Study Says Videogames "Problematize" Religion as Violent

[Blunderboy]

The worst offender is a little known series started in the 11th Century called The Crusades [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_crusades].
The development time made Valve look speedy though. They took nearly 100 years to produce the sequels.

 

[JasonKaotic]

Religion spurring [http://www.evilbible.com/Evil%20Bible%20Quotes.htm] wars, general [http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm] violence and other [http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm] horrible things? How [http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm]could video game developers possibly think that?! [http://www.evilbible.com/Ritual_Human_Sacrifice.htm]

It's [http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&safe=off&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=crusades&psj=1&oq=crusades&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=364l1441l0l1554l10l9l1l1l1l0l133l579l5.2l7l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=de780500abb25caa&biw=1024&bih=653] impossible! [https://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=Westborough+Baptist+Church]

 

[Frostbyte666]

He has a point about videogame plot though I find a lot of less extreme (sometimes) parallels in real life religions anyway and I find it incredibly satisfying killing god. Reason for that is I find any god-like entity an affront to free will. I still hate hearing bible readings with some qoutes pretty much saying worship me or when you die suffer eternally in a fiery hell, the other I hate is at weddings where the priest says God fills you with love to love one another (I don't need someone 'allowing' me and deciding for me who to love, I can decide for myself). Anyway must stop bashing religion but if religious leaders do get worked up about this then I just think don't you have some real world problems to sort out?

Still religion makes a good plot device for conflict hence why it is used so frequently for plot. Though I wonder why he didn't mention darksiders where a few angels actually caused the end times because they wanted to restart the eternal war and demons merely took advantage of it.

 

[Hawk of Battle]

I'm more insulted by his selection of games here. What about GoW, where you kill the entire greek pantheon? DMC4, with its brainwashed zealots? Bayonetta, where you fight god at the end? I seem to recall Breath of Fire 3 had a war which was ordained by god to kill all the dragons. And of course, FFX, with its evil Yevonite religion that is also the primary government who've been hiding the truth from everyone for 1000 years.

But instead, this guy picks Mass Effect and a game SET DURING THE CRUSADES? Of course there's going to be religious conflict in AC, that's the entire setting. I dunno where he gets it from ME though. FF13 didn't have much to do with religion either, yeah there were powerful godlike beings, but nobody really worshipped them.

 

[Darkmantle]

Funny how everyone is saying that religion is responsible for most of the violence in the World (This is true), but weren't Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot (to name a few) all atheists? Weren't they all responsible for millions of deaths? It's not just that they were atheists, but they all followed the doctrine of communism, which has significant elements of atheism in it.

Did World War 1 or 2 (Which both killed far, far more than all religious wars combined) have anything to do with religion?

Ah well, don't mind me. I've probably stirred up a shitstorm anyway.

I think the distinction is that people have killed in the name of Christianity. No one has killed in the name of atheism.

Like, there are atheists who have killed, but it wasn't because of their atheism. It was usually an extreme devotion to something else, like say communism.

 

[GoddyofAus]

Perhaps Games paint religion as violent because history shows that's exactly what they are? Just a thought.

 

[Azuaron]

I have not read the entirety of the modern English translations of the bible as used by the Anglican Church.

So you have zero credibility.

Also, why are you singling out Bibles used by the Anglican Church?

But please continue.

I have not read the Torah either. Nor the Qu'ran, nor Sruti of Hinduism, nor Svetambara of Jainism. Nor the Homeric Hyms of greek mythology, nor Dianetics of Scientology. All claim to have universal significance but none have a shred of evidence to convince me to read them. I read Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code and decided that was a waste of my time, so why bother with all those?

You claim that they claim universal significance, but if you haven't read them, how could you possibly even know that they claim universal significance in the first place? Homer's Iliad and The Odyssey actually don't. They weren't even claimed to be true by Homer or his contemporaries (in fact, my wife was telling me the other day about a competing version of the events in the Iliad written by a contemporary of Homer's where the Greeks lost).

