were Gambit and could blow stuff up by throwing playing cards at them)

ok - you definitely got me on that one!

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Sep 22 2006, 12:06 AM

QUOTE (nezumi)

These days, I don't really like religon, but I still thought the Code was a crappy movie and a worse book.

See, my theory about that was that the movie got all this attention because a lot of people around the world are religious and when the movie appeared to go "Hur hur, teh chuch is teh suxxor" people got hilariously defensive and outraged, even though IMO the storyline was so stupid as not not even merit reaction.

The real reason that the Code sucked wasn't because it dealt with religion. No, the real reason the Code sucked was because it was essentially adhered to a radical and historically unsubstantiated feminist version of history.

"In the past when we revered vaginas the world was wonderful. Today life sucks because we rever the penis. Becuase quality of life is so much worse today than in 500 BC, and women are incapable of being mean."

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Sep 22 2006, 12:12 AM

QUOTE (Critias)

QUOTE (Wounded Ronin @ Sep 16 2006, 09:34 PM)

You're basically right in terms of canon. However, I think that my way is much more entertaining. I actually got the idea of doing it this way from a DM who ran some games for me many many years ago. His parents were Catholic and he was in a perpetual and constant backlash against religion since it was a cause of a great deal of the stress and unhappiness in his life, so in his style the more "lawful good" someone was the bigger asshole they were. The thing is that it ended up being extremely funny and extremely entertaining, like an episode of Blackadder or something. My opinion is that if you do it right you can really rachet the entertainment provided by the game world through the roof.

I'd also make an additional point that some D&D products have tried to explore the subtlties of the implications of what various alignments mean, such as Planescape: Torment, where admittedly Planescape is an avant garde piece. I think Hyzmarca pointed out how restoring cosmic balance by releasing a demon was the single most evil act possible in the game even though it could be argued that it was for the greater "good" or "health" of the universe.

Posted by: Witness Sep 22 2006, 08:58 AM

QUOTE (Wounded Ronin @ Sep 21 2006, 07:06 PM)

because it was essentially adhered to a radical and historically unsubstantiated feminist version of history.

It took the basic hypothesis from "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" (a better book, IMO, even if you treat it as fiction, which it's not supposed to be) and turned it into a conspiracy thriller. Fair enough, I say.

Sure, it's now pretty well established that the Priory of Sion was 'real', but a hoax. But the Cathar heresy and the Albigensian Crusade, and the tradition concerning Mary Magdalene in Sainte Marie-de-Mer in France are on a slightly surer footing. I also don't think it can be doubted that there really was a vote on the humanity or divinity of Jesus at the first Council of Nicea in 325, that the Bible really has been edited throughout the centuries, and that during its development some accounts were favoured over others (such as the Gnostic Gospels) that didn't reflect the version of Christianity that the Church wanted to promote.

I always find it a little bizarre to hear so many people complain about the ridiculousness of the idea that the bible might not be wholly accurate, that Jesus might actually have been human, had physical relations, fathered a child etc etc, and that the Church might have been shaped by people with a certain agenda and outlook.

Whereas Jesus being the son of a virgin, walking on water, rising from the dead etc etc is oh so much more believable?

Posted by: PBTHHHHT Sep 22 2006, 05:29 PM

QUOTE (Witness)

Whereas Jesus being the son of a virgin, walking on water, rising from the dead etc etc is oh so much more believable?

You betcha, because he's the son of God.

I know, I know, bad circular reasoning.

Posted by: SL James Sep 22 2006, 05:59 PM

QUOTE (craigpierce)

oh ya. well, you can't argue against a guy who can cut a banana in half by throwing a playing card at it

Sure you can. Just don't let him have playing cards.

And don't be a banana.

Posted by: Lagomorph Sep 22 2006, 06:28 PM

QUOTE (SL James)

QUOTE (craigpierce @ Sep 17 2006, 02:42 PM)

oh ya. well, you can't argue against a guy who can cut a banana in half by throwing a playing card at it

Sure you can. Just don't let him have playing cards.

And don't be a banana.

My spoon is too big!

