NationStates

Here is a topic for the second new Beta!

Please use it if you have feedback on this change.

Update:
There are now three versions of this beta:

002 is the original, which removes religiousness from the Advancement and Primitiveness scores.

002a additionally adjusts which policies are considered relevant.

002b additionally to both of the above corrects the method of measuring IT industry size.

[violet] wrote:Here is a topic for the second new Beta!

Please use it if you have feedback on this change.

Wow. I am quite astonished at how much of an effect the "religion = primitive" assumption has had on nation stats. For example, Culture of Life would see their Scientific Advancement go up by 108.52, or 454%, if this link was removed! The assumption of religion as intrinsically primitive is both loaded and baseless, and it needs to end. The modern concept of a university started in monasteries, for heaven's sake! I highly support this proposal, and you have my thanks for considering it.

Phydios wrote:I am quite astonished at how much of an effect the "religion = primitive" assumption has had on nation stats. For example, Culture of Life would see their Scientific Advancement go up by 108.52, or 454%, if this link was removed!

It depends on the nation, of course. Culture of Life is top 0.2% in the world for Religiousness, so it has a big effect there.

[violet] wrote:

Phydios wrote:I am quite astonished at how much of an effect the "religion = primitive" assumption has had on nation stats. For example, Culture of Life would see their Scientific Advancement go up by 108.52, or 454%, if this link was removed!

It depends on the nation, of course. Culture of Life is top 0.2% in the world for Religiousness, so it has a big effect there.

Well, yes, of course. This nation is a counterexample- somehow I simultaneously have high Scientific Advancement and very high Religiousness, and thus get significant-but-not-amazing changes from this proposal. Nevertheless, there is an effect, and it can be very large for some nations. But I've scanned a few sample tests, and most changes look reasonable. Extreme shifts are rare.

Changes are 2 for 2, as I can see. Nothing prevents a religion from being scientifically advanced, so I don’t think it’s a fair assumption. I assume someone somewhere has a religion where they pray to robots. So, yeah, a good change.

Phydios wrote:

[violet] wrote:Here is a topic for the second new Beta!

Please use it if you have feedback on this change.

Wow. I am quite astonished at how much of an effect the "religion = primitive" assumption has had on nation stats. For example, Culture of Life would see their Scientific Advancement go up by 108.52, or 454%, if this link was removed! The assumption of religion as intrinsically primitive is both loaded and baseless, and it needs to end. The modern concept of a university started in monasteries, for heaven's sake! I highly support this proposal, and you have my thanks for considering it.

Could not disagree more. Religiousness is possibly the most primitive human behavior.

FreethinkingAnarchists ResidingWherever wrote:

Phydios wrote:Wow. I am quite astonished at how much of an effect the "religion = primitive" assumption has had on nation stats. For example, Culture of Life would see their Scientific Advancement go up by 108.52, or 454%, if this link was removed! The assumption of religion as intrinsically primitive is both loaded and baseless, and it needs to end. The modern concept of a university started in monasteries, for heaven's sake! I highly support this proposal, and you have my thanks for considering it.

Could not disagree more. Religiousness is possibly the most primitive human behavior.

I think you are grouping certain religions and certain religious oractices with religion in general. There can be a religion dedicated to robots, as I stated previously.

Phydios wrote:

[violet] wrote:Here is a topic for the second new Beta!

Please use it if you have feedback on this change.

Wow. I am quite astonished at how much of an effect the "religion = primitive" assumption has had on nation stats. For example, Culture of Life would see their Scientific Advancement go up by 108.52, or 454%, if this link was removed! The assumption of religion as intrinsically primitive is both loaded and baseless, and it needs to end. The modern concept of a university started in monasteries, for heaven's sake! I highly support this proposal, and you have my thanks for considering it.

Agreed. I support this one even more than the first

Currently, are nations that are not religious get boosted scientific advancement? What I am asking is, currently, is the line between religiousness and scientific advancement infinte, where no matter what, the more religious a nation is, the less scientifically advanced (excluding other factors, of course)? Or is there a “brick wall” in the correlation somewhere? I would think the former, but I don’t know exactly. And I would assume opposite-stat correlations like these all work the same way?

