Being a Muslim and knowing that almost all Escapist Magazine video contributors are anti-religion atheists, I was slightly afraid to watch this video and was pleasantly surprised it didn't hate on religion, even though the comments section did.
The only sympathetic portrayal of religion I remember in games is
Mass Effect 1(one dialog with Ashly, which is forgotten in the other two games),
Age of Empires 2(Crusades are shown as a political rather than religious conflict) and
Asian Dynasties(The importance of religion to the people of the British Raj is shown as the people were mistreated a lot but what ignited the conflict was the British forcing them to disobey their religion and put pig or cow grease covered cartage in their mouths, the game didn't do justice to the 1857 conflict but at least it tried).
Here is something for every anti-religion commentators to remember from the Simpsons:
"A noble soul embiggens the smallest man".
And here is something from The Dark Knight:
"Some men just want to watch the world burn".
These people are not motivated by religion but are not well to begin with, for example Barry from Four Lions. They will latch on to any excuse and will make up their own if they can't find any. But with religion "A noble soul embiggens the smallest man".
I think of Portal 2 when this topic comes up. In a similar way that movies draw from good books, the story of Portal 2 in many ways is the story of Prometheus, who stole fire from the gods and gave it to man. Like Prometheus, (potato) GlaDos gets thrown in a pit to be picked apart by birds.
I also remember that Little Big Planet was delayed because there was song in it that borrowed lyrics from the Koran. I was split about the decision to edit the game. On one hand, there are sects of the Muslim religion that are offended by that practice, and they are the ones who complained. On the other, these people represent only a portion of the religion, and the game as a whole was not trying to be offensive.
And that's why I agreed with the ultimate decision for them to remove the song. What statement were they trying to make? Surely not an offensive one to anyone of any religion. The game was meant to be fun for everyone, so excluding or offending a group of people because of something as (possibly) trivial as background music didn't make sense.
At the same time, I believe in the freedom of speech and of religion. So if a game wants to come out and try and convince people of the truthfulness/falseness of a God or religion, then I support that too, even if I don't agree with the arguments made. And in the case of any game, there's always someone who is going to find a way to be offended.
You spent a whole year researching religion in games and you guys didn't even list El Shaddai: Ascension of the Metatron?
I mean, that's what the game is *about*. A pretty darn faithful recreation of a "lost" chapter of the Bible. A game where religion is part of the story, and is neither damned as a refuge for the weak minded, or openly attempts to prosthelytize. It just *is*.
There have been pathetically few attempts to seriously tackle religious issues beyond ORGANIZED RELIGION IS EVIL in games, but that's a pretty major recent example.
Like many of the other suggestions in this thread, most of the usage of these games just use the lore of religion in one way or another. There's nothing bad with using lore, but examples like Danate's Inferno and El Shaddai don't really fit into the grand topic, even if they are heavly story based on a religious figure or story.
Next week's epidsode into the usage of faith in games should have answers that many people are looking forward to, but until then, we need to understand and seperate the elements of religion into workable parts in order to understand it's usage in games. In El Shaddai's case, the lore is there, and the "blessing" of weapons mechanic is great, but that's about it. There might be a faith aspect as well, but we don't have a proper deffinition of it yet.
For example, what if "faith" are the bananas in Donkey Kong Country 2? The sutble hints that guide you to secrets, even though they are lonely pawns of a greater picture. Or what if the faith aspect is like the ending of Earthbound? The only move left to play at the very final battle is to pray enough times, but this is going on while your strongest members do no natural damage to the enemy, and at best have to completely change their playstyle from DD to supports. (If anything, I would love to see a dissection of that final battle as it takes scripted battles into a personal level. On that note, the moment when you meet Poo for the first time, and he must mediate with Mu is also an example of faith I believe.)
tl;dr: games that use religious lore are not the most religious games. Lore is look of the vehicle, mechanics is how it works, faith is "why" it works.
Faith, according to secular atheism, is belief without evidence. It isn't belief despite contradictory evidence: that would be denial, and no argument that many 'religious' folk whom confuse the two terms.
Aside from that differing in semantics I think I can go along with what your saying. Mind you I don't want to go the route of saying that religion is inherently bad, but again there is this wondering if the evils of it are a result of the systems themselves or the people within them exploiting said systems?
It does bring me to Tales of Symphonia, where the start of the game is the typical escort the chosen to various trials and have them obtain enlightenment. Under the guidance of the church you fight some monsters and this party member gains abilities. She also start losing herself literally, as she becomes divorced from her humanity as she gains her abilities until she is an emotionally-dead husk of a person that better resembles a robot.
And you're later told that this was to power a fucking stone and prepare her to be a 'vessel' to the supposed goddess of the church, whom is this dead chick being revived by her brother and his followers. Secondary to this is to make all the people into those emotionally-dead husks under the belief that this would make all equal and end suffering.
The church in the game turns out to be how these god-like people control the people of what ends up being two worlds, where one world will have plenty so these demigods could do research into the revival, while the other is impoverished and used as slave labor to produce for the place of plenty, and the places take turns as to who gets what.
When it would have been better for everyone if this woman was to be left dead and these two worlds be merged into one.
Religion in the game was used as the opiate of society, to keep the people passive (especially in poverty-world, where if the people believe that a messiah is coming no one will take the time to rebel while their brethren were being processed in concentration camps).
That is exploring the mechanics of religion. And it was obviously religion (the demigods were called 'angels', the puppet church head in plenty-world was called the 'pope', Collette and Zelos were suppose to be the messiahs, the institution is called 'Church of Martle' and so forth).
How much of it was exploring faith, well, part 2 will look into that.
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
Albert Einstein
Letter dated 24 March 1954
included in "Albert Einstein: The Human Side"
Faith, according to secular atheism, is belief without evidence. It isn't belief despite contradictory evidence: that would be denial, and no argument that many 'religious' folk whom confuse the two terms.
Any fundamentally "faithful" belief is denial, sometimes with a side-order of bargaining.
You're not really going to die.
Aside from that differing in semantics I think I can go along with what your saying. Mind you I don't want to go the route of saying that religion is inherently bad, but again there is this wondering if the evils of it are a result of the systems themselves or the people within them exploiting said systems?
