Europa Universalis IV Developer diary 8 - With God on Your Side?

[Red_warning]

You do realise that science in Europe really started flourishing as the church loosened its grip on the various European states? And to claim that the only universities during this period were funded by the church is simply wrong, maybe the first universities were of religious background but that didn't apply to most universities after the 15th century. It's also during the late renaissance and the European enlightenment, marked by a steady decline in religiosity in Europe, where people dared challenging religious dogma without being at risk of being imprisoned for eg suggesting that the sun is in the centre of the solar system.

"You could even say Secularism is even worse for science" now I think I've heard everything... a state can be both secular and take a stance on supporting scientific truths. Secularism just means that a state separates religion and government.

 

[Orinsul]

And now if you get off your hobby-horse and saying i claimed what i did and back to the subject of the game mechanic, the topic of the thread, the point is, piety is lost by attacking your fellow moslems and gained by attacking heathens.
What i claimed was that the unity of christendom linked all the universities together, the same was true to a lesser extend in the arab world. As Religion both in game and in history is the definition of an international community, Turkish universities freely interacted with Egyptian but not Austrian universities as they were in the same international community as egypt but not with austria.
The Piety mechanic is gained for attacking those outside of that community and lost for attacking those inside it. So attacking inside of it, which would make the other princes less likely to allow their academics to work with yours, speeds up technology? and attacking outside of it, getting access to sources that are usually denied to your academics slows it down?
Thats the issue.

So thats saying, technological progress would go faster in game when you have isolated your nation from its friends and cut off your universities from those in friendly countries.
And Slower when you conquer foreign lands and would expect to be getting access to information and sources formerly held by heathens so out of reach of your academics.

It doesnt make sense that isolating your academics would make them more efficient or that bringing more ideas from foreign lands would slow them down. And as far as i can see it, thats what the mechanic does. Unless theres something that hasnt been mentioned that cancels it out, but that seems to be what the DD is saying.
From how Piety is said to be gained, its backwards.
As it penalising technology-wise those who gain access to new information and rewards those who isolated themselves from the great community.
While it may work as a game balance mechanic [although im not so sure myself] it really doesnt work on plausibility or story grounds.
As without a doubt, isolation hinders and new information invigorates not the other way around.

So it just seems broken. Atleast to those of us who only have the DD information to go on.

 

[Red_warning]

Don't go off-topic and them complain about me responding...

I have no opinion on the mechanic other than I think it makes sense that piety should decrease technological advancement. If 100 piety represents fundamentalism and a nation reaches this then scientific progress should suffer a severe punishment.

 

[Evie HJ]

I'm not sure whether the rise of new thoughts (eg, renaissance, humanism) is an EFFECT of diminishing church influence, or a CAUSE (especially via reformation) of diminishing church influence. The later honestly seems more logical to me.

Actually, that would make a great deal of sense to me. Instead of having piety prevent you from researching, which is eminently questoinable (and no, I don't think it make sense to associate piety with fundamentalism, especially the modern sort), it should be the other way - focusing too much on tech research costs you piety (because you are seen as too interested in mundane things and new ideas rather than in spiritual thought and faith).

Thus high tech and high piety would still be hard to get, but instead of a crippling cliché, it would be an active choice.

 

[Orinsul]

It has nothing to do with, what allows for scientific progress is primarily wealth, mostly from technology, agricultural civilisation has been around some 14 thousand years and yet the iron age didnt reach britain until just 1000 years before christ and here just three thousand years later people have gone to the moon, not british people but still the point is, technological progress was deathly slow and now its lightening fast.
Thats not because modern politics is more supportive of science than prehistorical politics, but because technological advances allows for more advance. You cant invent something if youre struggling just to survive basically. As agriculture gets better a smaller percent of the population have to be farmers to support the rest, so you can afford to invest man hours into things like science. The more you have the more you can make, religion v. secularisation has nothing to do with, investment in advance requires you be advanced enough to be able to invest in science, education, etc without running out of food and then the more science you have and the more education you have the easier it is to reach the next step as you have more to work with.
This is already represented in the game as as the game goes on [atleast in EU3] advances come quicker near the end of the game as you have more income to spend on them. And i assume the same will be true in this one with the new system of technology as its a game and thats how games work.
For more flavour/detail in it you could have it so things like the rise of capitalism, urbanisation and that sort of stuff gave minor modifiers for technological growth to represent more efficient production of wealth going into investment, balanced by revolt risk or something, and decisions once nationalism comes along to open or close universities for foreigners giving faster progress or more control/less spread or that sort of thing but not really on topic or important just a momentary thought.
Anyway point is, science is the result of science and the result of wealth. And a religious or a secular society are on equal standing as long as they have the time and the minds for it.