Fauxia wrote:is the line between religiousness and scientific advancement infinte, where no matter what, the more religious a nation is, the less scientifically advanced (excluding other factors, of course)?

More or less, yes, that is the current situation.

[violet] wrote:

Fauxia wrote:is the line between religiousness and scientific advancement infinte, where no matter what, the more religious a nation is, the less scientifically advanced (excluding other factors, of course)?

More or less, yes, that is the current situation.

And all such correlations work the same way?

In the entire sim? I'm not sure, but it is rare for anything to be hard-capped. Usually there's diminishing returns, so it makes a smaller and small difference the more you push in the same direction, but it still makes some difference.

Fauxia wrote:I think you are grouping certain religions and certain religious practices with religion in general. There can be a religion dedicated to robots, as I stated previously.

Which would demonstrate that the people worshipping these robots do not properly understand what robots are or how they work.

Many people today think computers are pretty much magic, but the computer programmers, the ones who actually make the things work, generally don't.

Another example right here!

Both Scientifically Advanced, and also very Devout! Also ran by a robot.

I am completely for this proposal. Religion and Science can go hand-in-hand, in my opinion!

The main reason that science and religion are generally opposed lies in the nature of their explanations for events.

Consider a case where there is an event which contradicts the prevailing world view.
- A religious response would be that God(s) wanted it so - no further explanation is required. Any explanation of why God(s) wanted it would be tailored to fit with current doctrine. Where reality conflicts with doctrine, doctrine wins.
- A scientific response would be that current theories are incorrect, and the reasons should be investigated. Reality trumps theory.

I think it is possible but very unusual to hold religious views in conjunction with a scientific approach to discrepancies.

In game terms, I think there should be a reduced link, rather than no link at all.

Almonaster Nuevo wrote:- A religious response would be that God(s) wanted it so - no further explanation is required. Any explanation of why God(s) wanted it would be tailored to fit with current doctrine. Where reality conflicts with doctrine, doctrine wins.

That is anti-science, yes, but consider the Bible for a moment. It can coexist with science, and emphasizes education and wisdom in many places. This is a good starting point for looking into that. What I've found is that religious belief does not make scientific studies useless. In fact, it enhances them. You can believe in God without believing that everything He does is supernatural and unknowable. So that's why I don't think there should be a link between Scientific Advancement and Religiousness. Once again, it is well documented that the entire concept of modern higher education was started by medieval monks!

Phydios wrote:Once again, it is well documented that the entire concept of modern higher education was started by medieval monks!

Not impressed with this argument.

You're talking about Europe, and purposely excluding ancient civilizations like Greece and Rome because they don't fit your argument. The concepts of education and science are much older than medieval monks, and they've been developed in different ways in different cultures. The Medieval period, when the church was most heavily involved in European education, is not a high point for Europe's scientific or technological dominance.

The fact that some people manage to hold religious beliefs and do something academic at the same time doesn't prove much. People can hold white supremacist beliefs and have black friends at the same time too.

However, Fauxia's argument about different types of religions is a good one. The issues game is not supposed to assume too much about the nature of your national religion. Theoretically, a nation could have a national religion that believes it's their sacred duty to study the natural world and invent high-tech gadgets. Just don't try to tell me that religion has anything to do with Christianity.

Yes, it's worth nothing that this change just means that Religiousness won't affect Scientific Advancement & Primitiveness by itself -- that is, the two will be disassociated at the fundamental model level. It will still be possible for individual issue options to increase religiousness while decreasing SA, or vice versa, when the Editor thinks that's appropriate.

It may then need a sweep to see if there should be a link added to existing issues.

Otherwise, that makes a lot of sense, thanks.

The anti-theist rhetoric here makes me a bit vicariously embarrassed tbh. It's ahistorical and pushes a narrative rather than a truth.

Christianity built western civilization as we know it, to betray the love of God is to betray the roots of our philosophy and intellectual thought. Where would we be without genious men like St. Augistine of Hippo? The men who divised the Big Bang theory and the father of modern genetics were also both priests. Don't go throwing around that tired rhetoric, I've met theologians far greater than the average middle brow neckbeard who fancy themselves intellectuals while repeating what they read on /r/atheism.