Religion is inherently bad.
The institutions that are patronized by religion are good or bad on their own merit because, bar what may, they're also secularized to an extent. Religion also likes to claim ownership of hospitals, charities or universities; but these are not uniquely religious things.
Religion in the game was used as the opiate of society, to keep the people passive (especially in poverty-world, where if the people believe that a messiah is coming no one will take the time to rebel while their brethren were being processed in concentration camps).
"Faith" is part of what he dismisses blithely as "mechanics." It's reductionist and insulting. Your special magic is not above criticism or analysis and should be plopped alongside the rest of the human experience.
If we claim that religion is an "opiate of the masses," then why are we making this claim? Because of faith.
It's not touched-on directly because video games are big business. But these "mechanics" are what's being said about faith. (I get a +1 widget bonus in my civ game because my people are of this religion!)
I can't believe you didn't mention The Binding of Isaac. That game manages to connect religious lore with game mechanics in a very effective way. It was also surprisingly well received by religious critics.
This has been posted time and time again and explained in beautiful detail over and over again, but yet I am compelled to add in my voice to the travesty of misrepresenting science and some of its greatest benefactors from the past.
There are already countless posts about how science has nothing to do about religious faith, like this episode of EC was talking about, so I wont be repeating that.
I will however expand on that by saying that the biggest difference between science and faith is that science is falsifiable, as in it can be tested and/or observed. As you correctly pointed out, Newtons ideas on gravity for example weren't complete and Newtons clockwork mechanism for the universe was falsified by Einsteins theory of relativity which presented universe as more of a fabric rather than a mechanical structure. However, Newtons ideas are still used today because the mathematics behind the Newtonian structure still beautifully describes how matter moves and interacts with each other. Yes, we have expanded on Newtons ideas, but we didn't trash everything, they are still very much in use today.
Another disapointing aspect is bringing these people up at all in this sort of manner. It is slimy quote mining at worst and an appeal to authority at best. Talking about the Einstein quotation. I was half expecting, through my facepalm, a Darwins death bed recount on evolution where he admits that its wrong and impossible.
But I digress, even with all of that, I still, not even for a second believe that the EC crew actually sides with young-earth-creationists and merely wanted to be 'balanced' and hence wanted to bring out sentiments from all sides. But this brings out the problem within religion when trying to look at it unbiased. Religion can only be defended by lies and forgeries, so when you try to look at both sides equally, you're going to have to lie to do so. In EC's case it was implying that "faith" and scientific "confidence" were the same.
I was able to feel the EC crew's frustration and uncertainty on how to approach this subject, knowing that majority of US citizens are theists, that if they didn't try to justify faith SOMEHOW, those theists would start donning on their cloaks and burning crosses on their lawns and demanding blood sacrifice to appease their deities. To avoid a mob lynching by theists, their hands were tied to present an argument from the deeply religious respective.
However, this only explains why you would do this (And is only my hypothesis on that) episode in such a manner.
I'll leave you with an exhaustive explanation of the difference between religious faith and scientific, rational trust/expectation/propability/confidence by Aron "Texan Tank" Ra:
This has been posted time and time again and explained in beautiful detail over and over again, but yet I am compelled to add in my voice to the travesty of misrepresenting science and some of its greatest benefactors from the past.
There are already countless posts about how science has nothing to do about religious faith, like this episode of EC was talking about, so I wont be repeating that.
I will however expand on that by saying that the biggest difference between science and faith is that science is falsifiable, as in it can be tested and/or observed. As you correctly pointed out, Newtons ideas on gravity for example weren't complete and Newtons clockwork mechanism for the universe was falsified by Einsteins theory of relativity which presented universe as more of a fabric rather than a mechanical structure. However, Newtons ideas are still used today because the mathematics behind the Newtonian structure still beautifully describes how matter moves and interacts with each other. Yes, we have expanded on Newtons ideas, but we didn't trash everything, they are still very much in use today.
Another disapointing aspect is bringing these people up at all in this sort of manner. It is slimy quote mining at worst and an appeal to authority at best. Talking about the Einstein quotation. I was half expecting, through my facepalm, a Darwins death bed recount on evolution where he admits that its wrong and impossible.
But I digress, even with all of that, I still, not even for a second believe that the EC crew actually sides with young-earth-creationists and merely wanted to be 'balanced' and hence wanted to bring out sentiments from all sides. But this brings out the problem within religion when trying to look at it unbiased. Religion can only be defended by lies and forgeries, so when you try to look at both sides equally, you're going to have to lie to do so. In EC's case it was implying that "faith" and scientific "confidence" were the same.
I was able to feel the EC crew's frustration and uncertainty on how to approach this subject, knowing that majority of US citizens are theists, that if they didn't try to justify faith SOMEHOW, those theists would start donning on their cloaks and burning crosses on their lawns and demanding blood sacrifice to appease their deities. To avoid a mob lynching by theists, their hands were tied to present an argument from the deeply religious respective.
However, this only explains why you would do this (And is only my hypothesis on that) episode in such a manner.
I'll leave you with an exhaustive explanation of the difference between religious faith and scientific, rational trust/expectation/propability/confidence by Aron "Texan Tank" Ra:
I have to wonder if some game makers only explore the surface of mythology to avoid offending the deeply religious and getting into lawsuits. I mean...when games explore the effects of religion on people, I'd bet that's why most of the examples are either dead religions of the past or fictional religions made up for that franchise.
Have you heard of the game "Nehrim - At Fate's Edge"? It is a Total Conversion for The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion and deals a lot with the topic of religion in games.
@MaxRavenclaw
"Jesus Christ! What's with all the militant atheists nowadays? Agnostics FTW!"
Modern science has marched on and more and more people abandon the science of old (religion, alchemy, etc.). The religions of old are being phased out, and within a few generations these religions will be a small minority.
What we're seeing is the last acts of desperation from christians, muslims, jews and other religious groups trying to resist their decline. For every attempted change there is a counter-change though, and for every revolution a counter-revolution, and the increasing number of "militant atheists" is merely a natural consequence of the increasingly aggressive attempts by the radically religious to reverse the trend.
