religion in gaming - Dumpshock Forums

religion in gaming, oh no - oh god - what have i done?

religion in gaming?
You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Total Votes: 33
Guests cannot vote

Witness

Sep 24 2006, 03:29 PM

Post #76

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 681
Joined: 28-February 06
From: UK
Member No.: 8,319

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)

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.

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.

nezumi View Member Profile	Sep 24 2006, 04:35 PM Post #77
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,546 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760	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 :P 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.

Witness

Sep 24 2006, 05:11 PM

Post #78

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 681
Joined: 28-February 06
From: UK
Member No.: 8,319

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 :P

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. ;)

This post has been edited by Witness: Sep 24 2006, 05:23 PM

Austere Emancipa...

Sep 24 2006, 05:42 PM

Post #79

Great Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222

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 according to several studies scientists are relatively unlikely to be religious.

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.

nezumi

Sep 24 2006, 08:17 PM

Post #80

Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet;

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,546
Joined: 24-October 03
From: DeeCee, U.S.
Member No.: 5,760

QUOTE (Witness)

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.

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/Demog...emographics.htm

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

Witness

Sep 24 2006, 09:16 PM

Post #81

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 681
Joined: 28-February 06
From: UK
Member No.: 8,319

QUOTE (nezumi)

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

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.

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 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.

SL James View Member Profile	Sep 24 2006, 09:36 PM Post #82
Shadowrun Setting Nerd Group: Banned Posts: 3,632 Joined: 28-June 05 From: Pissing on pedestrians from my electronic ivory tower. Member No.: 7,473	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.

Austere Emancipa...

Sep 24 2006, 10:00 PM

Post #83

Great Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222

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 sample[1]. Leuba repeated his survey in somewhat different form 20 years later, and found that these percentages had increased to 67 and 85, respectively[2].

In 1996, we repeated Leuba's 1914 survey and reported our results in Nature[3]. 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?

nezumi

Sep 24 2006, 10:23 PM

Post #84

Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet;

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,546
Joined: 24-October 03
From: DeeCee, U.S.
Member No.: 5,760

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)

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 sample[1]. Leuba repeated his survey in somewhat different form 20 years later, and found that these percentages had increased to 67 and 85, respectively[2].

In 1996, we repeated Leuba's 1914 survey and reported our results in Nature[3]. 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?

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

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.

Wounded Ronin

Sep 24 2006, 11:02 PM

Post #85

Great Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 6,640
Joined: 6-June 04
Member No.: 6,383

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/publicati...et/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.

SL James View Member Profile	Sep 24 2006, 11:36 PM Post #86
Shadowrun Setting Nerd Group: Banned Posts: 3,632 Joined: 28-June 05 From: Pissing on pedestrians from my electronic ivory tower. Member No.: 7,473	Good God, no! He must be the first person in history to do such a thing.

nezumi

Sep 25 2006, 01:42 AM

Post #87

Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet;

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,546
Joined: 24-October 03
From: DeeCee, U.S.
Member No.: 5,760

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.

« Next Oldest · General Gaming · Next Newest »