Furthermore, any evidence they would offer to you as to their ultimate veracity would be discovered by reading them. Saying, "I haven't read them because they haven't given me any evidence to convince me," is like saying, "Well, I haven't really payed any attention during this trial and I slept through all the court proceedings, but that guy's totally guilty. Oh, it's a woman? Whatever, totally guilty."

Last things first.

I live in England. Anglicanism is the religion of the Church of England and the religion of our monarch. Logically I should follow this religion just like the member of an indigenous tribe is more open to the myths that the chief says than those passed on by visiting missionaries. That's just to address geographic priority.

You say I have zero claim to credibility, but why have you not read these other holy scriptures from around the world? You haven't got much claim.

I know enough about each of those religions that, just like the Christian Bible, all of those holy scriptures claim to be the universal truth. They are not a particular religion for a particular geographic region that excludes wherever you are from, they talk about YOU, in fact ALL of us. They pertain to your fate and place in the universe.

So, why have you not read the holy scriptures of Islam and followed the teachings? Arguably they are the most up-to-date version of Abrahamic religions incorporating Old Testament, New Testament AND the teachings of Prophet Muhammed. SO why have you not read the Qu'ran and why are you not then a practician Muslim? You weren't raised with one or the other, why did you choose the Christian bible?

Yes, Homeric Hymns are pushing it, but can you so easily dismiss the Book of Mormon? Or Hindu and Jainist scripture?

"Furthermore, any evidence they would offer to you as to their ultimate veracity would be discovered by reading them."

The same thing is said about all the other holy scriptures of different religions, so why haven't you read them? Anyway, people I trust have checked already. There is not a shred of evidence in any of those holy scriptures, it's all to be taken entirely on faith. It's pure circular logic. "the box is red because this sentence is true"

I just want to know why you believe the Christian Bible over all the other religions and their texts? Why should ANYONE follow the scriptures of Christianity over Hinduism, Islam, Jainism or even Scientology or any of the other religions?

Haha, I like how you just assume I haven't read any other religious texts despite knowing very little about me other than that I'm willing to read religious texts.

I believe Christianity over other religions because it's the most believable, both in its tenants and its creation. Believing in Christianity, for me, is like believing Columbus sailed across the Pacific or Genghis Khan invaded central Asia. The Bible is not merely a religious text, but a book of history, written by many different sources. Looking into the archeological and historical evidence for the resurrection, the least preposterous explanation is that Jesus died and was resurrected three days later.

When we look at other religious texts and their creation, what do we see?

Islam/Mormonism: One guy, alone, in a cave, writing philosophy.

Hinduism: Creation-myth focused religion with central tenants that claim the existence of creatures on Earth (e.g., rakshasa) that no one has ever found.

Jainism: One guy teaching a philosophy with a creation-myth focus with central tenants that have been disproven (the universe has always existed, Jainism has always been a religion, etc.).

Scientology: One science fiction writer who had previously publicly stated that he could make up a ridiculous religion and people would still follow it. Beyond that, you officially can't read Dianetics until you've given them thousands of dollars and advanced through their ranks which screams scam (Wikileaks put up the whole thing a while back, though). Also, I'm a psychologist, which basically makes me Satan in Scientology cosmology.

 

[deathbydeath]

*sigh* for some reason, religion/the order one of the two things Invisible war did right

 

[DutchAssassin8]

Some religious, right-wing fundamentalists say games are violent.
Some games say religion is violent.

It balances out i guess.

 

[mightybozz]

The sample size is statistically irrelevant. He needed to look at far more games to draw proper conclusions.

However, I think anecdotally he is probably correct. The first reason is probably that videogames had and indeed largely still do have a core nerd audience. This audience tends to be better educated, and this correlates with scepticism about religious dogma. Note that I do not deny that there will be nerds with beliefs. Just that I doubt that there are many nerds who also faithfully refuse to eat meat on Fridays.