I call myself a "militant agnostic" by the way. I don't "believe" in the nonexistence of gods, I simply call these gods unscientific and thus irrelevant in any debate related to real-world physics. In practice the same thing as a militant atheist.
There's a problem with your reasoning, however. You got it right when you said 'radically religious': those groups of people are in fact getting more and more extreme in an effort to deny the decline of their belief systems.
The problem comes from the simple fact that those people *do not in any way represent actual religion*. They represent an interpretation of a series of tenets in each case, yes, but that's not the core purpose of religion, or at least the religions currently well-established in the world.
Every single enduring religion in the world today has similar fundamentals running through it. Emphasis on consideration for fellow humans, self-sacrifice for the greater good, and not being consumed by material desires are the usual ones, and represent the actual foundation and PURPOSE of these belief systems. You can actually make a game out of picking out which one was emphasized more - Christianity focuses primarily on consideration for others, Buddhism on the greater good, etc. Even the term "The Chosen People" in Judaism doesn't reference simply being exalted among others, but also the responsibility placed upon all members of that faith to *improve* the world and the lives of people around them.
That's the actual reason religions have endured for thousands of years. Not control of the populace, not some magical pervasive stupidity that has prevented people from questioning anything. The fact that at their core, no matter how much the followers or ones in charge manage to obscure or twist it, the *point* of religions is universally a call to the highest possible good we as a species are capable of.
So no, religions aren't going to just 'go away'. It's no more true now than it was when Nietzsche said it, nor when John Lennon said it. If religion endured solely through ignorance, then it would have died as a *concept* centuries ago. But it doesn't, so it didn't. And it won't.
That's the inherent problem with everyone arguing *against* it, especially here. It's not *meant* to be a stand-in for science - it hasn't been for thousands o years, except for willfully ignorant people who, yes, will be phased out by and large within the next few generations. Nor is it, @Hazunia, a thing populated solely by murderous lunatics, no matter *how* much you may want it to be to support your own argument.
Religion speaks to and offers something that nothing, *nothing* else does. Basic philosophy has tried to come close, and the concept of morality is far from married to the concept of gods and higher powers. But they are where it first found its root, and thanks to that, religion may change and adapt, or aspects of it may be carved away as they are no longer necessary (Sorry Zeus, we know what causes lightning now) but it will not, quite literally *cannot*, die.
There's a problem with your reasoning, however. You got it right when you said 'radically religious': those groups of people are in fact getting more and more extreme in an effort to deny the decline of their belief systems.
The problem comes from the simple fact that those people *do not in any way represent actual religion*. They represent an interpretation of a series of tenets in each case, yes, but that's not the core purpose of religion, or at least the religions currently well-established in the world.
Every single enduring religion in the world today has similar fundamentals running through it. Emphasis on consideration for fellow humans, self-sacrifice for the greater good, and not being consumed by material desires are the usual ones, and represent the actual foundation and PURPOSE of these belief systems. You can actually make a game out of picking out which one was emphasized more - Christianity focuses primarily on consideration for others, Buddhism on the greater good, etc. Even the term "The Chosen People" in Judaism doesn't reference simply being exalted among others, but also the responsibility placed upon all members of that faith to *improve* the world and the lives of people around them.
That's the actual reason religions have endured for thousands of years. Not control of the populace, not some magical pervasive stupidity that has prevented people from questioning anything. The fact that at their core, no matter how much the followers or ones in charge manage to obscure or twist it, the *point* of religions is universally a call to the highest possible good we as a species are capable of.
So no, religions aren't going to just 'go away'. It's no more true now than it was when Nietzsche said it, nor when John Lennon said it. If religion endured solely through ignorance, then it would have died as a *concept* centuries ago. But it doesn't, so it didn't. And it won't.
That's the inherent problem with everyone arguing *against* it, especially here. It's not *meant* to be a stand-in for science - it hasn't been for thousands o years, except for willfully ignorant people who, yes, will be phased out by and large within the next few generations. Nor is it, @Hazunia, a thing populated solely by murderous lunatics, no matter *how* much you may want it to be to support your own argument.
Religion speaks to and offers something that nothing, *nothing* else does. Basic philosophy has tried to come close, and the concept of morality is far from married to the concept of gods and higher powers. But they are where it first found its root, and thanks to that, religion may change and adapt, or aspects of it may be carved away as they are no longer necessary (Sorry Zeus, we know what causes lightning now) but it will not, quite literally *cannot*, die.
A very interesting topic, and I'm glad EC is addressing it [finally].
If I might be so bold though I'd like to try and demonstrate where the dissonance I'm reading in the comments is coming from:
___
"So why? Why do we never touch on faith in games? Why is it somehow a more taboo subject than the extremities of violence or the notion of good and evil?"
Good point.
"It's hard to say, but if we're truly being honest with ourselves it's due in part to the fact that within our community there is some hostility towards faith, and to be fair people claiming to be of faith have shown us a fair amount of hostility as well in the past."
True, true...
"But this is just silly."
I'm listening...
"All reason is based on faith..."
Nope. We're done here.
___
Here's the bottom line: theological beliefs (because faith is a messy word), or the lack thereof, are very closely held when we think of the human experience. People easy become engaged when the topic comes up (just look at some of these comments for reference), and at the end of the day that's really what we're looking for in a player-base: engagement. As 'Interactive Media' (video games) develops as a medium, it would be awesome to see more games explore this. And not to say it's entirely non-existent; I thought Final Fantasy X was particularly interesting in exploring matters of theological belief.
I think where games tend to fall short is that we too often and too easily let our characters fall into the "disillusioned former believer" trope. It's becoming cliche, and we're better than that. We can handle respected characters that hold to their beliefs in the face of their tragedies and come out better for it. The repentant hypocrite who realizes their failings and resolves to seek redemption from their former ways. The hopeless criminal who while incarcerated comes to realize the pain they've caused.
These are (in my opinion) engaging characters that would be great to interact with, or even assume the role of. The prisoner one would certainly make an interesting protagonist.
The other area we fall short is when we do approach issues of theological belief, we are much too linear. The EC gang hit on this too. A game that allowed theological choices to be made and let players explore the consequences and resulting worldviews of their choices would be extremely interesting. Afterall, this is what makes our medium so unique - it's ability to allow ourselves to assume roles we normally wouldn't be exposed to, and to interact with our surroundings rather than being dragged through a linear plot.