Secularism had been a detriment to society, it brought with it the ugly heads of hedonism, profligacy and nihilism.

Perhaps read up on minds such as Kierkegaard before making ignorant comments.

The Protestant Union wrote:The anti-theist rhetoric here makes me a bit vicariously embarrassed tbh. It's ahistorical and pushes a narrative rather than a truth.

Christianity built western civilization as we know it, to betray the love of God is to betray the roots of our philosophy and intellectual thought. Where would we be without genious men like St. Augistine of Hippo? The men who divised the Big Bang theory and the father of modern genetics were also both priests. Don't go throwing around that tired rhetoric, I've met theologians far greater than the average middle brow neckbeard who fancy themselves intellectuals while repeating what they read on /r/atheism.

Secularism had been a detriment to society, it brought with it the ugly heads of hedonism, profligacy and nihilism.

Perhaps read up on minds such as Kierkegaard before making ignorant comments.

After reading this filth, we are adding you to our list of enemies.

Guys, this is a technical thread not a debate or RP.

USS Monitor wrote:

Phydios wrote:Once again, it is well documented that the entire concept of modern higher education was started by medieval monks!

Not impressed with this argument.

You're talking about Europe, and purposely excluding ancient civilizations like Greece and Rome because they don't fit your argument. The concepts of education and science are much older than medieval monks, and they've been developed in different ways in different cultures. The Medieval period, when the church was most heavily involved in European education, is not a high point for Europe's scientific or technological dominance.

The fact that some people manage to hold religious beliefs and do something academic at the same time doesn't prove much. People can hold white supremacist beliefs and have black friends at the same time too.

However, Fauxia's argument about different types of religions is a good one. The issues game is not supposed to assume too much about the nature of your national religion. Theoretically, a nation could have a national religion that believes it's their sacred duty to study the natural world and invent high-tech gadgets. Just don't try to tell me that religion has anything to do with Christianity.

I agree that this is a bad argument, but Greece and Rome do fit- a religion is a religion, even pagan ones

Fauxia wrote:

USS Monitor wrote:
Not impressed with this argument.

You're talking about Europe, and purposely excluding ancient civilizations like Greece and Rome because they don't fit your argument. The concepts of education and science are much older than medieval monks, and they've been developed in different ways in different cultures. The Medieval period, when the church was most heavily involved in European education, is not a high point for Europe's scientific or technological dominance.

The fact that some people manage to hold religious beliefs and do something academic at the same time doesn't prove much. People can hold white supremacist beliefs and have black friends at the same time too.

However, Fauxia's argument about different types of religions is a good one. The issues game is not supposed to assume too much about the nature of your national religion. Theoretically, a nation could have a national religion that believes it's their sacred duty to study the natural world and invent high-tech gadgets. Just don't try to tell me that religion has anything to do with Christianity.

I agree that this is a bad argument, but Greece and Rome do fit- a religion is a religion, even pagan ones

No, they don't. Their institutions of higher education weren't founded by monks.

The argument wasn't about advanced societies having religious institutions. It was about the educational system being rooted in religious institutions.

USS Monitor wrote:

Fauxia wrote:I agree that this is a bad argument, but Greece and Rome do fit- a religion is a religion, even pagan ones

No, they don't. Their institutions of higher education weren't founded by monks.

The argument wasn't about advanced societies having religious institutions. It was about the educational system being rooted in religious institutions.

I never said that monks started the concept of education. How could that be true? I said that the modern university system as we know it today originated in the Catholic Church- its cathedrals and monasteries. And that therefore, religion was not intrinsically linked to primitiveness, and that NS should not link the two stats together. I did not argue that the medieval period was or was not a high point of European culture/science, merely that the groundwork was laid for our modern concept of tertiary education.

http://www.vlib.us/medieval/lectures/universities.html
http://www.academicapparel.com/caps/Col ... story.html
http://www.encyclopedia.com/science/enc ... iversities

Now, I am trying to keep this thread on topic, so I hope we do not threadjack it with this discussion, but I think it's relevant to note the real-world relationship between religion and science - a rocky one, definitely, but not a uniformly hostile one.