Posted by: Hocus Pocus Sep 22 2006, 07:30 PM

it has been proven by religious scholars world wide as well as scientists of all different stripes and colors from around the globe that roman catholicism is the number 1 best religion out there. Mother church (protector of our souls)is THE best institution headed by the Pope (who is infallible while sitting on the throne of St. Peter) is the most kick ass awesomest guy ta boot!.

How certain organizations within the church could be considered a "threat" in sadowrun I"ll never know. Might as well label oxygen a threat to humans and grass a threat to toasters. Silly gooses.

Posted by: eidolon Sep 22 2006, 07:32 PM

The largest flaw of the Davinci Code was that so many people can't seem to separate "fiction" from "reality" and get on with their lives.

Oh wait. That's not a problem with the book.

Posted by: nezumi Sep 22 2006, 08:29 PM

QUOTE (eidolon)

The largest flaw of the Davinci Code was that so many people can't seem to separate "fiction" from "reality" and get on with their lives.

Oh wait. That's not a problem with the book.

That said, if you read the forward to the book and listen to the author's comments, it really is difficult to determine what is meant to be actual and what isn't. This is even moreso the case with Da Vinci code when it is based on a real theory (as shown in Holy Blood, Holy Grail). When the author goes out of his way to conceal how much he made up and freely mixes fact with fiction, it does become more difficult to tell how seriously he believes his own stories. Of course, that's no excuse for not doing your own research, but it does upset me that Brown has gone out of his way to portray his story as more real than he had to, bordering on deliberate falsehood.

Posted by: eidolon Sep 22 2006, 08:38 PM

Stephen King, in an interview with, I believe it was Jay Leno, was once asked: (paraphrased, of course)

"I've heard that you have night lights all over your house. That you can't sleep if there aren't lights on, because you're terrified of the dark, because of your having written the books that you write. Is that true?"

"Oh, absolutely. I have to have them."

This went back and forth.

Then, the interview was repeated with Tabitha King. Same question. Her answer?

"Of course not. He loves to keep up little acts like that." (again, paraphrased)

Point? The more King exaggerates his own mythos, the more he appeals to his fans.

Ditto for Brown. If it would make him enough money, he'd claim to be the pope.

Again, not a problem with the book.

Posted by: Witness Sep 22 2006, 09:02 PM

QUOTE (nezumi)

That said, if you read the forward to the book and listen to the author's comments, it really is difficult to determine what is meant to be actual and what isn't.

Actually the only falsifiable statement in that foreword is that the Priory of Sion was "founded in 1099". And there I think Dan Brown probably just believed what he read in "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" (it was a fairly compelling hoax, to be fair).
The statements about Opus Dei, that have probably caused the offence here, are statements about "recent controversy due to reports of...". That isn't actually untrue- there have been such reports and they have caused controversy.

Posted by: nezumi Sep 22 2006, 09:06 PM

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree there. I am of the opinion that intentionally misleading millions of people about subjects as important as history and religion for personal gain is unethical. Lying about how many night lights you have in your house, not nearly so much.

Just so you are aware, I do agree that:
1) Dan Brown did personally profit from intentionally misleading people, and so he had a motive for this
2) He did not outright lie about what is factual and not in his books (although even the things he said are 'absolutely true' in Demons in angels, namely locations, are oftentimes simply wrong. But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that that was due to exceptionally poor research rather than an intent to mislead.)
3) People should research stuff on their own rather than simply assuming what someone wrote in a single fictional book is true

Posted by: Witness Sep 22 2006, 09:09 PM

QUOTE (nezumi @ Sep 22 2006, 04:06 PM)

intentionally misleading millions of people about subjects as important as history and religion for personal gain is unethical.

One could argue that church officials have been intentionally misleading millions of people about history for centuries!

Posted by: eidolon Sep 22 2006, 09:17 PM

I'm not just poking at you to further an argument, I'm fine with disagreeing, really.

But still, I have to wonder:

QUOTE (nezumi)

subjects as important as history and religion

Important to whom? Again, it's up to the individual. If a person places importance on the subject matter of a particular work, then it's up to that person to find the facts for a given statement (or whatever is in question). I know you've already said you agree with this, but I wanted to tie it in to the discussion as a whole, rather than just having it attached to one single book.

