[Freeciv-Dev] Re(2): Re: Religions in freeciv?

["Daniel Speyer" <Daniel_Speyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

dnh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>This is where I don't think you are correct. To my knowledge Budism is not
>a religion either, nor indeed are 'Shamanists'. You must understand the
>definition (as I understand it) of a religion is, the worship of a higher
>being to gain salvation etc etc. A religion offers people a belief in a
>higher order, a cult/law is something which offers a way of life. Buddism
>teaches people to create a better society (in theory...) as too does
>confucism. They can be classed similar to that of todays legal system,
>they are a way of life which people can accept to follow. Therefore, you
>CANNOT call these things religions as they are not. I am NOT saying you
>shouldn't put them in freeciv, I think the idea has alot of merit.. what I
>am saying is that if you do you should throughly consider the exact
>terminology. Using the word religion has a specific meaning.. you don't
>worship sharman as higher beings offer forgiveness.. because they aren't.
>
>dnh
>
>I hope you catch my drift here =)

I catch it, but I don't see it working.  Judaism does not involve personal
salvation.  Nor (to the best of my understanding)  do Islam, Taoism,
Shinto, or Neo-paganism.  A higher being offering forgiveness is (to the
best of my knowledge) an exclusively Christian idea.  Personal salvation
is limited to Christianity, Hindu, and Zoroasterianism.  I may be missing
a few exceptions, but I stand by my main point that most of the world's
religions don't meet your definition.

No definition is true, but some may be more useful than others.  My
previously offered definition (a set of unjustified beliefs that effect
how one lives one's life) has the advantages that it includes most
self-described religions and that it suggests the role that religion can
play in a world with significant science (e.g. the real one).  It has the
disadvantage that it counts many things which insist loudly that they are
not religions (e.g. capitalism, psychoanalysis), though I consider them
such.

The American Heritage Dictionary offers these definitions (religion being
the union of them):
        Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as
creator and governor of the universe.
        A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and
worship.
        The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
        A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a
spiritual leader.
        A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious
devotion.
Number 5 strikes me as extremely broad, but as long as we're throwing
around definitions without justification, we might as well appeal to an
authority ;).  Confucianism clearly falls under number 4.  Of course, I
have no idea where American Heritage got these.


In any case, the definition that is relevant to the general discussion
here (i.e. how to improve Freeciv) is something like this:

        any set of beliefs and structures that are likely to be shared by a 
large
percentage of a nation and of significant enough effect to be included in
Freeciv.

One might propose using some name other than religion ("culture" was
suggested), but I can't think of anything that does as good a job as
"religion".  Most of the systems described are widely viewed as religions,
and argument could be made for most of the others.  Culture is too complex
for this (it includes language, art, food, even government!).  I can't
think of anything better than "religion" and Roget's Theosaurus is no help.

It does occur to me, though, that if just discussing religion causes this
much argument here, think how much trouble there would be actually adding
it to the game!

--Daniel Speyer
"May the /src be with you, always"