The things that speed up 'progress' on a smaller scale are those represented by this mechanic. Co-operation with other academics and a wide and diverse range of sources of information.

The Piety mechanic proposed in this DD puts forward than technology ought increase when those two things are cut off. Which is why half the thread is about it.
It could be to represent a Pious Sultan putting all his money in artworks instead of funding academics, but really those working directly for the sultan would be in a minority, so the loss of funding from the sultan would be no means cancel out the loss of support from abroad as your countries behaviour drives the contempt of your fellows against those tarred with its brush. Fundamentalism of the modern anti-science sort didnt exist until well after the game is over so itd be surprising if it represented that and on the scale of its effects even if it had it still wouldnt hold, as as said, the lack of it wouldnt cancel out the isolation.
But no matter which way you spin it, it just doesnt make sense.

Tyrannical rulers might slow it, as they might try and prevent foreign scholars or ideas entering their realms or their own leaving it, but thats not really under the remit of this mechanic as a tyrannical ruler would be just as like to attack heathens as brothers so who knows, and a superstitious ignorant ruler who hated science would most like hate religious learning and anything else that came from books too.
But once again, everything is not from the monarch or account of him. Especially in an age where absolutism was just developing and rulers couldnt really control a country they way they can today, so i cant see how a rulers personal standing could overrule that of his nation for attacking everyone.

If all high piety was a penalty itd just seem a good mechanic for encouraging the AI to drive moslems to mostly fight with moslems to try and keep things in historical lines as there wasnt much expansion for most the era. But as technology is really the only thing that suffers, it might be a mechanic to keep them backwards balancewise?
Maybe the moslem part of the world has alot more provinces or population compared to europe so its a way of handcapping them for balance purposes while still giving the human player a way around it?

 

[Sylentwolf8]

Good to see these changes, honestly I found religion boring in EU3 but this should definitely add some depth.

 

[Mamluk]

You are saying that secularism doesn't fuel science?

It definitely does but just making it apply to Muslims implies that only Muslim fundamentalism is an obstacle to scientific progress when in reality we all know that religious fundamentalism as a whole is an obstacle to scientific progress.

Don't go off-topic and them complain about me responding...

I have no opinion on the mechanic other than I think it makes sense that piety should decrease technological advancement. If 100 piety represents fundamentalism and a nation reaches this then scientific progress should suffer a severe punishment.

I'm not against the actual system, I just want it to apply to all religions.

 

[Dankysh]

I'm not against the actual system, I just want it to apply to all religions.

That's a fair request but I wonder, could it not just be a balance mechanic? It is a game after all, and gameplay is more important than complete historical accuracy (for me anyway - and to a point).

 

[Mamluk]

It most likely is but I'm sure there are other ways of balancing it, if that's not the case they should try to find a better name for it at least.

 

[Closet Skeleton]

You do realise that science in Europe really started flourishing as the church loosened its grip on the various European states? And to claim that the only universities during this period were funded by the church is simply wrong, maybe the first universities were of religious background but that didn't apply to most universities after the 15th century. It's also during the late renaissance and the European enlightenment, marked by a steady decline in religiosity in Europe, where people dared challenging religious dogma without being at risk of being imprisoned for eg suggesting that the sun is in the centre of the solar system.

You're just repeating an ancient myth.

Nobody got imprisoned by the church for suggesting that the sun was the centre of the solar system. Copernicus was a clergyman who was given a letter of congratulation by a very interested Pope. Galileo was locked up for being politically insensitive and insulting the wrong people. He was never tried for his ideas.

By repeating these stupid myths you're being anti-science. Science is based on evidence, not stupid myths made up by 200 hundred years dead guys with persecution complexes. Anti-intellectualism and anti-clericalism are based on pretty similar emotions. No one is smarter by hating the clergy and pretending intellectuals were persecuted when they weren't. They're the same as someone who hates intellectuals and pretends clergymen are all like him but with even more hypocrisy.