I think the problem is not that individuals personally decide that they're angry with Dan Brown's book, but that so many people let others tell them to be angry about Dan Brown's book, and never bothered to try to separate the fact from the fiction themself.

I cannot count the number of times I've almost damaged my eyes, by rolling them back too far upon hearing another person say that "their church was having a sermon on 'how to deal with the Davinci Code' and its readers" or some such nonsense. Not just churches, either, but that's the most prominent that jumps to mind.

Posted by: Witness Sep 22 2006, 09:19 PM

QUOTE (eidolon)

I think the problem is not that individuals personally decide that they're angry with Dan Brown's book, but that so many people let others tell them to be angry about Dan Brown's book, and never bothered to try to separate the fact from the fiction themself.

Amen brother.

Posted by: craigpierce Sep 22 2006, 10:31 PM

QUOTE (Witness)

QUOTE (eidolon @ Sep 22 2006, 04:17 PM)

Amen brother.

Posted by: nezumi Sep 23 2006, 04:06 PM

QUOTE (eidolon)

QUOTE (nezumi)

subjects as important as history and religion

I'm not sure what to make of this paragraph. Are you saying history is only as important as the person studying thinks it is? I feel... a little sick to my stomach to hear such a thing

As for the rest, that's a natural (and perhaps even important) human phenomenon called 'creating a community'. How many times has someone gone to you and said "Bob did this and cheated me out of that" or "Jane was so unfair" and you agreed with that person? How many times have you thought "look at those people cheering because the US was attacked. We should just carpet bomb the whole city"? The simple fact is that as humans, when a member of our community is attacked, we are more likely to defend the community (even if it's only acknowledging that the attacker was wrong) than work to defend the attacker. This doesn't apply solely to religion, although religion seems to be a convenient kicking dog for it (I suspect because it's a clearly defined group separate from most of the people doing the complaining. It's a lot tougher to complain about yourself.)

So should people research things before complaining? Yes. But that applies to EVERYTHING, not just Dan Brown or religion. That also happens to apply to people complaining about religion.

Posted by: Witness Sep 23 2006, 09:32 PM

QUOTE (nezumi @ Sep 23 2006, 11:06 AM)

So should people research things before complaining? Yes. But that applies to EVERYTHING, not just Dan Brown or religion. That also happens to apply to people complaining about religion.

Religion generally means believing what you're told, and what you're told is that the religion in question holds all the answers and represents the ultimate truth, presented by God to some human who in most cases lived a long time ago.

It's all well and good until humans have acquired sufficient evidence to prove that certain of the aforesaid truths aren't true.

Religion then faces a problem. It can take the hits, accept the evidence, and adapt. Or it can reject the whole principle of evidence and reason, and seek to turn the clock back to a supposedly better world of the past where such things didn't matter so much.

I have no problem with religious people or organisations willing to take the former route, but it's the increasing popularity of the latter one that really worries me.

If the bulk of humanity turns down that path, then wave goodbye to modern medicine, space exploration, trial by jury and intellectual freedom, and say hello to snake oil salesmen, religious war, Sharia law and the Spanish inquisition.

Posted by: nezumi Sep 24 2006, 12:06 AM

QUOTE (Witness)

QUOTE (nezumi @ Sep 23 2006, 11:06 AM)

So should people research things before complaining? Yes. But that applies to EVERYTHING, not just Dan Brown or religion. That also happens to apply to people complaining about religion.

I think this is an example of the same statement you quoted. Didn't the pope just give a big speech (it was on the news, but for very different reasons) about religion and reason? Haven't we seen great philosophical systems that not only coexist peacefully with science, but serve to encourage such discoveries?

Yes, there are religious groups which encourage faith before logic. However they are more of a minority than your statement would seem to indicate. A very vocal minority, but a minority nonetheless. Most religions do not require a belief in creationism or any similar thing. Most do not preclude using modern medicine and space travel.

