Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

I don't think there's anything in the game that transgresses acceptable boundaries. In the forums, I think some people would find the adverts with women offensive, but it's nothing that isn't common in wider society. As for general conversation...

Zeldor: The short, one word answer is "context".

I wrote a long answer, but I've deleted it. Communication and people's feeling are complex things, and I suspect I'm going to be irritated with some of the arguments likely to emerge in debate.

So if you're okay with it, let's just leave it there?

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

As far as context, if it hasnt already been mentioned, part of it might stem from Kristoffers day job which involves teaching this subject. The fact that he is so immersed in religio-mythology would seem to have been at the base of the type of game it became and much of the subject matter. He would have been torn between using his knowledge and trying to avoid anything that anyone might presently be using or might start up a revival on.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

Agema, I disagree that PC is being used to label some sort of conspiratorial plot perpetuated upon the American (or otherwise) conscious as a Liberal bid to somehow take the stuffing out of arguments pro-human rights/human dignity. I agree about the conspiracy, but it's my feeling that it goes a little bit deeper and more insidiously than that.

PC, atleast the term as I use it, has the meaning of morally forcing terms which emulsify and homogenize human experience, detracting from the elements of those experiences which make diversification valuable, and either ignoring everything that goes into being a human, if it's deemed somehow unsuitable for public consumption, or Disney-fying it, and feeding it to the public, as if they're all sweet, elderly spinsters with little or no worldly experience.

It's call *political* correctness for a reason, and that reason is that PC is the idea behind the intentionally limited language used to filter the speeches of politicians, in order that they come out as wholesome as possible, so as to offend the least numbers of their constituents with their choice of wordage-facilitated by the fact that, as I mentioned, it is a limited language.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

And of course, Political Correctness tends to also apply to Corporate Correctness which does come into play here since this is a corporate forum.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

Damn, Badger beat me to it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

However Agema, I will ask, are you not familiar with George Carlin's rant about the PC phenomena? To illustrate, he relates how:

The term "Shellshock" had the connotation of "WAR IS FRICKIN HORRIFYING!"

.....which was then made politically correct over time, to the more sterile and inoffensive.....

"Post Traumatic Stress Disorder", which simply means, "in some situations human beings may be placed in very stressful situations which can lead to long term emotional disturbances".


This removes the impact intended, or accrued, by the original term. It also removed the connection that an outsider feels for the sufferer. Now other people can say "oh I know what PTSD is like, I fell off my bike in front of a truck once", not realizing that the original use referred to people who spent 3 days in a ditch, getting shot at, and biting their hand to keep from sleeping, for fear if their eyes closed someone would jump down there and slit their throat.


Human existence is quite gritty, and yet colorful and full of vivid experience. I don't give two shakes what the INTENT of the PC movement was, in your eyes. I only care what it does - it bleaches human experience, it sanitizes concepts, and it erodes free speech.

People have really lost sight of what freedom truly is. Instead of embracing their own ability to shape their immediate surroundings the way that they prefer (such as a public website like this having profanity or harassment rules, for example), people get all wound up and gather their influence and power to "democratically" impose their preferences on others.

You know what? I would rather have some measure of individuality under a benevolent dictator, than to have some sort of PC, democratic, right-wing conservative view of freedom limited "for my own good".

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

Wow. "PC" and "right-wing" are not two terms I often see associated, let alone "conservative" and "for my own good." I guess all those conservatives in Congress had better get back to pushing their CAFE standards to force me to buy more efficient cars "for my own good" and mandating that I purchase health insurance "for my own good."

I feel like somebody just criticized Hitler for being a "namby pamby touchy-feelie type."

-Max

Edit: Well, maybe not quite so much. More like someone had criticized liberals for their laissez-faire approach to economics.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

JimMorrison:

You meant left-wing, right? PC is the flag achievement of social-democrats. I don't think I have ever seen right-wing conservative politicians using it much.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

Yep, many rugged conservatives still are /proud/ to call homosexuals "f*gs"... no PC for them I guess. mmh.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

Oh my, people do pay attention to my rants. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/redface.gif

Yes yes, I did mean left-wing in fact. I don't believe in any wings really, extremism is ALWAYS BAD. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif I guess it was a Freudian slip, as I do tend to rant about some people more than others. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Mostly just because as mixed up as they may be, leftist extremists tend to believe there is something to fix, while the right claims everything is peaches and cream.


Can't we all just get along?

Oh oh, I've got a joke! Me, Elvis, JFK, and Hitler are in heaven playing poker.....


http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

Yeah, Elvis is still alive!