That element of this episode was great food for thought. It is unfortunate that EC spent the second half of the episode trying to convince us that "Science" and "Faith" are essentially the same thing. They are not, and by trying to fit that squared peg into that triangled hole, I think they lost alot of their audience who might otherwise have been very accepting of the idea of addressing issues of divinity in our medium and in our community.
A very interesting topic, and I'm glad EC is addressing it [finally].
If I might be so bold though I'd like to try and demonstrate where the dissonance I'm reading in the comments is coming from:
___
"So why? Why do we never touch on faith in games? Why is it somehow a more taboo subject than the extremities of violence or the notion of good and evil?"
Good point.
"It's hard to say, but if we're truly being honest with ourselves it's due in part to the fact that within our community there is some hostility towards faith, and to be fair people claiming to be of faith have shown us a fair amount of hostility as well in the past."
True, true...
"But this is just silly."
I'm listening...
"All reason is based on faith..."
Nope. We're done here.
___
Here's the bottom line: theological beliefs (because faith is a messy word), or the lack thereof, are very closely held when we think of the human experience. People easy become engaged when the topic comes up (just look at some of these comments for reference), and at the end of the day that's really what we're looking for in a player-base: engagement. As 'Interactive Media' (video games) develops as a medium, it would be awesome to see more games explore this. And not to say it's entirely non-existent; I thought Final Fantasy X was particularly interesting in exploring matters of theological belief.
I think where games tend to fall short is that we too often and too easily let our characters fall into the "disillusioned former believer" trope. It's becoming cliche, and we're better than that. We can handle respected characters that hold to their beliefs in the face of their tragedies and come out better for it. The repentant hypocrite who realizes their failings and resolves to seek redemption from their former ways. The hopeless criminal who while incarcerated comes to realize the pain they've caused.
These are (in my opinion) engaging characters that would be great to interact with, or even assume the role of. The prisoner one would certainly make an interesting protagonist.
The other area we fall short is when we do approach issues of theological belief, we are much too linear. The EC gang hit on this too. A game that allowed theological choices to be made and let players explore the consequences and resulting worldviews of their choices would be extremely interesting. Afterall, this is what makes our medium so unique - it's ability to allow ourselves to assume roles we normally wouldn't be exposed to, and to interact with our surroundings rather than being dragged through a linear plot.
That element of this episode was great food for thought. It is unfortunate that EC spent the second half of the episode trying to convince us that "Science" and "Faith" are essentially the same thing. They are not, and by trying to fit that squared peg into that triangled hole, I think they lost alot of their audience who might otherwise have been very accepting of the idea of addressing issues of divinity in our medium and in our community.
@RedMattis
Every single enduring religion in the world today has similar fundamentals running through it. Emphasis on consideration for fellow humans, self-sacrifice for the greater good, and not being consumed by material desires are the usual ones, and represent the actual foundation and PURPOSE of these belief systems. You can actually make a game out of picking out which one was emphasized more - Christianity focuses primarily on consideration for others, Buddhism on the greater good, etc. Even the term "The Chosen People" in Judaism doesn't reference simply being exalted among others, but also the responsibility placed upon all members of that faith to *improve* the world and the lives of people around them.
That's the actual reason religions have endured for thousands of years. Not control of the populace, not some magical pervasive stupidity that has prevented people from questioning anything. The fact that at their core, no matter how much the followers or ones in charge manage to obscure or twist it, the *point* of religions is universally a call to the highest possible good we as a species are capable of.
I'm with you on most points except this. Religion adopts new mores and ethics to 'keep up to date.'
Christianity had a very alien sense of good once-upon-a-time and Buddhism is not what people think it is (i.e. a self-help religion where you become One With The Universe).
Christianity first stemmed from a war-deity known as Yahweh and much of the OT is concerned with how neighboring peoples are going to get theirs because oh-man-oh-man, our god can beat up your god. That and unconditional obedience. Even the notion that you are a Chosen People is more than slightly racist, and terribly ironic for more than one reason (e.g. Serbs, Jews, Gypsies, Irish, Arabs and so on). I don't mean simply to say that ethnicities are persecuted because of religion, but when given power will persecute their enemies in turn. I mean, God is going to make sure that sling stone goes through the head of the enemy general. (You get double style points if you are muttering about how them high-falutin' Babylonians are too big for their britches or something similar.)
The racism often cuts both ways. I was offended to learn that *a* traditional Gypsy thought proposed that outsiders are inherently unclean and will often demand unreasonable medical accommodations (e.g. their own sheets) to ensure members of family stay that way, often bullying for medical attention. Many will even think that theft is permissible, so long as it's the outsiders that are the victims. Imagine adding religious sanctification and just enough secular power to the mix.
Islam likes to brag that it's the most forward and cosmopolitan religion once-upon-a-time, but that's just a pretty way of saying that all other believers were second class citizens. A major theological point, hotly contested in Islam or not, is the death-for-apostasy rule. And Islam was sure, like many other religions, that it was destined to inherit the reins of secular power. How do you think that's going to end up? Anybody claiming Noblesse Oblige of any form, divine or not, ought to be setting off alarm bells in your head. You must suspect some sort of patronizing and authoritarian horseshit to be going down.
According to the legends about Siddhartha, Buddhism came into existence as a solution to a problem with Hindu cosmology. It's generally agreed that reincarnation is bad because suffering is unavoidable no matter what. Oblivion is preferable. Buddha just happened to offer a "Middle Way" as a less radical solution than extreme asceticism. Incidentally, he preached compassion as a way of expiating attachment, before that too is dispensed with. It was intended as a way of weaning yourself off of human existence, not a means of improving it. It's theological problem really, a person who strives for enlightenment out of selfishness hasn't truly mastered that and cannot excise it from his psychology. Nor is Buddhism actually free of the same radical fanaticism as any other religion.