Posted by: Fix-it Sep 24 2006, 01:44 AM

QUOTE (eidolon)

A++++++ GOOD POSTER WOULD READ AGAIN

Posted by: krayola red Sep 24 2006, 01:56 AM

I am angry about Dan Brown's book because it's practically a carbon copy of all his other books. Damn you, Dan Brown!

Posted by: Witness Sep 24 2006, 09:17 AM

QUOTE (nezumi)

Didn't the pope just give a big speech (it was on the news, but for very different reasons) about religion and reason? Haven't we seen great philosophical systems that not only coexist peacefully with science, but serve to encourage such discoveries?

I've read somewhere that the new Pope believes that Catholicism has given too much ground and needs to return to some more traditional stances. Where the old Pope is quoted as having said that evolution is "more than just a hypothesis", the new Pope has come out http://www.suntimes.com/output/religion/cst-nws-pope13.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1859760,00.html in favour of 'Intelligent Design', and critical of evolution: “We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution.”
He might praise 'reason', but he's more notably silent on the subject of scientific evidence: he talks the talk, but he doesn't walk the walk.

I've read polls somewhere that suggest that the majority of Americans believe in creationism, and that an athiest president would be discriminated against more than a black president, homosexual president or woman president.

A prominent http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,71795-0.html?tw=rss.index has recently attacked evolution too, in fact his words are a great example of religion regarding evidence as a threat and retreating from it rather than embracing it:
"When you use evolution as God's tool in creating man in his image, you have to reckon with the fact at what stage in the evolution process does man attain to that image? The conclusion is either God's image is evolving or God Himself is evolving or every creature has God's image. God could be anything and I'm afraid I cannot put my faith in a 'changing God' or an 'anything God'.”

As for modern medicine: the Catholic Church's stance on birth control and http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html is also pretty shocking, and the prevailing attitude towards AIDS in http://www.badscience.net/?p=6 politics and religion- that it can be prevented by 'raw garlic and the skin of a lemon' and the like, is genuinely tragic.

The Taliban, of course, weren't keen on science and technology (unless used for making weapons, of course)- and this was an experiment on a national scale.

QUOTE (nezumi)

Yes, there are religious groups which encourage faith before logic. However they are more of a minority than your statement would seem to indicate. A very vocal minority, but a minority nonetheless. Most religions do not require a belief in creationism or any similar thing. Most do not preclude using modern medicine and space travel.

I'd accept that it is still a 'vocal minority', at present (I did say "If the bulk of humanity turns down that path") but I fear it's a rapidly growing trend in the modern world. Especially as religion more and more entangles itself with politics.

Posted by: nezumi Sep 24 2006, 02:02 PM

QUOTE (Witness)

QUOTE (nezumi)

Keep in mind, intelligent design != creationism. The Catholic Church has also publicly said that parts of the bible, especially the old testament, are not literally true. So far all the pope has said is that the creation of the world was guided by God. Of course it was! That doesn't mean God didn't use evolution as His tool of choice, it simply means that the creation of humans was not random chance. I don't see that in any way as against science. Nothing the pope has said would indicate you cannot believe in God and evolution. Simply that if you accept evolution as the tool, you need to accept God as the artist. If you're a Christian, I'd think that's a given.

To quote the vocal minority (I hope they're a minority):
http://www.cuttingedge.org/articles/rc120.htm

And the Catholic view:
http://academic.regis.edu/mghedott/evolut.htm

QUOTE

I've read polls somewhere that suggest that the majority of Americans believe in creationism, and that an athiest president would be discriminated against more than a black president, homosexual president or woman president.

http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/polling/ These polls? Not that I'm saying the article here is right, I just did a quick google search to see what came up and this was number two. The pollsters could be right, but I honestly don't see a lot of people campaigning for creationism in schools. So far there have been three incidents, two of which were fairly localized (that I know of).

QUOTE

As for modern medicine: the Catholic Church's stance on birth control and AIDS is also pretty shocking, and the prevailing attitude towards AIDS in African politics and religion- that it can be prevented by 'raw garlic and the skin of a lemon' and the like, is genuinely tragic.