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

Political correctness is about minimising language, ideas and policies offensive, prejudicial and stigmatising to people by race, gender, sexuality, culture, disability, and so on. And I mean minimise: it's not about bending over backwards to the demands of the unreasonable or censoring free speech.

The examples supplied are not political correctness. They are possibly good examples of what has been popularly and erroneously tied into political correctness.

* * *

Shellshock was coined in WWI by doctors who had no idea what the problem was. As psychology developed, they discovered PTSD, and that shellshock was a type of PTSD. Yes, there are differences in scale from being bombed to being hit by a truck. But a one-inch stab wound is a lot less serious than a 6-inch stab wound, and they're still both stab wounds.

Renaming shellshock is actually all about accurate scientific terminology in the field of psychology. In the same way the evocative term "consumption" has been superseded by the "tuberculosis" in medicine, or "baking soda" by "sodium hydrogen carbonate" in chemistry.

* * *

You've brought up business-speak or other jargon. For instance, a company "downsizes" meaning it's losing money and has to fire staff (bad). Then they make a euphemism to the euphemism and make "right-size".

This is really about obfuscation for propaganda purposes, which is as old as the hills. Such jargon can also be about seeming intelligent by using unusual words or phrases. It's got nothing to do with removing prejudice against people.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

Agema:

Well, that is what it should be. Unfortunetely it got destroyed and twisted by some politicians and some groups [mostly minority rights fanatics] and became some abomination. Evading all difficult subjects and stagmatizing all people that are not 'politicaly correct' and thus denying them to voice their opinions. And that even goes for many obvious truth about european reality.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

I don't understand what you are saying about Europe, can you explain?

PC is thoroughly trashed now, yes. But I think its core, mainstream belief of respect was a beneficial one, and so to attack it generally is to throw out a baby with the fanatic, fringe bathwater, when the two can be separated. After all, we don't call Christianity an abomination just because of Waco and witch-burning.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

What country are you from?

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

UK.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

God save the (Vampire) Queen! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

(if you don't get the dom3 related joke, don't blame me) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

I can list you other reasons..... >.>


The stated reason for inquisitions was to save the souls of the people..... it ended up twisted into, well, I don't think anyone here should need elaboration. O.O By the time anything could be done about it, it just had to be stopped.


Am I saying I don't think we should be respectful of eachother? That's ridiculous. But the fact that so many people have extrapolated "respecting others" to simply not being allowed to say [i]anything[/b] that offends another person - means that really we need to stop the process, and probably just scrap it and start again from a different angle.

If people want to use slurs, then limiting their freedom of expression outright is something that will always be expanded into oppressive areas, and you must understand that with ANY limitation of freedom, there will develop oppression - if you can't understand that, then you are helping cause your own problems.

If however people found themselves somewhat disadvantaged if they behaved in ways that hurt other people - maybe they would learn that living life as a racist bigot just isn't "worth it".

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

Chances are, most would. The Inquisition? Not the horror it's commonly believed to have been. Now, the Spanish Inquisition, on the other hand, that's a different story; but then that was an entirely different institution too, directly controlled by the Spanish crown.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

Well, that right there is the main transgression. It's never been purely Christianity that has caused problems. It's always been state-supported Christianity that has been responsible for, or furthered, such niceties as the second class citizenship of women, support of slavery and condemnation of homosexuality, polygamy, burning of "witches"-all of which have been justified by Bible scripture-as well as pleasant policies such as indifference towards the Holocaust, Cruisades, pogroms, the burning of books, the destruction of culture, and hereditary rulership, even if the "rightful heir" is the product of a few hundred years of incest.

I have no problem whatsoever with Christianity, the worst thing that happens when Christians are alone is they get eaten by lions, or start writing excrutiating rock music, and good Christians do actually walk the Earth, actively doing and supporting many, many good deeds-it's when the Church is combined with the State that bad things (as an example, I give you our current administration) seem to happen all too regularly.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

Oops, forgot to close an italics mark there.....

And anyway, my point was that even religion (*gasp* even religion!) which is usually entered into with altruistic motives. While there are people with strong religious beliefs who actually live a kind and honest life, then it's insanity to say that religion itself is such a problem as to be abolished altogether. However, I would relate that to the fact that for a long time, some people have tried to extol the virtues of interpersonal respect, and that the PC movement is merely a diseased and rotten offshoot of that, much the same way that the Spanish Inquisition (no need for us to quibble http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif) was the problem rather than the religion itself.