A second reason (and I would be grateful if someone could finish this thought for me ) would be to do with the essence of narratives in videogames, the player as a force etc.

A third reason: if the player character was particularly religious, you risk alienating some of your audience. It is harder to distance oneself from a main character whose beliefs and actions you disagree with than it is in an non-interactive medium. So to keep the player engaged, the character can't have too contraversial views.

Finally I would add that religion ISN'T always problematic. Many RPGs treat temples as places of healing and to pick up healing magic and stat bonuses through communion with the gods, as they largely were in Oblivion. That's superficial, but it doesn't say religion is destructive.

 

[Knight Templar]

Oblivion, really?
I don't see that one supporting his case all that strongly.

 

[RJ 17]

Could someone please explain how Mass Effect uses religion as a source of violence? Does the guy think that robots genetically altering an entire race and turning them into slaves is the foundation of a religion? Really can't say I see the connection there at all. The Reapers aren't religious figures...they're alien robot overlords that want to destroy everything, not be worshipped. I mean the only religious things I can think of in the ME series is Ashley stating that she's a Christian and Thane explaining why he prays to various gods before starting a mission.

Oblivion is kinda on the fence...technically you're not up against an entire religion, you're up against a creepy cult complete with matching robes, an insane leader, and a hideout inside a cave.

I'll give him Assassin's Creed and Castlevania (though I never played the latter, most Castlevania games haven't so much been a struggle against a religion as they've been against a struggle against a being that denies religion), never played FF13 so I can't say anything about it, but at least to my knowledge the only FFs that centered around the world's religion was 10 and Tactics.

I dunno, I'm not saying there aren't examples of what this MU student brought up, I just don't think it's nearly as widespread as he seems to be trying to make it.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

Who put all these egg shells on the thread floor. I'm afraid to say anything because someone might get offended.

I will say, games are just entertainment, maybe it's best to not read into it too much.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

Some religious, right-wing fundamentalists say games are violent.
Some games say religion is violent.

It balances out i guess.

Total win right here, so true.

 

[Porygon-2000]

Funny how everyone is saying that religion is responsible for most of the violence in the World (This is true), but weren't Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot (to name a few) all atheists? Weren't they all responsible for millions of deaths? It's not just that they were atheists, but they all followed the doctrine of communism, which has significant elements of atheism in it.

Did World War 1 or 2 (Which both killed far, far more than all religious wars combined) have anything to do with religion?

Ah well, don't mind me. I've probably stirred up a shitstorm anyway.

I think the distinction is that people have killed in the name of Christianity. No one has killed in the name of atheism.

Like, there are atheists who have killed, but it wasn't because of their atheism. It was usually an extreme devotion to something else, like say communism.

True, it is probably the case that Stalin, Pol Pot etc. did not, in fact, shout "For Atheism!" whilst doing what they did best, but the intent was there. In the case of Stalin, he actively tried to eradicate the Russian orthodoxy during his purges (except during the war, but that's another thing). Pol Pot, again, tried to destroy Cambodia's culture, its traditions and its religion.
No (sane) person would argue that it wasn't for any other reason, but these people pretty much tried to kill their gods through their followers.

People have killed, essenially, for Atheism. And getting bogged down in how overt the declaration is, or over semantics involving literal definitions, is not the best way to have an intelligent discussion on the matter.
(This last bit isn't actually meant for you, but to everyone else in the forum getting into "No True Scotsman" mode)

 

[Blind Sight]

Ah, I see your position much better, well the theory of skepticism/atheism really comes down to two words: "Prove it." In terms of academics I don't know anyone who suggests that they know there is no God because we understand things on an atomic level (in fact saying that last part of the sentence is just plain stupid, we don't fully understand plenty of reality). Of course there's also plenty of examples of people attempting to argue on the grounds you're presenting, but beyond the argument that 'we understand all this, there's still plenty left to understand, but we have found no evidence of god(s)' it's a pretty poor defensive point.