Buddha himself may be regarded as a compassionate mentor like Jesus, but I have serious quandaries with its moral and metaphysical philosophy. First and foremost, it's a fatalistic religion (in a bad way). Like many religions, it's creepily obsessed with what might happen to you after death, rather than concerning itself with present problems. For this reason, Buddha was regarded as something of a rebel by established Hinduism as cosmological claims about reincarnation coexisted with a rather rigid caste hierarchy and other priesthoods.
Religion likes to take credit for secular humanism. But you don't need a God to damn people to hell or the existential fear of reincarnation to get people to cooperate and behave. Once you admit that religion cannot be a stand-in for science, what is it good for? I'd even argue that it cannot take the role of things like art or philosophy. Religion pretends to have all the significant answers to all the riddles of human experience, and on most counts, plagiarizes those answers or gets them hopelessly wrong. Religions are pretty bad about stealing proverbs and basic themes and ideas from each other.
Religion survives because by appealing itself to the needs and wants of its culture.
Does Japanese Jesus look Japanese? Sure he does.
Just like how he looks like an inoffensive white man with a kickin' beard.
He's also in favor of the American Way.
What about Xenogears? :P it does religion. As in, I think it does more than just take the symbology and whatnot for the fun of it and actually has depth with it.
It's the theme of the town of Beldavik, capital city of the kingdom of Aveh and is a desert town. It's meant to enforce the desert market imagery and the original theme does an excellent job of it. (the primary instrument is harpsichord). The remix toned down the Tempo and added celtic lyrics to make for a very different and yet familiar song if you play Xenogears.
Posts
The only sympathetic portrayal of religion I remember in games is
Mass Effect 1(one dialog with Ashly, which is forgotten in the other two games),
Age of Empires 2(Crusades are shown as a political rather than religious conflict) and
Asian Dynasties(The importance of religion to the people of the British Raj is shown as the people were mistreated a lot but what ignited the conflict was the British forcing them to disobey their religion and put pig or cow grease covered cartage in their mouths, the game didn't do justice to the 1857 conflict but at least it tried).
Here is something for every anti-religion commentators to remember from the Simpsons:
"A noble soul embiggens the smallest man".
And here is something from The Dark Knight:
"Some men just want to watch the world burn".
These people are not motivated by religion but are not well to begin with, for example Barry from Four Lions. They will latch on to any excuse and will make up their own if they can't find any. But with religion "A noble soul embiggens the smallest man".
Regardless, I look forward to more interesting discussion (and then r/atheism trolling in the comments section).
I also remember that Little Big Planet was delayed because there was song in it that borrowed lyrics from the Koran. I was split about the decision to edit the game. On one hand, there are sects of the Muslim religion that are offended by that practice, and they are the ones who complained. On the other, these people represent only a portion of the religion, and the game as a whole was not trying to be offensive.
And that's why I agreed with the ultimate decision for them to remove the song. What statement were they trying to make? Surely not an offensive one to anyone of any religion. The game was meant to be fun for everyone, so excluding or offending a group of people because of something as (possibly) trivial as background music didn't make sense.
At the same time, I believe in the freedom of speech and of religion. So if a game wants to come out and try and convince people of the truthfulness/falseness of a God or religion, then I support that too, even if I don't agree with the arguments made. And in the case of any game, there's always someone who is going to find a way to be offended.
I mean, that's what the game is *about*. A pretty darn faithful recreation of a "lost" chapter of the Bible. A game where religion is part of the story, and is neither damned as a refuge for the weak minded, or openly attempts to prosthelytize. It just *is*.
There have been pathetically few attempts to seriously tackle religious issues beyond ORGANIZED RELIGION IS EVIL in games, but that's a pretty major recent example.
Like many of the other suggestions in this thread, most of the usage of these games just use the lore of religion in one way or another. There's nothing bad with using lore, but examples like Danate's Inferno and El Shaddai don't really fit into the grand topic, even if they are heavly story based on a religious figure or story.
Next week's epidsode into the usage of faith in games should have answers that many people are looking forward to, but until then, we need to understand and seperate the elements of religion into workable parts in order to understand it's usage in games. In El Shaddai's case, the lore is there, and the "blessing" of weapons mechanic is great, but that's about it. There might be a faith aspect as well, but we don't have a proper deffinition of it yet.
For example, what if "faith" are the bananas in Donkey Kong Country 2? The sutble hints that guide you to secrets, even though they are lonely pawns of a greater picture. Or what if the faith aspect is like the ending of Earthbound? The only move left to play at the very final battle is to pray enough times, but this is going on while your strongest members do no natural damage to the enemy, and at best have to completely change their playstyle from DD to supports. (If anything, I would love to see a dissection of that final battle as it takes scripted battles into a personal level. On that note, the moment when you meet Poo for the first time, and he must mediate with Mu is also an example of faith I believe.)
tl;dr: games that use religious lore are not the most religious games. Lore is look of the vehicle, mechanics is how it works, faith is "why" it works.
Faith, according to secular atheism, is belief without evidence. It isn't belief despite contradictory evidence: that would be denial, and no argument that many 'religious' folk whom confuse the two terms.
Aside from that differing in semantics I think I can go along with what your saying. Mind you I don't want to go the route of saying that religion is inherently bad, but again there is this wondering if the evils of it are a result of the systems themselves or the people within them exploiting said systems?
It does bring me to Tales of Symphonia, where the start of the game is the typical escort the chosen to various trials and have them obtain enlightenment. Under the guidance of the church you fight some monsters and this party member gains abilities. She also start losing herself literally, as she becomes divorced from her humanity as she gains her abilities until she is an emotionally-dead husk of a person that better resembles a robot.
And you're later told that this was to power a fucking stone and prepare her to be a 'vessel' to the supposed goddess of the church, whom is this dead chick being revived by her brother and his followers. Secondary to this is to make all the people into those emotionally-dead husks under the belief that this would make all equal and end suffering.
The church in the game turns out to be how these god-like people control the people of what ends up being two worlds, where one world will have plenty so these demigods could do research into the revival, while the other is impoverished and used as slave labor to produce for the place of plenty, and the places take turns as to who gets what.
When it would have been better for everyone if this woman was to be left dead and these two worlds be merged into one.
Religion in the game was used as the opiate of society, to keep the people passive (especially in poverty-world, where if the people believe that a messiah is coming no one will take the time to rebel while their brethren were being processed in concentration camps).