Firstly, the Catholic Church does NOT support 'raw garlic and the skin of a lemon'. I'm not sure where you got that. The Church has traditionally had a stance against using condoms (for unrelated ethical reasons). Unfortunately, the Church is also tremendously slow when it comes to changing stances on things. So the Church IS considering supporting condom use between couples where one person has HIV/AIDS, but it's very slow going. Currently the Church supports (and actively teaches) chastity, which has been proven to be more effective than condoms at preventing AIDS (when used correctly). So it's not that the Church isn't pushing effective methods of AIDS prevention, it's that they currently espouse one you don't seem to agree with, while carefully considering whether extenuating circumstances would allow for the other. The RCC will *NEVER EVER* take the position that people should be taught to use condoms when engaging in pre-marital sex. It would be akin to teaching people to take firearm safety courses before committing homicide. The Church does and will continue to teach people not to have sex outside of marriage. Anything else is seen as encouraging unethical behavior and will NOT be supported. I expect within the next ten years we may see an official decision in regards to the use of condoms between married people to prevent the spread of disease.

So again, I don't see the Church as taking a non-scientific standpoint, simply one you don't seem to agree with. You don't want STDs? Don't have sex.

Posted by: Witness Sep 24 2006, 03:29 PM

QUOTE (nezumi @ Sep 24 2006, 09:02 AM)

Firstly, the Catholic Church does NOT support 'raw garlic and the skin of a lemon'. I'm not sure where you got that.

I didn't state that. There were two separate points in that paragraph. When referring to the Catholic stance on condoms and AIDS I hyperlinked to the relevant article: Catholic authorities worldwide promoting the wholly unscientific and ridiculous view that the HIV virus can pass through condoms. Fill a condom with water (the molecules of which are significantly smaller than an HIV virus) to refute that one. This is a perfect example of faith trying to supercede reason.

QUOTE (nezumi)

Yes, intelligent design does not (always) equal creationism, but intelligent design is certainly no more scientific, and the arguments used by most of its proponents are, like the arguments of creationists, concentrated on alleged holes in the theory of evolution (that aren't really holes). I agree that the Pope's statement could be interpreted as saying 'yes, evolution happens, but only because God designed things that way' (the more popular view that his predecessor more openly supported, with which I have no particular argument), but it notably stops short of actually saying that*. And the Kenyan Bishop is actively speaking out against that stance.

*preferring instead to leave a lasting impression that the theory of evolution is somehow flawed and incapable of explaining human beings. It isn't, and it can. In fact for my money the theory of evolution explains human beings a great deal better than any religious text ever did!

So actually both are cases of Catholic authorities taking anti-scientific standpoints.

Yeah that may not be what most Catholics actually believe (at the moment), but can you at least agree that things are moving in a troubling direction?

Don't get me wrong, btw. I'm not totally anti-religion or even totally anti-Church. I think:

that religion is one of those things that's never going to go away (it's probably evolved as a side-effect of human 'intelligence', to be honest)...
that it adds a lot of flavour to both real and role-playing worlds (the world would be a duller place without cathedrals or pyramids, for example)...
that religious people are often very decent human beings (my mother and sisters are christian, my brother-in-law is a vicar, my uncle was a canon, and hell- I was a card-carrying church-going christian in my teens and early twenties)...
and that having a strong central religious authority such as the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Dalai Lama can be a good thing in terms of reining in the lunatic fringe.

Like I said before... religion that embraces new evidence and adapts its stance accordingly is more or less OK with me. I'm talking about the increasing number of cases where it's going the other way.

Posted by: nezumi Sep 24 2006, 04:35 PM

I'm sorry, I missed the links in your last post which is why I was a little confused.

Yes, a large segment of the Church supports the idea that using condoms are not especially safe. It is upsetting that people, especially people who work for an ethical organization, would intentionally spread untruths or questionable information to further their own goals. However I wouldn't consider that especially 'unscientific' just... unethical

As for the Bishop, yes, there are individual members of most any religion who have their own views and fight to spread them. I don't believe the Church as a whole hold that man's beliefs.