So, I say down with Political Correctness, up with understanding and respect. <3

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

I don't wanna partecipate to this thread because I'm a kind of fanatic of religious discussions and I don't wanna bore anybody here. I just wanna say - the "theory" about the "black legend" of the Inquisition (claiming that the Inquisition was much better than people usually think) has been literally destroyed piece by piece by... I think /all/ the serious historians. It was a just one plug of that big historic revisionism which denies clear and horrible things of the past of the mankind by manipulating facts, omitting evidence, considering only certain favourable data. Like if we can make our nature "better" forgetting our crimes, instead of learning from them what we were, and what we must not become again.

Damn, just coming to Italy (which surely wasn't protestant, as many say that only the lutheran christians made victims with the inquisition) you will find many museums filled with thousands of the horrible and incredibly cruel stocks used for torture... surely they weren't made after that period just to accuse the church unjustly, don't you think?

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

Polygamy is the anomaly here. The only instance of Christian polygamy (Mormon polygamists in the 1<font color="red">9</font>th century) I can think of was not only not state-sponsored, but in fact faced intense opposition from Congress and the federal government.

I don't think Christians who supported slavery in the 19th century had state backing for their positions either, although a cynic would observe that it's always convenient when your religious views happen to support the political views that you want to have anyway.

-Max

<font color="red">Edit: fixed typo </font>

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about religion with State
backing as being some kind of anomaly.

Religious leaders have often sought temporal power. Temporal leaders have often sought religious backing to justify whatever it is they want to do anyway.

If all you are saying is that when Christians have no power they're harmless, then that's almost a tautology.

Was the Catholic Church throughout most of it's history "state supported"? Or were the states given legitimacy by the Church?

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

Well, I happen to live in Utah, and admittedly, it wasn't sanctioned by the Mormon church for very long or particularly well, but it did happen, and it was the church founders who were the ones doing it, even as they were publically condemning it. And they had significant, if not ultimate, governmental and political power-more local than federal, but the difference probably didn't mean a whole lot to their various wives.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

It's the combination of the two, thejeff. The Roman Empire supported the early Christian church, and the Catholic church then went on to legitimize the states that followed.

And anything is harmless, if it has no power-the most evil-minded dandelion in the world isn't much of a threat, except to my lawn-it's what's done with whatever power a thing has, that makes a difference.

And the fact remains that in many unfortunate circumstances, Christianity was wielded like a "terrible, swift sword" for reasons political, but in the name of the spiritual.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

Which is my point. Saying "It's never been purely Christianity that has caused problems. It's always been state-supported Christianity", is really just saying Christianity has only caused problems when it's had the power to do so. It's white-washing religion's role in those problems.

Not to blame all problems on Christianity or other religions, or to say they've done no good.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

Somehow this just sounds like "Religion is a powerful weapon, let us pray it does not fall into the wrong hands.". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

I think Christianity has done quite a lot of good things, either as a force-the Salvation Army, for example-or as individuals (Martin Luther King). But religion can be a dangerous tool that can be used to exploit people and their faith. Whether it's tv evangelists taking money from people who can't afford to live, or anti-semitics who used Christianity as an excuse to persecute Jews.

Religion-and by this I mean the People of the Book (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) is like a virus of ideas and ideals. It occupies a host, changing the host to suit it's needs, and then it spreads itself by various means, infecting people more or less strongly, depending on their ability/willingness to fight the infection (or catch the "Spirit"). It's not necessarily a disease-as in, harmful, because the ways in which it seeks to change it's host are often very beneficial-but it often operates with the methods of one, and Christianity is especially virulent, predisposing it's hosts (Missionaries) to seeking out, and then converting, any segments of the population that haven't built up a tolerance for it yet. It mutates, taking on more exotic forms: Mormons, born-again Christians, Rastafarians, Voodoo, even exotic strains, like the deadly Ebola cults of David Coresh and Jonestown, etc.

Viruses by themselves aren't evil. We may think of them superstitiously in those terms, from time to time, but we don't really attach sentience and will to do harm to microscopic (or thought) organisms. They're out to perpetuate themselves, just like we are. And at times, they can be harmful to other life-forms, just like we can. That also doesn't mean they can't do a lot of good too-some have speculated that some form of virus is what caused us to evolve in such a way as to develope speech and language-but if they're introduced into an unprotected, susceptible host, then they can potentially do damage.