That is exploring the mechanics of religion. And it was obviously religion (the demigods were called 'angels', the puppet church head in plenty-world was called the 'pope', Collette and Zelos were suppose to be the messiahs, the institution is called 'Church of Martle' and so forth).
How much of it was exploring faith, well, part 2 will look into that.
Albert Einstein
Letter dated 24 March 1954
included in "Albert Einstein: The Human Side"
Any fundamentally "faithful" belief is denial, sometimes with a side-order of bargaining.
You're not really going to die.
Religion is inherently bad.
The institutions that are patronized by religion are good or bad on their own merit because, bar what may, they're also secularized to an extent. Religion also likes to claim ownership of hospitals, charities or universities; but these are not uniquely religious things.
"Faith" is part of what he dismisses blithely as "mechanics." It's reductionist and insulting. Your special magic is not above criticism or analysis and should be plopped alongside the rest of the human experience.
If we claim that religion is an "opiate of the masses," then why are we making this claim? Because of faith.
It's not touched-on directly because video games are big business. But these "mechanics" are what's being said about faith. (I get a +1 widget bonus in my civ game because my people are of this religion!)
There are already countless posts about how science has nothing to do about religious faith, like this episode of EC was talking about, so I wont be repeating that.
I will however expand on that by saying that the biggest difference between science and faith is that science is falsifiable, as in it can be tested and/or observed. As you correctly pointed out, Newtons ideas on gravity for example weren't complete and Newtons clockwork mechanism for the universe was falsified by Einsteins theory of relativity which presented universe as more of a fabric rather than a mechanical structure. However, Newtons ideas are still used today because the mathematics behind the Newtonian structure still beautifully describes how matter moves and interacts with each other. Yes, we have expanded on Newtons ideas, but we didn't trash everything, they are still very much in use today.
Another disapointing aspect is bringing these people up at all in this sort of manner. It is slimy quote mining at worst and an appeal to authority at best. Talking about the Einstein quotation. I was half expecting, through my facepalm, a Darwins death bed recount on evolution where he admits that its wrong and impossible.
But I digress, even with all of that, I still, not even for a second believe that the EC crew actually sides with young-earth-creationists and merely wanted to be 'balanced' and hence wanted to bring out sentiments from all sides. But this brings out the problem within religion when trying to look at it unbiased. Religion can only be defended by lies and forgeries, so when you try to look at both sides equally, you're going to have to lie to do so. In EC's case it was implying that "faith" and scientific "confidence" were the same.
I was able to feel the EC crew's frustration and uncertainty on how to approach this subject, knowing that majority of US citizens are theists, that if they didn't try to justify faith SOMEHOW, those theists would start donning on their cloaks and burning crosses on their lawns and demanding blood sacrifice to appease their deities. To avoid a mob lynching by theists, their hands were tied to present an argument from the deeply religious respective.
However, this only explains why you would do this (And is only my hypothesis on that) episode in such a manner.
I'll leave you with an exhaustive explanation of the difference between religious faith and scientific, rational trust/expectation/propability/confidence by Aron "Texan Tank" Ra:
P.S. No, this is not an appeal to authority, his explanation on this would and does stand on its own against the tightest, most detailed scrutiny.
There are already countless posts about how science has nothing to do about religious faith, like this episode of EC was talking about, so I wont be repeating that.
I will however expand on that by saying that the biggest difference between science and faith is that science is falsifiable, as in it can be tested and/or observed. As you correctly pointed out, Newtons ideas on gravity for example weren't complete and Newtons clockwork mechanism for the universe was falsified by Einsteins theory of relativity which presented universe as more of a fabric rather than a mechanical structure. However, Newtons ideas are still used today because the mathematics behind the Newtonian structure still beautifully describes how matter moves and interacts with each other. Yes, we have expanded on Newtons ideas, but we didn't trash everything, they are still very much in use today.
Another disapointing aspect is bringing these people up at all in this sort of manner. It is slimy quote mining at worst and an appeal to authority at best. Talking about the Einstein quotation. I was half expecting, through my facepalm, a Darwins death bed recount on evolution where he admits that its wrong and impossible.
But I digress, even with all of that, I still, not even for a second believe that the EC crew actually sides with young-earth-creationists and merely wanted to be 'balanced' and hence wanted to bring out sentiments from all sides. But this brings out the problem within religion when trying to look at it unbiased. Religion can only be defended by lies and forgeries, so when you try to look at both sides equally, you're going to have to lie to do so. In EC's case it was implying that "faith" and scientific "confidence" were the same.
I was able to feel the EC crew's frustration and uncertainty on how to approach this subject, knowing that majority of US citizens are theists, that if they didn't try to justify faith SOMEHOW, those theists would start donning on their cloaks and burning crosses on their lawns and demanding blood sacrifice to appease their deities. To avoid a mob lynching by theists, their hands were tied to present an argument from the deeply religious respective.
However, this only explains why you would do this (And is only my hypothesis on that) episode in such a manner.
I'll leave you with an exhaustive explanation of the difference between religious faith and scientific, rational trust/expectation/propability/confidence by Aron "Texan Tank" Ra:
P.S. No, this is not an appeal to authority, his explanation on this would and does stand on its own against the tightest, most detailed scrutiny.
"Jesus Christ! What's with all the militant atheists nowadays? Agnostics FTW!"
Modern science has marched on and more and more people abandon the science of old (religion, alchemy, etc.). The religions of old are being phased out, and within a few generations these religions will be a small minority.
What we're seeing is the last acts of desperation from christians, muslims, jews and other religious groups trying to resist their decline. For every attempted change there is a counter-change though, and for every revolution a counter-revolution, and the increasing number of "militant atheists" is merely a natural consequence of the increasingly aggressive attempts by the radically religious to reverse the trend.
I call myself a "militant agnostic" by the way. I don't "believe" in the nonexistence of gods, I simply call these gods unscientific and thus irrelevant in any debate related to real-world physics. In practice the same thing as a militant atheist.
There's a problem with your reasoning, however. You got it right when you said 'radically religious': those groups of people are in fact getting more and more extreme in an effort to deny the decline of their belief systems.