I don't think the Church will officially endorse (or refute) evolution for a very, very long time because of solely political reasons. You're right that there are enough individuals and churches that believe in creationism that the Church doesn't want to throw itself entirely in the evolution camp (or into the creationism camp, for that matter). It has nothing to do with science.

Ultimately though, I do agree with your points. I would be interested in getting real numbers on how many religions are actively anti-scientific (or whatever word you'd like to use) and how those numbers have changed over the last decade. I do feel like in the US this has been a fairly recent trend, I wonder how temporary it is. But I'm not really old enough for my observations on that to have any validity, so I guess we'll have to see. I'm not of the opinion that most religious people are anti-scientific, however. Most religious people are really fairly moderate, and there are almost as many people who are very religious yet very scientific compared to the very religious and anti-science. After all, most private schools (where evolution and space travel are still taught) are religious schools, and most people in science fields consider themselves a member of some organized religion.

Posted by: Witness Sep 24 2006, 05:11 PM

QUOTE (nezumi)

Yes, a large segment of the Church supports the idea that using condoms are not especially safe. It is upsetting that people, especially people who work for an ethical organization, would intentionally spread untruths or questionable information to further their own goals. However I wouldn't consider that especially 'unscientific' just... unethical

Unethical, yes. But claiming that HIV can pass through a condom is also most definitely unscientific.

QUOTE (nezumi)

As for the Bishop, yes, there are individual members of most any religion who have their own views and fight to spread them. I don't believe the Church as a whole hold that man's beliefs.

Whether they're common views in the Church or not is one thing. They certainly seem to be quite common in Africa, alas.

QUOTE (nezumi)

I don't think the Church will officially endorse (or refute) evolution for a very, very long time because of solely political reasons. You're right that there are enough individuals and churches that believe in creationism that the Church doesn't want to throw itself entirely in the evolution camp (or into the creationism camp, for that matter). It has nothing to do with science.

It's understandable, from their point of view. Evolution is contradictory to many past or present religious teachings, so if you accept that you've been wrong on that front then your whole infallibility act starts to look shakey, and sooner or later, you face that choice I mentioned.

QUOTE (nezumi)

Most religious people are really fairly moderate, and there are almost as many people who are very religious yet very scientific compared to the very religious and anti-science.

Oh, absolutely. And good on 'em.

QUOTE (nezumi)

most people in science fields consider themselves a member of some organized religion.

There I must respectfully disagree, especially when it comes to my own field of biology. And having done a couple of international conferences (Georgia in the USA, and Spain- but obviously both with scientists from around the world), I don't think my perspective is limited to the UK. Having said that, my best friend (also a biologist) does consider herself a Catholic, so we have some fun debates in the pub now and then.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Sep 24 2006, 05:42 PM

QUOTE (nezumi)

[...] most people in science fields consider themselves a member of some organized religion.

Not sure about the statistics concerning membership of an organized religion (which doesn't necessarily correlate with being religious, at least where I come from), but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence#Religiosity_and_science.

As for the actual topic, I'm in the "eh, maybe" group. Religion itself has not been a serious influence in any of my campaigns so far, but religious organisation certainly have been, and I'd have nothing against dealing with faith itself if the whole group showed some interest in RPing such things. However, I'm a rather "reason-based" GM with limited knowledge of RL religions, so I imagine I would not be able to satisfy the RPing needs of a religiously leaning person -- assuming they wish to see RP worlds like they wish to see the real world.

Posted by: nezumi Sep 24 2006, 08:17 PM

QUOTE (Witness)

QUOTE (nezumi)

The Catholic Church has already admitted it is not an authority in matters of science. Once upon a time the Church had its fingers in many, many pies, and was one of the primary sources of scientific research, but as we've seen, when an institution is so spread out it has conflicting goals, and so oftentimes will not be as good in a particular field as it would be if it weren't so spread out.

And before you bring it up, the issue of Galileo was primarily a political, not scientific conflict. When someone publicly ridicules the single most powerful political figure in the known world, it rarely turns out well.