No atheist suggests that they KNOW there is no God. This is a very annoying misconception. Any self-proclaimed atheist that claims otherwise is only being hyperbolic for effect, in the same way that you would tell someone that you "know" that Santa doesn't exist, which you certainly don't know with complete certainty.

We only suggest that, since we "understand all this, even despite there still being plenty left to understand," having no evidence of god(s) thus far, it'd be wrong to suggest their existence when we've got a billion theories of our own that explain things just fine.

Especially since any perceived "evidence" for a god could just as easily be some law of nature we haven't grasped yet...It's all semantics. Anything outside our measurable universe is, by practical definition, outside of reality and thus illogical to speculate on. Everything in our own universe has, essentially without exception, followed pretty damn specific rules.

If someone tried to seriously argue that we live in the Matrix, and, when asked to provide evidence, only provides something like, "well you don't know everything yet! You can't say that we won't find evidence one day, ergo I have an equal logical footing as you!" you would be right to think him illogical.

Yeah my answer was a bit poorly worded, but you're right in the sense that it comes down to the lack of evidence suggesting that there is no god(s). Like I mentioned before, atheists are the negative of the burden of proof analysis, so it's not possible to prove '100% accurately' that there is no god, but the lack of evidence suggests that outcome. The problem is that some theists 'move the goal posts' to an extent as in your example and attempt to explain god(s) in horribly abstract, supernatural or metaphysical terms which really has no evidence for either side, it all just becomes blind theorizing.

 

[Simonoly]

It's as if video games represent religion in the exact same ways as films, books, television etc etc. Religion or should I say religious people in many many circumstances do either participate in or promote violence in the name of their religion. And video games should be portraying this as much as possible.

 

[Darkmantle]

Funny how everyone is saying that religion is responsible for most of the violence in the World (This is true), but weren't Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot (to name a few) all atheists? Weren't they all responsible for millions of deaths? It's not just that they were atheists, but they all followed the doctrine of communism, which has significant elements of atheism in it.

Did World War 1 or 2 (Which both killed far, far more than all religious wars combined) have anything to do with religion?

Ah well, don't mind me. I've probably stirred up a shitstorm anyway.

I think the distinction is that people have killed in the name of Christianity. No one has killed in the name of atheism.

Like, there are atheists who have killed, but it wasn't because of their atheism. It was usually an extreme devotion to something else, like say communism.

True, it is probably the case that Stalin, Pol Pot etc. did not, in fact, shout "For Atheism!" whilst doing what they did best, but the intent was there. In the case of Stalin, he actively tried to eradicate the Russian orthodoxy during his purges (except during the war, but that's another thing). Pol Pot, again, tried to destroy Cambodia's culture, its traditions and its religion.
No (sane) person would argue that it wasn't for any other reason, but these people pretty much tried to kill their gods through their followers.

People have killed, essenially, for Atheism. And getting bogged down in how overt the declaration is, or over semantics involving literal definitions, is not the best way to have an intelligent discussion on the matter.
(This last bit isn't actually meant for you, but to everyone else in the forum getting into "No True Scotsman" mode)

The intent was not there*! Intent implies that while they didn't say "for atheism!" they meant or thought "for atheism!" and they didn't. Stalin actively tried to kill the orthodoxy because communist thought at the time said that religion was part of the evil capitalist scheme and only served to keep the people down. They did it "for Communism!".

By your logic, Allan Legere is a raging atheist because he killed a priest. the failing of course comes when you realize he didn't do it based on atheism, he did it for something else. Not every decision is related to religion or atheism in that way.

 

[Abedeus]

He forgot SMT2 where you try to kill God. He'd have a field day with it.

Or Devil Survivor on NDS where you can give God the middle finger and rescue humanity with your own power, not siding with either him or the evil forces.

 

[Magnalian]

Nice to see it's the other way around for a change

Also, he missed a pretty big one: the Halo series. I mean the whole reason the Covenant are fighting the humans and want to light the Halo rings is that they believe that's the way to heaven.