This game also has to represent groups like the English Round heads who were real reformers who were pioneering what would evolve into modern European democracy but also wanted to increase religious control over the lives of the people. In many ways the reformation was about increased religious fervour in Europe.

 

[AdkEric]

You're just repeating an ancient myth.

Nobody got imprisoned by the church for suggesting that the sun was the centre of the solar system. Copernicus was a clergyman who was given a letter of congratulation by a very interested Pope. Galileo was locked up for being politically insensitive and insulting the wrong people. He was never tried for his ideas.

By repeating these stupid myths you're being anti-science. Science is based on evidence, not stupid myths made up by 200 hundred years dead guys with persecution complexes. Anti-intellectualism and anti-clericalism are based on pretty similar emotions. No one is smarter by hating the clergy and pretending intellectuals were persecuted when they weren't. They're the same as someone who hates intellectuals and pretends clergymen are all like him but with even more hypocrisy.

This game also has to represent groups like the English Round heads who were real reformers who were pioneering what would evolve into modern European democracy but also wanted to increase religious control over the lives of the people. In many ways the reformation was about increased religious fervour in Europe.

These are myths taught in many schools in modern times and that some in the field of science who we see on TV (ie Neil De Grasse Tyson & Stephen Hawking) often adhere to and preach.

Religion isn't necessarily anti-science and science isn't necessarily anti-religion. They are not as mutually exclusive as so many believe these days. Most secularists (a growing portion of our population) lean heavily towards believing this is true when it isn't, often misinterpreting, ignoring, or imagining historical evidence to support their beliefs.

Thank you for your post.

 

[Red_warning]

It has nothing to do with, what allows for scientific progress is primarily wealth [snip]

Yes, wealth. The church required lots of it. Every person living in a catholic country paid a tenth, all of it to pay for not so useful (although beautiful) things like various architectural projects and the enormous bureaucracy that involved the church. In terms of scientific gain (or good for the peasantry), for involving at least 10 % of the GDP (it was more since the church also owned huge amounts of land) of the catholic world, the gain was very meagre. And then when peasants no longer were required to pay these taxes to the church but instead to a less "pious" government, scientific progress seems to increase by an incredible amount. At least in my country there wasn't much science done during the catholic era, and the state and church often competed for power. Then when the matter finally seemed settled after the protestant reformation (no more money for corrupt Rome), numerous universities were found and the natural sciences flourished. The reformation had weakened the church's grip all over Europe and the fruit would be the enlightenment, which is seen by many as a final showdown between the clergy and more outspoken members of the scientific community. The leadership of the countries that were involved in the enlightenment tolerated these non-orthodox thoughts and the European enlightenment would later give birth to the industrial revolution, and from there secularism marks most of the developed world.

So to say that secularism has nothing to do with scientific progressiveness I think you must be ignorant about how often scientists of their time were struggling with the clergy, which often were upset that their discoveries conflicted with their "pious" world view. It may be that early on most of science came through the church, probably because the state at this time was relatively weak, but as I have pointed out the real scientific gain is found in less "pious" societies where people could be more outspoken without fear of the church and clergy.

 

[Red_warning]

You're just repeating an ancient myth.

Nobody got imprisoned by the church for suggesting that the sun was the centre of the solar system. Copernicus was a clergyman who was given a letter of congratulation by a very interested Pope. Galileo was locked up for being politically insensitive and insulting the wrong people. He was never tried for his ideas.

By repeating these stupid myths you're being anti-science. Science is based on evidence, not stupid myths made up by 200 hundred years dead guys with persecution complexes. Anti-intellectualism and anti-clericalism are based on pretty similar emotions. No one is smarter by hating the clergy and pretending intellectuals were persecuted when they weren't. They're the same as someone who hates intellectuals and pretends clergymen are all like him but with even more hypocrisy.

This game also has to represent groups like the English Round heads who were real reformers who were pioneering what would evolve into modern European democracy but also wanted to increase religious control over the lives of the people. In many ways the reformation was about increased religious fervour in Europe.

Says you, I've never heard such a thing and was indeed taught this in school. So scientifically speaking, you are the one with the new theory here who should prove to me that I'm wrong, preferably with a written source.