I don't know about the statement that most scientists aren't religious. Most recent polls show that 2-16% of the population is agnostic or athiest. Unless scientists make up a similarly tiny percentage of the population, that would indicate most scientists are religious.

Links:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm
http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html
http://www.teachingaboutreligion.org/Demographics/map_demographics.htm

(AE, I couldn't look up any of the surveys the article mentions, and didn't find any as specific as I wanted.)

Posted by: Witness Sep 24 2006, 09:16 PM

QUOTE (nezumi)

QUOTE (Witness @ Sep 24 2006, 12:11 PM)

QUOTE (nezumi)

?! I wasn't going to bring Galileo up. I've pretty much said my bit and wasn't looking to stir things up any further.

QUOTE (nezumi)

I don't know about the statement that most scientists aren't religious. Most recent polls show that 2-16% of the population is agnostic or athiest. Unless scientists make up a similarly tiny percentage of the population, that would indicate most scientists are religious.

I'm pretty sure scientists do make up a 'similarly tiny percentage of the population'. Certainly less than 16%, and probably less than 2.

Posted by: SL James Sep 24 2006, 09:36 PM

Going back the depiction of religions in gaming, as far as Shadowrun goes I would like to see some more references to Islam and Muslims in general that didn't involve the IRM (which seems to have grown from a minority position to at least closer to mainstream over the years). Of course, I also don't really get why Sufism is a dying sect considering its amicability to Muslim mages.

But what really gets me is the Roman Catholic Church. I'm a pretty conservative person, especially when it comes to my church, and many of the changes towards the liberal end (like women in clergy) is particular annoying to me (then again, I'm not much of a fan of the changes made at Vatican II, so go figure), and mostly empathize with the conservatives in the Curia and the rest of the Church—even though one of my adepts experienced life growing up in an intolerantly conservative Catholic family.

But that is something to be expected, especially in a dark alternate-future setting like Shadowrun. Things aren't going to stay the same, but deriving and expanding on how people will react is invariably going to lead to different reactions from readers.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Sep 24 2006, 10:00 PM

QUOTE (nezumi)

AE, I couldn't look up any of the surveys the article mentions, and didn't find any as specific as I wanted.

QUOTE (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0_fs.html)

The question of religious belief among US scientists has been debated since early in the century. Our latest survey finds that, among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever — almost total.

Research on this topic began with the eminent US psychologist James H. Leuba and his landmark survey of 1914. He found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected US scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God, and that this figure rose to near 70% among the 400 "greater" scientists within his samplehttp://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0_r.html&filetype=&dynoptions=#B1. Leuba repeated his survey in somewhat different form 20 years later, and found that these percentages had increased to 67 and 85, respectivelyhttp://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0_r.html&filetype=&dynoptions=#B2.

In 1996, we repeated Leuba's 1914 survey and reported our results in Naturehttp://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0_r.html&filetype=&dynoptions=#B3. We found little change from 1914 for American scientists generally, with 60.7% expressing disbelief or doubt. This year, we closely imitated the second phase of Leuba's 1914 survey to gauge belief among "greater" scientists, and find the rate of belief lower than ever — a mere 7% of respondents.

How specific did you want them to get?

Posted by: nezumi Sep 24 2006, 10:23 PM

QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)

QUOTE (nezumi)

AE, I couldn't look up any of the surveys the article mentions, and didn't find any as specific as I wanted.

QUOTE (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0_fs.html)

How specific did you want them to get?

Well, surveys that agreed more with my position would be preferred

Alright, I will concede, people who work in the science fields are less likely to be religious. However I still don't feel the two are mutually exclusive.

Witness - I was just covering my butt since nine times out of ten when I say the Church was a major source of scientific innovation and learning at one point, someone says "no, the Church actively suppressed scientific progress! Look at Galileo!" Not trying to put words in your mouth, nor was it directed specifically at you. I'm sorry if you felt it was.

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Sep 24 2006, 11:02 PM

QUOTE (nezumi @ Sep 24 2006, 09:02 AM)

Currently the Church supports (and actively teaches) chastity, which has been proven to be more effective than condoms at preventing AIDS (when used correctly).