The problem comes from the simple fact that those people *do not in any way represent actual religion*. They represent an interpretation of a series of tenets in each case, yes, but that's not the core purpose of religion, or at least the religions currently well-established in the world.
Every single enduring religion in the world today has similar fundamentals running through it. Emphasis on consideration for fellow humans, self-sacrifice for the greater good, and not being consumed by material desires are the usual ones, and represent the actual foundation and PURPOSE of these belief systems. You can actually make a game out of picking out which one was emphasized more - Christianity focuses primarily on consideration for others, Buddhism on the greater good, etc. Even the term "The Chosen People" in Judaism doesn't reference simply being exalted among others, but also the responsibility placed upon all members of that faith to *improve* the world and the lives of people around them.
That's the actual reason religions have endured for thousands of years. Not control of the populace, not some magical pervasive stupidity that has prevented people from questioning anything. The fact that at their core, no matter how much the followers or ones in charge manage to obscure or twist it, the *point* of religions is universally a call to the highest possible good we as a species are capable of.
So no, religions aren't going to just 'go away'. It's no more true now than it was when Nietzsche said it, nor when John Lennon said it. If religion endured solely through ignorance, then it would have died as a *concept* centuries ago. But it doesn't, so it didn't. And it won't.
That's the inherent problem with everyone arguing *against* it, especially here. It's not *meant* to be a stand-in for science - it hasn't been for thousands o years, except for willfully ignorant people who, yes, will be phased out by and large within the next few generations. Nor is it, @Hazunia, a thing populated solely by murderous lunatics, no matter *how* much you may want it to be to support your own argument.
Religion speaks to and offers something that nothing, *nothing* else does. Basic philosophy has tried to come close, and the concept of morality is far from married to the concept of gods and higher powers. But they are where it first found its root, and thanks to that, religion may change and adapt, or aspects of it may be carved away as they are no longer necessary (Sorry Zeus, we know what causes lightning now) but it will not, quite literally *cannot*, die.
There's a problem with your reasoning, however. You got it right when you said 'radically religious': those groups of people are in fact getting more and more extreme in an effort to deny the decline of their belief systems.
The problem comes from the simple fact that those people *do not in any way represent actual religion*. They represent an interpretation of a series of tenets in each case, yes, but that's not the core purpose of religion, or at least the religions currently well-established in the world.
Every single enduring religion in the world today has similar fundamentals running through it. Emphasis on consideration for fellow humans, self-sacrifice for the greater good, and not being consumed by material desires are the usual ones, and represent the actual foundation and PURPOSE of these belief systems. You can actually make a game out of picking out which one was emphasized more - Christianity focuses primarily on consideration for others, Buddhism on the greater good, etc. Even the term "The Chosen People" in Judaism doesn't reference simply being exalted among others, but also the responsibility placed upon all members of that faith to *improve* the world and the lives of people around them.
That's the actual reason religions have endured for thousands of years. Not control of the populace, not some magical pervasive stupidity that has prevented people from questioning anything. The fact that at their core, no matter how much the followers or ones in charge manage to obscure or twist it, the *point* of religions is universally a call to the highest possible good we as a species are capable of.
So no, religions aren't going to just 'go away'. It's no more true now than it was when Nietzsche said it, nor when John Lennon said it. If religion endured solely through ignorance, then it would have died as a *concept* centuries ago. But it doesn't, so it didn't. And it won't.
That's the inherent problem with everyone arguing *against* it, especially here. It's not *meant* to be a stand-in for science - it hasn't been for thousands o years, except for willfully ignorant people who, yes, will be phased out by and large within the next few generations. Nor is it, @Hazunia, a thing populated solely by murderous lunatics, no matter *how* much you may want it to be to support your own argument.
Religion speaks to and offers something that nothing, *nothing* else does. Basic philosophy has tried to come close, and the concept of morality is far from married to the concept of gods and higher powers. But they are where it first found its root, and thanks to that, religion may change and adapt, or aspects of it may be carved away as they are no longer necessary (Sorry Zeus, we know what causes lightning now) but it will not, quite literally *cannot*, die.
If I might be so bold though I'd like to try and demonstrate where the dissonance I'm reading in the comments is coming from:
___
"So why? Why do we never touch on faith in games? Why is it somehow a more taboo subject than the extremities of violence or the notion of good and evil?"
Good point.
"It's hard to say, but if we're truly being honest with ourselves it's due in part to the fact that within our community there is some hostility towards faith, and to be fair people claiming to be of faith have shown us a fair amount of hostility as well in the past."
True, true...
"But this is just silly."
I'm listening...
"All reason is based on faith..."
Nope. We're done here.
___
Here's the bottom line: theological beliefs (because faith is a messy word), or the lack thereof, are very closely held when we think of the human experience. People easy become engaged when the topic comes up (just look at some of these comments for reference), and at the end of the day that's really what we're looking for in a player-base: engagement. As 'Interactive Media' (video games) develops as a medium, it would be awesome to see more games explore this. And not to say it's entirely non-existent; I thought Final Fantasy X was particularly interesting in exploring matters of theological belief.
I think where games tend to fall short is that we too often and too easily let our characters fall into the "disillusioned former believer" trope. It's becoming cliche, and we're better than that. We can handle respected characters that hold to their beliefs in the face of their tragedies and come out better for it. The repentant hypocrite who realizes their failings and resolves to seek redemption from their former ways. The hopeless criminal who while incarcerated comes to realize the pain they've caused.
These are (in my opinion) engaging characters that would be great to interact with, or even assume the role of. The prisoner one would certainly make an interesting protagonist.
The other area we fall short is when we do approach issues of theological belief, we are much too linear. The EC gang hit on this too. A game that allowed theological choices to be made and let players explore the consequences and resulting worldviews of their choices would be extremely interesting. Afterall, this is what makes our medium so unique - it's ability to allow ourselves to assume roles we normally wouldn't be exposed to, and to interact with our surroundings rather than being dragged through a linear plot.
That element of this episode was great food for thought. It is unfortunate that EC spent the second half of the episode trying to convince us that "Science" and "Faith" are essentially the same thing. They are not, and by trying to fit that squared peg into that triangled hole, I think they lost alot of their audience who might otherwise have been very accepting of the idea of addressing issues of divinity in our medium and in our community.
