Full Version: religion in gaming
| 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)
| QUOTE (Firewall) | ||
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!
| QUOTE (nezumi) |
| 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. |
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."
| QUOTE (Critias) | ||
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. |
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.
| 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?
| 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.
| 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.
| QUOTE (SL James) | ||
Sure you can. Just don't let him have playing cards. And don't be a banana. |
My spoon is too big!
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.
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.
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.
Oh wait. That's not a problem with the book.
| 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.
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.
"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.
| 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.
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
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
| 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!
I'm not just poking at you to further an argument, I'm fine with disagreeing, really.
But still, I have to wonder:
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.
| 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.
| QUOTE (Witness) | ||
Amen brother. |
+1
| QUOTE (eidolon) | ||
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'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.
| 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.
| QUOTE (Witness) | ||
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. |
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.
| 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. |
A++++++ GOOD POSTER WOULD READ AGAIN
I am angry about Dan Brown's book because it's practically a carbon copy of all his other books. Damn you, Dan Brown!
| 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 quite firmly 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 Kenyan Bishop 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 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.
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.
| QUOTE (Witness) | ||
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 quite firmly 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. |
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.
| 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.
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.
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.
| 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.
| 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.
| QUOTE (Witness) | ||
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.)
| 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 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.
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.
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.
| 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?
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) | ||||
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.
| 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.
Good God, no! He must be the first person in history to do such a thing.
| QUOTE (Wounded Ronin) | ||
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.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.