They can also mutate over time into more benevolent forms, which are more compatable-more symbiotic and less parasitic-with their hosts than the original form. And I think that's what's happening with religion today. It can still be a force for harm and destruction at times, if the infection is extreme and uncontrolled, but it can also benefit, and take advantage from, peaceful co-existence with the people who actually live by it's ideals, and the people those come into contact with.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

Guys I wanna warn you all. We are starting to think too smartly. They will make us all disappear in some new, elegant, smiling way.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

Ah, so when you say "religion" you really mean "the Abrahamic religions." Interesting, but a potentially confusing choice of words because inevitably someone is going to counter a generalization about "religion" with an example from a weird little religion practiced in 16th-century New Guineau (to paraphrase Steven Pinker) and that won't have been what you were trying to talk about at all.

By the way, I think you've just reinvented the concept of "meme". Heh. Now the meme meme has multiple origins.

-Max

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

So there is potentially a religion in New Guinea that not seek to spread itself to willing minds to survive? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif That would rock my entire concept of what the term religion actually means, as opposed to philosophy or just plain reasoning. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

I think in a nutshell Badger was simply stating that people are people, and religion didn't change anything intrinsic about our properties as organisms.

I have to admit though, I've been having trouble seeing a difference in the rate at which the vector manifests itself in the darker desires of humanity - but this could just be because of the sheer volume of the population who carry it.


That's why I prefer philosophies and reasonings though, they don't pull guilt trips on you when you grow past them. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

When you talk about religion and state, it is good to look at how Christianity is different than other religions. The “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto god what is god’s,” is fairly unique. It flavors the thinking of most people who grew up in predominantly Christian areas and makes them think that the separation of church and state is normal or at least desirable. In most of the world, that is not the case.

Many other religions either carry an explicit or implicit idea that “our religion is good and we should do what we need to do to make sure society follows the moral ideals of our religion.” This means the state should and even must implement religion. Why would you leave out a very powerful tool when you are trying to change the world?

This is a gap in understanding that I frequently see in Christian/Muslim discussions and it is all the worse because the two sides don’t realize it is there. One side is saying “How can you pass a law like that?” They then argue about the right and the wrong of the law. The other side is “How can you let such things happen in your society?” They then argue about the right and the wrong of the act. Both miss that the actual issue is about how church and state should interact and how a faithful member of the religion should try to make the world a better place.

Also, for those in the West who did not understand why the word “Crusade” caused such a furor in some parts of the world, this is why. If the hearer thinks that all governments reflect the main religion of that nation, they will hear “Crusade” and expect a holy war with all the might of that state behind it. If the hearer is a “separation of church and state” kind of person, they do not expect that at all.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

HoneyBadger said explicitly, "Religion-and by this I mean the People of the Book (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) is like a virus of ideas and ideals." It's explicitly not applicable to our hypothetical weird little religion (it is not, hypothetically, that of the People of the Book).

Anyway, if you equate "religion" = "meme" you are missing out IMHO on some of the richer meaning of the word. I'd probably define it differently, something like: "Religion is that which a person implicitly or explicitly holds to be true independent of social consensus of its truthfulness." From this standpoint, "Jesus was divine" and "humans have a responsibility to conserve resources for other animals" are both religious beliefs for certain people because they are not (easily) subject to disproof or argument from other people. They're simply fundamental to that person's worldview. Note that this definition diverges starkly from the traditional view that "religion is any belief which has something to do with God," but I think it's a nicer, more fundamental definition.

-Max

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

I don't know about New Guinea, but as a larger example: For most of it's history Judaism has been the religion of the Jewish people. Children were raised in the religion, but outside converts were not sought and depending on the time and particular variant of the religion may not have been allowed.

There are other examples...

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

While the quote is certainly Biblical it really doesn't reflect the history of Christianity at all. Separation of church and state is a very modern, post-Enlightenment, thing. Consider the "divine right of kings" and similar concepts throughout most of European history. Church and State were very closely intertwined. The separation of church and state is a product of Western secularism and largely of the abuses of state churches.