 

[Grubnessul]

Yes, wealth. The church required lots of it. Every person living in a catholic country paid a tenth, all of it to pay for not so useful (although beautiful) things like various architectural projects and the enormous bureaucracy that involved the church. In terms of scientific gain (or good for the peasantry), for involving at least 10 % of the GDP (it was more since the church also owned huge amounts of land) of the catholic world, the gain was very meagre. And then when peasants no longer were required to pay these taxes to the church but instead to a less "pious" government, scientific progress seems to increase by an incredible amount. At least in my country there wasn't much science done during the catholic era, and the state and church often competed for power. Then when the matter finally seemed settled after the protestant reformation (no more money for corrupt Rome), numerous universities were found and the natural sciences flourished. The reformation had weakened the church's grip all over Europe and the fruit would be the enlightenment, which is seen by many as a final showdown between the clergy and more outspoken members of the scientific community. The leadership of the countries that were involved in the enlightenment tolerated these non-orthodox thoughts and the European enlightenment would later give birth to the industrial revolution, and from there secularism marks most of the developed world.

So to say that secularism has nothing to do with scientific progressiveness I think you must be ignorant about how often scientists of their time were struggling with the clergy, which often were upset that their discoveries conflicted with their "pious" world view. It may be that early on most of science came through the church, probably because the state at this time was relatively weak, but as I have pointed out the real scientific gain is found in less "pious" societies where people could be more outspoken without fear of the church and clergy.

Most pre-Renaissance science was conducted by the clergy. Secondly, you seem to assume some kind of state-sponsored science? That's a very recent development. Most science was conduct by people who did it beside their ordinary job.

 

[Fishman786]

That's a fair request but I wonder, could it not just be a balance mechanic? It is a game after all, and gameplay is more important than complete historical accuracy (for me anyway - and to a point).

I don't think it's a balance mechanic, I think it's a case of Paradox wanting to have a fun unique gameplay feature for the Muslim countries. After all, symmetrical gameplay is boring.

 

[Warlord Skorr]

You're just repeating an ancient myth.

Nobody got imprisoned by the church for suggesting that the sun was the centre of the solar system. Copernicus was a clergyman who was given a letter of congratulation by a very interested Pope. Galileo was locked up for being politically insensitive and insulting the wrong people. He was never tried for his ideas.

By repeating these stupid myths you're being anti-science. Science is based on evidence, not stupid myths made up by 200 hundred years dead guys with persecution complexes. Anti-intellectualism and anti-clericalism are based on pretty similar emotions. No one is smarter by hating the clergy and pretending intellectuals were persecuted when they weren't. They're the same as someone who hates intellectuals and pretends clergymen are all like him but with even more hypocrisy.

You know what's even worse than that person? A person who pontificates on the moral inferiority of people repeating the truth.

By the grace of God, Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, and especially commissioned by the Holy Apostolic See as Inquisitors-General against heretical depravity in all of Christendom.

Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were denounced to this Holy Office in 1615 for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the sun is the center of the world and motionless and the earth moves even with diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; for being in correspondence with some German mathematicians about it; for having published some letters entitiled On Sunspots, in which you explained the same doctrine as true; for interpreting Holy Scripture according to your own meaning in response to objections based on Scripture which were sometimes made to you; and whereas later we received a copy of an essay in the form of a letter, which was said to have been written by you to a former disciple of yours and which in accordance with Copernicus's position contains various propositions against the authority and true meaning of Holy Scripture;

And whereas this Holy Tribunal wanted remedy the disorder and the harm which derived from it and which was growing to the detriment of the Holy Faith, by order of His Holiness and the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lord Cardinals of this Supreme and Univesal Inquisition, the Assessor Theologians assessed the two propositions of the sun's stability and the earth's motions as follows:

That the sun is the center of the world and motionless is a proposition which is philosophically absurd and false, and formally heretical, for being explicitly contrary to Holy Scripture;

That the earth is neither the center of the world nor motionless but moves even with diurnal motion is philosophically equally absurd and false, and theologically at least erroneous in the Faith.

Whereas however we wanted to treat you with benignity at that time, it was decided at the Holy Congregation held in the presence of His Holiness on 25 Feb 1616 that the Most Eminent Lord Cardinal Bellarmine would order you to abandon this false opinion completely; that if you refused to do this, the Commissary of the Holy Office would give you an injunction to abandon this doctrine, not to teach it to others, not to defend it, and not to treat of it; and that if you did not acquiesce in this injunction, you should be imprisoned. To execute this decision, the following day at the palace of and in the presence of the above-mentioned Most Eminent Lord Cardinal Bellarmine, after beine informed and warned in a friendly way by the same Lord Cardinal, you were given an injunction by the then Father Commissary of the Holy Office in the presence of a notary and witnesses to the effect that you must completely abandon the said false opinion, and that in the future you could neither hold, nor defend, nor teach it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing; having promised to obey, you were dismissed.