If I might be so bold though I'd like to try and demonstrate where the dissonance I'm reading in the comments is coming from:
___
"So why? Why do we never touch on faith in games? Why is it somehow a more taboo subject than the extremities of violence or the notion of good and evil?"
Good point.
"It's hard to say, but if we're truly being honest with ourselves it's due in part to the fact that within our community there is some hostility towards faith, and to be fair people claiming to be of faith have shown us a fair amount of hostility as well in the past."
True, true...
"But this is just silly."
I'm listening...
"All reason is based on faith..."
Nope. We're done here.
___
Here's the bottom line: theological beliefs (because faith is a messy word), or the lack thereof, are very closely held when we think of the human experience. People easy become engaged when the topic comes up (just look at some of these comments for reference), and at the end of the day that's really what we're looking for in a player-base: engagement. As 'Interactive Media' (video games) develops as a medium, it would be awesome to see more games explore this. And not to say it's entirely non-existent; I thought Final Fantasy X was particularly interesting in exploring matters of theological belief.
I think where games tend to fall short is that we too often and too easily let our characters fall into the "disillusioned former believer" trope. It's becoming cliche, and we're better than that. We can handle respected characters that hold to their beliefs in the face of their tragedies and come out better for it. The repentant hypocrite who realizes their failings and resolves to seek redemption from their former ways. The hopeless criminal who while incarcerated comes to realize the pain they've caused.
These are (in my opinion) engaging characters that would be great to interact with, or even assume the role of. The prisoner one would certainly make an interesting protagonist.
The other area we fall short is when we do approach issues of theological belief, we are much too linear. The EC gang hit on this too. A game that allowed theological choices to be made and let players explore the consequences and resulting worldviews of their choices would be extremely interesting. Afterall, this is what makes our medium so unique - it's ability to allow ourselves to assume roles we normally wouldn't be exposed to, and to interact with our surroundings rather than being dragged through a linear plot.
That element of this episode was great food for thought. It is unfortunate that EC spent the second half of the episode trying to convince us that "Science" and "Faith" are essentially the same thing. They are not, and by trying to fit that squared peg into that triangled hole, I think they lost alot of their audience who might otherwise have been very accepting of the idea of addressing issues of divinity in our medium and in our community.
I'm with you on most points except this. Religion adopts new mores and ethics to 'keep up to date.'
Christianity had a very alien sense of good once-upon-a-time and Buddhism is not what people think it is (i.e. a self-help religion where you become One With The Universe).
Christianity first stemmed from a war-deity known as Yahweh and much of the OT is concerned with how neighboring peoples are going to get theirs because oh-man-oh-man, our god can beat up your god. That and unconditional obedience. Even the notion that you are a Chosen People is more than slightly racist, and terribly ironic for more than one reason (e.g. Serbs, Jews, Gypsies, Irish, Arabs and so on). I don't mean simply to say that ethnicities are persecuted because of religion, but when given power will persecute their enemies in turn. I mean, God is going to make sure that sling stone goes through the head of the enemy general. (You get double style points if you are muttering about how them high-falutin' Babylonians are too big for their britches or something similar.)
The racism often cuts both ways. I was offended to learn that *a* traditional Gypsy thought proposed that outsiders are inherently unclean and will often demand unreasonable medical accommodations (e.g. their own sheets) to ensure members of family stay that way, often bullying for medical attention. Many will even think that theft is permissible, so long as it's the outsiders that are the victims. Imagine adding religious sanctification and just enough secular power to the mix.
Islam likes to brag that it's the most forward and cosmopolitan religion once-upon-a-time, but that's just a pretty way of saying that all other believers were second class citizens. A major theological point, hotly contested in Islam or not, is the death-for-apostasy rule. And Islam was sure, like many other religions, that it was destined to inherit the reins of secular power. How do you think that's going to end up? Anybody claiming Noblesse Oblige of any form, divine or not, ought to be setting off alarm bells in your head. You must suspect some sort of patronizing and authoritarian horseshit to be going down.
According to the legends about Siddhartha, Buddhism came into existence as a solution to a problem with Hindu cosmology. It's generally agreed that reincarnation is bad because suffering is unavoidable no matter what. Oblivion is preferable. Buddha just happened to offer a "Middle Way" as a less radical solution than extreme asceticism. Incidentally, he preached compassion as a way of expiating attachment, before that too is dispensed with. It was intended as a way of weaning yourself off of human existence, not a means of improving it. It's theological problem really, a person who strives for enlightenment out of selfishness hasn't truly mastered that and cannot excise it from his psychology. Nor is Buddhism actually free of the same radical fanaticism as any other religion.
Buddha himself may be regarded as a compassionate mentor like Jesus, but I have serious quandaries with its moral and metaphysical philosophy. First and foremost, it's a fatalistic religion (in a bad way). Like many religions, it's creepily obsessed with what might happen to you after death, rather than concerning itself with present problems. For this reason, Buddha was regarded as something of a rebel by established Hinduism as cosmological claims about reincarnation coexisted with a rather rigid caste hierarchy and other priesthoods.
Religion likes to take credit for secular humanism. But you don't need a God to damn people to hell or the existential fear of reincarnation to get people to cooperate and behave. Once you admit that religion cannot be a stand-in for science, what is it good for? I'd even argue that it cannot take the role of things like art or philosophy. Religion pretends to have all the significant answers to all the riddles of human experience, and on most counts, plagiarizes those answers or gets them hopelessly wrong. Religions are pretty bad about stealing proverbs and basic themes and ideas from each other.
Religion survives because by appealing itself to the needs and wants of its culture.
Does Japanese Jesus look Japanese? Sure he does.
Just like how he looks like an inoffensive white man with a kickin' beard.
He's also in favor of the American Way.
Also, I
It's the theme of the town of Beldavik, capital city of the kingdom of Aveh and is a desert town. It's meant to enforce the desert market imagery and the original theme does an excellent job of it. (the primary instrument is harpsichord). The remix toned down the Tempo and added celtic lyrics to make for a very different and yet familiar song if you play Xenogears.