It's also a concept not particularly accepted by certainly extremely vocal Christians in the US these days.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

It's also a very nice definition for theists who don't want to actually deal with other's arguments. "The basic tenets of science have to be taken on faith, so that's just your religion." "Atheism is just another religious belief." etc, etc.
(I'm not saying that's your intent, but I've run into it often enough that I'm wary.)
It's more useful to leave religion dealing with God and have other words for other types of philosophical worldviews.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

...And you don't live in Italy, my dear friend... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

On an historical basis, you can even just think about the excommunications to the kings, which were used by the church to forbid non-controllable kings to ruling their countries; the Papal States (which fighted not to be annexed in the Italian territory, and excommunicated whoever wanted to partecipate to Italian political life after being annexed); the Opus Dei; and many other things... even now in Italy certain priests from the hierarchy of the Church, say on a daily basis to politics that a country cannot be ruled without their God and that they are ready to "fight" (!) to defend their (expecially economical) advantages (many of which are plain absurd)

Just to show you that certainly that quote from 3 of the 4 gospels, surely didn't, and don't, interest at all the ideas of many Christians, about the separation between church and State.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

I guess I'd better clarify that statement I made about the Abrahamic religions. Just to further muddy these waters. First of all, these talks have seemed, atleast to me, to revolve around the Abrahamic religions. Nobody has said a whole lot about Shinto, Buddhism, the various Shamanistic traditions that are still around, Scientology, etc.

And from my perspective, it's the Abrahamic religions, and what's taken from their traditions, that seem to be concerning people, as offensive in such a way that might expose the game to reaction. Nobody's suggested anything negative about how the Buddhists might feel about the portrayal of Asian or Indian-flavoured nations, or about how modern citizens of Greece or Egypt might be bothered by the direct exploitation of their revered ancestors' religions, atleast past the first thread. There have been nationalistic issues-and by these I mean that people don't seem to like the name "Adolf", and feel that Machaka lumps most of Africa together (which I tend to sympathise with, since Africa's an awfully big, old place).

Personally, I'm of the opinion that there's not a whole lot of difference between religion and mythology. All mythologies were once religions, and probably will be again, someday. So it wasn't said to mean that the Abrahamic religions were exclusive, only that they applied and were familiar both to me, and to the rest of the posters, as a major form of religion. So I limited my statement to Judaism and it's offspring, for the sake of the useability and pertinance of the statement.

But I don't really think the Abrahamic religions even apply. Why? Because they're not actually present, anywhere in the game. There's nations based on the Bible, but no Jewish nation, no Islam-themed nation, and no Christian themed nation. What? No Christian nation? well surely Marignon or Ermor or even...let me restate, there are no Christian nations in the game. They're all religions that might resemble something you'd attach to Christianity, like something out of the Bible, or the Inquisition, or whatever, but in every case, they're still worshipping Pretenders, and in no case are they worshipping Allah or the Trinity or YHWH. Anything beyond that is an offense do-it-yourself-kit.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

I dunno, I think the most vocal Christians do accept the concept, which is why they're being vocal. Look at the Intelligent Design debates. Most ID apologists are fools (Niven's Law guarantees that--and of course most Darwinian apologists are fools too) but the key issue is that they're afraid the state is trying to shove atheistic ideas into their kids' heads. Most of them wouldn't care if YOUR school doesn't point out flaws in Darwinian theories as long as THEIR school can. It's about freedom from government interference, which is very much an issue of separating church and state.

The issue is muddied by the fact that public schools are now funded by the state, so arguably the ID folks are wrong, but that's where they're coming from. I personally don't care if ID is allowed in schools (it's not going to get taught anyway) but I would rather see the scientific method being taught rather than science as fait accompli. That's not a religious concern though and so a bit OT.

-Max

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

The thing is, freedom from the government, if you take that idea all the way, means no meaningful government. Since any aspect of the government conceivable could fall under someone's religion, you are left with nothing.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

Isn't the above definition what people are trying to say, though, when they say that science is "just another religious belief"? If you actually engaged their arguments you would acknowledge that science is based on certain assumptions, lay out the fundamental premises upon which science is based (empirical, repeatable experiment is the best way of reaching conclusions; the universe is basically reductionist, you can make conclusions about universal phenomena from local observations) and ask if they bought into those premises. You might then be able to have a reasonable discussion. Instead you dismiss their argument because to you "religion == God" and so "science is a religious belief" is simply gibberish to you. I think this is missing the point...

-Max

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

Right. If you take it all the other way, though, and the government has a right to trump religious freedom whenever it feels like it, what was the point of the 1st amendment? The ID folks are wrong in my book, but I think they have a right to be heard even if I wouldn't vote for teaching their ideas in my school.

(Well, I might teach Fred Hoyle's version of ID as an exercise or something, to make a point about the scientific method and Bayesian priors.)

-Max

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

Oh, I agree they have right to be heard. I'm just saying there is something of a fundamental flaw in the way freedom of religion is layed out. It is built on the inherent assumption some religions are more valid than others, because if they are not, anyone can have their own relegion and be totally free from government control.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

!!

