100 piety would indeed be fundamentalism, I would say. Regular piety is 0. Agnostic-atheist/secular-minded is -100.So unless Paradox is trying to say that piety = fundamentalism, which it certainly did not, then this is the wrong approach.
100 piety would indeed be fundamentalism, I would say. Regular piety is 0. Agnostic-atheist/secular-minded is -100.So unless Paradox is trying to say that piety = fundamentalism, which it certainly did not, then this is the wrong approach.
100 piety would indeed be fundamentalism, I would say. Regular piety is 0. Agnostic-atheist/secular-minded is -100.
I agree completely, it should apply to both.Even then, the same should apply to Christians, no? Why would Christian fundamentalism be more compatible with science than Muslim fundamentalism?
There were many very religious Italians who supported the Renaissance. Universities in Europe grew largely from Church schools.Even then, the same should apply to Christians, no? Why would Christian fundamentalism be more compatible with science than Muslim fundamentalism?
There were many very religious Italians who supported the Renaissance. Universities in Europe grew largely from Church schools.
As the empire builder, you have some control over things by having the option to change your state religion.
We don't know if Paradox will model the major causes of the technological stagnation of the Muslim world. I'd imagine it would be pretty easy to represent the cultural apathy/isolation with the Monarch Power Pool.Only in its most bizarre and steriotypical incarnation. Real Islamic attitudes towards scientific progress were usually positive throughout this period, with attacks on progress being made by minority groups that held more influence than their numbers would imply. So unless Paradox is trying to say that piety = fundamentalism, which it certainly did not, then this is the wrong approach.
And even then how does it justify slowing down military tech speed, in which the real causes of stagnation had little at all to do with religion and were cultural in nature?
What method are you using to measure the level of piety: the amount of money poured into ḥadīth studies, the number of masjid maintained at the time, or perhaps something I'm less familiar with?Piety is not the factor that contributed to the decline in scientific progress in these parts of the world and it implies that being to devoted to Islam is in itself an obstacle to scientific progress which is obviously untrue since the level piety remained more or less the same throughout this entire period.
Are those the only 3 religions getting love? Are the other religions just going to be a copy paste with a name change?
I like what you did with Orthodoxy. My question now is does the Patriarch have a cental seat, like the Pope, say in Constantinople? And if so what will happen when Constantinople is conquered by the Turks? Will it move to the next strongest Orthodox country?
Did Catholic Europe really dislike the Orthodox church as much as Islam?
Not at all, Moslems were seen as the conquering enemy and constant threat and Orthodox Catholics were just seen as odd, a nuisance but not an enemy let alone the, mostly they didnt care about or even think about it at all. But it was counted as schismatic not heretical, meaning part of the united christendom, but not the same. Great Alliances and actions were taken to protect against the turk, on the whole no one cared about the east, especially after Constantinople fell.
Paradox Mechanics represent this with the Religion Groups so CBs and relationship hits arent the same. Often Orthodox is excluded from the heretic CB and etcs as well as they dont make sense for it.
I'd like to ask PI to rethink this piety=less technological progress thing. It doesn't make sense, nor is it logical. It's a system without justification in history, logics or plausibility. It's there to be there.
religiousness does not necessarily hinder science.You are saying that secularism doesn't fuel science?
religiousness does not necessarily hinder science.
You are saying that secularism doesn't fuel science?