This statement is incorrect, and widespread belief in that statement is one of the major reasons I lost faith in religon.

QUOTE

The abstinence-only sex education movement has been propelled by the persistent but mistaken belief that comprehensive sexuality education itself somehow seduces teenagers into sexual activity. By this reasoning it follows that schools should either ignore the issue or discuss sexuality only in terms of fear and disease. The casualties in this war are teenagers themselves, denied information about how to prevent pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases in the highly likely event that they have sexual intercourse.

http://www.caps.ucsf.edu/abstinence.html

The following page actually has evidence cited, such as studies which were published in scientific journals:

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fssexcur.htm

QUOTE

According to Columbia University researchers, virginity pledge programs increase pledge-takers’ risk for STIs and pregnancy. The study concluded that 88 percent of pledge-takers initiated sex prior to marriage even though some delayed sex for a while. Rates of STIs among pledge-takers and non-pledgers were similar, even though pledge-takers initiated sex later. Pledge-takers were less likely to seek STI testing and less likely to use contraception when they did have sex.

Back when I was in high school, I studied comparative religions and read Joseph Campbell. But ever since I discovered that religon often seems determined to derail public health for the sake of arbitrary and abstract ideas of the way things "should" be, I became extremely disillusioned by it.

EDIT:

On the other hand, look at how this religious site I found basically delivers an ideological blast against real sex education without citing a single source to back the statements up.

QUOTE

With millions of dollars in sex-education programs at stake, it is not surprising that the groups that have previously dominated the arena have taken action to block the growing movement to abstinence-only education. Such organizations, including the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SEICUS), Planned Parenthood, and the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL), have been prime supporters of "safe-sex" programs for youth, which entail guidance on the use of condoms and other means of contraception while giving a condescending nod to abstinence. Clearly, the caveat that says "and if you do engage in sex, this is how you should do it" substantially weakens an admonition against early non-marital sexual activity.

Not only do such programs, by their very nature, minimize the abstinence component of sex education, but many of these programs also implicitly encourage sexual activity among the youths they teach. Guidelines developed by SEICUS, for example, include teaching children aged five through eight about masturbation and teaching youths aged 9 through 12 about alternative sexual activities such as mutual masturbation, "outercourse," and oral sex.16 In addition, the SEICUS guidelines suggest informing youths aged 16 through 18 that sexual activity can include bathing or showering together as well as oral, vaginal, or anal intercourse, and that they can use erotic photographs, movies, or literature to enhance their sexual fantasies when alone or with a partner. Not only do such activities carry their own risks for youth, but they are also likely to increase the incidence of sexual intercourse.

And the best part is that that last sentence is totally wrong, according to the actual study which was published in a scientific journal. It's like the guy writing this article just assumed that he was right without doing any research first.

Posted by: SL James Sep 24 2006, 11:36 PM

Good God, no! He must be the first person in history to do such a thing.

Posted by: nezumi Sep 25 2006, 01:42 AM

QUOTE (Wounded Ronin)

QUOTE (nezumi @ Sep 24 2006, 09:02 AM)

Currently the Church supports (and actively teaches) chastity, which has been proven to be more effective than condoms at preventing AIDS (when used correctly).

This statement is incorrect, and widespread belief in that statement is one of the major reasons I lost faith in religon.

I have to ask which part of the statement you disagree with. That:

1) The Church is currently teaching chastity to prevent the spread of STDs
or
2) When used properly, chastity is more effective than condom use in preventing STDs

With the former, keep in mind that condoms have something like a .01% failure rate (or something equally miniscule) in preventing STDs when used properly. Chastity, last I checked, has a 0.0% failure rate when used properly.

As for the rest... Well I don't know how to respond. Yes, some groups, especially religious groups, tend to be a little optimistic about people being able to control themselves. Like I said though, religious groups tend to be under the impression that just having sex is bad, so the concern isn't only preventing STD spread. Similarly, just killing a person is bad, so making sure people have firearms safety training isn't the only concern. I'm sure if STD education increased or did not affect the rate of pre-marital sex, religious groups would take a different stance. I don't see it as bad that different people assign different values to actions from me.