I am SO offended by your insinuation that my own imagination is offensive..... to me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/redface.gif


You are very right Max, I'd almost simplify it to just "religion is a belief not substantiated by solid evidence".

On the arguments of science as a religion or not, I think it's a matter of the angle of approach. You can claim that the "basis" of modern science is unsubstantiated, but that is not entirely true. While we do indeed lose clarity when we look too far inward, or outward, that does not mean that inward/smallness/universality is the foundation of modern science. In fact, science starts at the middle, in the scope of direct human action. If you called human proportionate existence to be 0, then everything smaller is negative numbers, and everything larger is positive numbers. But our belief in science is not religious in basis, the basis is Newtonian physics, and other very mundane actions/reactions that we can observe, and repeat to observe again ad infinitum. We may not yet know exactly why everything works the way that it does, but we can prove that it does indeed work the way that it does, because that is reality - or at least our communal perception thereof.

This is separate from the concepts that are considered to not be scientific, but are purely religious. Christian Scientists will steal a page, and simply state "observe the world, there is the proof that it was made by god"..... What? That isn't an experiment, and certainly not one that is repeatable. Unless the claim is that pure observation of the wonder of reality, is scientific experiment, observation, and proof, all rolled into one. However, without the human aspect - the self as scientist, defining the rules of the experiment, and narrowing the focus to something that is caused to happen, or is believed to reoccur in a specific and predictable way - there is no actual experiment, and there is no scientific observation. Predicting Halley's Comet returning every 72 years is scientific, pointing a butterfly and saying "God did that", is religious. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

Me very agrees with Jim

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

We may have to agree to disagree on this. My view is that they are trying to force the government to shove their nonsense into everyone's heads. If you want to keep your child from being taught science, home school or start a religious school of your own. If you're trying to change the larger school system to teach your religious beliefs (and if you look at the writings of the people and institutions pushing ID, it is an open secret it's nothing but a cover for religious creationism) then you're not fighting for the separation of church and state, but trying to use the state to push religious beliefs.

And the only reason ID isn't being taught in schools is that every time creationists have stacked school boards and forced it in, judges have struck it down, so I don't quite follow your comment "I personally don't care if ID is allowed in schools (it's not going to get taught anyway)". It's not taught because it's not allowed.

On a larger scale, the religious right has been openly allied with the Republican party since at least the Reagan years. Blatantly pushing candidates as well as the "values" issues that have come to define the modern "conservative" viewpoint.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

Yeah which is odd since democrats are clearly much "better" pplz than republicans... they seem to want more equality, work more for nature etc etc as opposed to those who just want to let the world, their neighbours and especially the poor or those in other countires go to hell as long as they get their cash. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

RAmen, brothers, RAmen (who got that one? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif )

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

It isn't missing the point. It's a tactic for avoiding the argument. It's not productive to have to try to define and teach the entire philosophy of science and the scientific method to a hostile audience in every discussion. You can have a reasonable discussion about the philosophy of science that starts there, but if this is brought up in any of the hot button science/religion issues, it's brought up as a means of dismissing science.
Every time I've seen it used in such a context it's been used to mean, "I have my religious belief, you have yours, therefore I don't have to pay any attention to your arguments." Scientific arguments are logically unprovable, since they rest on unprovable assumptions, therefore, despite mountains of evidence, they are no more reliable than any crackpot idea.

"Science is a religious belief" is not gibberish to me. I simply don't find it a useful categorization.

On the deepest level, science isn't a belief at all. It's a method of making models based on existing data, using them to make predictions and seeing whether those predictions work. If so the model is useful, if not it must be rejected, replaced or improved. Whether a working models actually corresponds to "Truth" or "Reality" is not important. What is important is that it can be used to make accurate predictions.
Scientists being human, they often do believe in their models, but that's not a characteristic of science. It's also often a convenient shorthand to speak of the models, especially solid, long established ones, as reality.

On another note, looking back at your definition, I'd quibble on other grounds as well. Throughout much of history, religions have been believed precisely because of social consensus. This is much less true in the West today, but if you consider medieval Europe or any pre-modern society, when the social consensus was deeply religious, how could it make sense to talk about religion being independent of the social consensus.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

It's one of the great mysteries of modern American politics, to me anyway, how "values" became only about sex - abortion, gays, abstinence-only education, etc, while people who care about the environment, poverty, civil rights, social justice, etc. apparently don't have values?