Furthermore, in order to completely eliminate such a pernicious doctrine, and not let it creep any further to the great detriment of Catholic truth, the Holy Congregation of the Index issued a decree which prohibited books treating of sucy a doctrine and declared it false and wholly contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture.
...
Therefore, having seen and seriously considered the merits of your case, together with the above-mentioned confessions and excuses and with any other reasonable matter worth seeing and considering, we have come to the final sentence against you given below.

Therefore, invoking the most Holy name of Our Lord Jesus Christ and his most glorious Mother, ever Virgin Mary; and sitting as a tribunal, with the advice and counsel of the Reverend Masters of Sacred Theology and the Doctors of both laws, our consultants; in this writen opinion we pronounce final judgment on the case pending before us between the Magnificent Carlo Sinceri, Doctor of both laws, and Prosecuting Attorney of this Holy Office, on one side, and you the above-mentioned Galileo Galilei, the culprit here present, examined, tried, and confessed as above, on the other side:

We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the above-mentioned Galileo, because of the things deduced in the trial and confessed by you as above, have rendered yourself according to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely of having held and believed a doctine which is false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture: that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west, and the earth moves and is not the center of the world, and that one may hold and defend as probable an opinion after it has been declared and defined contrary to Holy Scripture. Consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated by the sacred canons and all particular and general laws against such delinquents. We are willing to absolve you from them provided that first, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, in front of us you abjure, curse, and detest the above-mentioned errors and heresies, and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, in the manner and form we will prescribe to you.

Furthermore, so that this serious and pernicious error and transgression of yours does not remain completely unpunished, and so that you will be more cautious in the future and an example for others to abstain from similar crimes, we order that the book Dialogue by Galileo Galilei be prohibited by public edict.

We condemn you to formal imprisonment in this Holy Office at our pleasure. As a salutary penance we impose on you to recite the seven penitential Psalms once a week for the next three years. And we reserve the authority to moderate, change, or condone wholly or in part the above-mentioned penalties and penances.

This we say, pronounce, sentence, declare, order, and reserve by this or any other better manner or form that we reasonably can or shall think of.

That is the sentence of the Inquisition at Galileo's trial in 1633. Care to admit to your hypocrisy?

 

[Red_warning]

Most pre-Renaissance science was conducted by the clergy. Secondly, you seem to assume some kind of state-sponsored science? That's a very recent development. Most science was conduct by people who did it beside their ordinary job.

My knowledge is lacking about other areas in Europe, but in Sweden (which was my example) universities has been state funded since Gustav I Vasa's ascension to the throne. It's around this time that state and science would become more connected and while increasingly disconnected from the church (increased secularism). And yes I do admit that most science was conducted by the clergy pre-Renaissance, probably because it was the only place where you'd find people capable of reading.

Edit: had the timeline slightly wrong, Our first university was built before Vasa's time but universities would be state funded during his dynasty's rule and forward.

 

[Atlanteax]

The Piety scale/model (maybe reword it to Zeal / Secularism ? Otherwise I'd say "Faith" is a good alternative as well) is apparently designed to 'represent' how...

a) in Europe there was a strengthening trend of the separation of Church & State, which led to the Renaissance and the Industrial revolution
b) in the Middle East, Church & State remained intertwined and 'was a reason why' technological advancement for Muslim nations, originally leading the Europeans, to fall significantly behind Europeans.

My thought is that the Muslim world (in the EU timeframe) will start off heavily faith-focused, and it will be predominantly up to the player to scale it towards secularism if desiring significant technological advancement.

 

[Mamluk]

Then why don't we have the whole piety system as the basis (the main factor) behind scientific development then rather than basing it on race/religion/culture (which by the way can be deemed as quite offensive by some).

More tolerance = Higher rate of scientific development
Fanaticism = Lower rate of scientific development

And of course this would apply to all states.

 

[Atlanteax]

We don't because Europe was in full transition of "more tolerance" with essentially no exceptions ... while in the Muslim world, there was a broad struggle between "more tolerance" and "fanaticism" with the later dominating.