The Hidden Ideological Warning Of Far Cry 5

Far Cry 5 has been announced to a lot of controversy, some from Christian groups objecting to its portrayal of Christian cult leader Joseph Seed as the antagonist and his attacks on the surrounding populations in the fictional area of Hope County, Montana.  Realistically, Far Cry 5’s setting is an analogue and criticism of the dangers of Islam* rather than Christianity. 

The setting of the game puts the antagonist, Seed, in control of a large para-military force that has control of Hope Country.  His control of the area allows him to force the religious practices and rules of his cult onto the local population.  OK, so far so good.   However, there are no Christian terrorist groups that can claim control over swaths of land where they force religious subjugation.  However, there is the current example of ISIS that claim large parts of the middle east under their cult’s banner (Islam).  They operate a para-military force, follow a cult and they force strict adherence to the traditional Islamic values, persecuting non-believers and other religious sects.  Nice match to Seed’s vision.

What else?  Let us look at the setting synopsis of Far Cry 5 as described by Wikipedia; “…Seed is a radical preacher and Eden's Gate is a militaristic doomsday cult. Under his rule, Eden's Gate has used both coercion and violence to forcibly convert the residents of Hope County…”  Does that sound familiar?  It should do, it’s in line with a cogent interpretation of the Koran which ISIS follow.  It instructs on the conquest of non-believers and their forcible conversion to the values of Islam. 

Examples from the Koran to substantiate this comparison and assertion include;

4:89 “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…”

3:56 “As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony…”

9:29 Fight those who believe not in Allah [..] nor hold forbidden that which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth (Islam) …”

8:39 “And fight with them until there is no more fitna [unbelievers] and religion is all for Allah…”

47:3 “Those who disbelieve follow falsehood […] so when you meet those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond (enslave them) …”

You get the idea…

We must remember that we live in a post Charlie Hebdo world - with significant Islam apologists on the political left.  Far Cry 5 is a depiction of the explicit militant tenets of Islam, dressed in Christian clothing so to be palatable to a politically correct, western-civilization hating media and population.  

-----
Edit:  Now that Far Cry 5 is out, it appears to be a cracking good game.  As I expected, everyone is focusing any political discussion on its controversial take on "Trump's America" or "Christian middle-America".  This is still missing the point, as I explained in the post above, and shows just how mentally damaged we are in the west.  People miss that this is not a depiction, even hyper-realized, of Christianity but of Islam.  Or, as Douglas Murray would say, "we have internalized the Fatwa". 

-----

* Note on the terminology of Islam and Islamic groups

I will not use the term “modern Islam” in this article because it is a misnomer.  Islam is inherently an ancient cult, since it has not had a period of modern reformation and readjustment to modern / secular values (for example, in the way Christianity has).  Islam in its current state consists of only 3 groups (as viewed by those employing violence in the name of Islam itself):

1 “Extremists” who follow or tacitly condone the violence instructed in the Koran explicitly, who despite the label are surprisingly numerous world-wide.  

2 “Apostates” – these people call themselves Muslims, but would be viewed as non-believers by the extremists as they are not of the right sect and don’t follow the Koran’s teachings “properly”.  Ironically to outsiders, this group makes up the majority of victims of Islamic violence. 

3 “Non-believers” – essentially all other religions or secular people. Extremists don’t differentiate between groups 2 & 3 in how they apply violence to them.  

Decline of (the West) Christianity

The decline of religion in the West has come at the expense of community values, certainty over personal morals and a reduction in the harmony our shared ideology.  Worse, this vacuum has allowed a diverse but irrational and unproductive list of values to take hold in society.  This is causing down-stream political problems and confusing in-group / out-group behaviors. 

Religion has always been a tool, used both to accomplish good and bad outcomes.  Built into religion are essentially a pre-formed set of morals and values.  These are inferior to ones derived from intentional derivation from philosophical arguments.   This is most easily shown by their inability, in most religions to be re-assessed over time.  Side note -  this is not to underplay the renaissance and modernization of Western Christianity over the last few hundred years to give this exact, sorely needed evolution of its values.  

The study and product of philosophy (in the academic and Greco-Roman period sense) is precisely to produce morals and values that are logically deduced and able to be adapted to fit the world around you, including changing them over time as required. 

The idea presented by anti-theist philosophers like Nietzsche was to replace religion with intentional, logical philosophy discovery, not to simply discard it.  What has actually happened to most of the atheist community in the West is a reduction in the introspection and intentional creation of moral codes and values.  Instead, narcissism, ego, vapid pop-culture emulation and nihilism stemming from the post-modern school of thought has coalesced to produce new generations that are unable to think critically about philosophy or appreciate the history that has produced the Western world.  

The promotion of philosophy and logic are foremost in the fight back to re-energise and re-empower the collective consciousness of the West.  This can take place in academia, where social studies should not take primacy over formal, classical philosophy; and in everyday life, by people taking more time to critically evaluate their morals and values and pick up a philosophy book once in a while.  

In the meantime, we must remember that while often outdated, the values that underpin Christianity are indeed what has guided the Western world (which is the best society we have ever created, by the way, despite its flaws).  We should consider these values' relevance today, even if we personally are agnostic / atheist - and realize that we are more philosophically alike our Christian fellows, than not. 

What is science?

Have you ever heard an argument, between somebody speaking about religion and the other person speaking about science? Arguments like this are pointless, but not for the reason you might expect.

First of all, science and religion are not the opposite of each other. If they were opposites then many of history's greatest scientists would not have been religious. To name just a few of them: Copernicus, Galileo, Cantor, William of Ockham, al Khwazari, Newton, Mendel and so on. 

Today, scientists are more likely to be atheist than the general population. In the US for example the general population is 60 percent religious while scientists and university professors are only 15 percent religious. That there are any scientists that are religious is proof that you can be both! The fact that both are possible shows that there is a logical operation in play and a relationship of superposition similar to a Venn diagram.

Fig. 1: If I was a 4 year old,  and I wanted to draw a Venn diagram displaying all knowledge,  and by extension,  all scientific evidence for or against any theory, and all evidence yet to be discovered,  I am POSITIVE it would look like this, and be this messy.... 

Science is a process as well as an 'entity' or a set of facts and theories. Because of this, it is possible to follow a scientific process while having certain religious beliefs.

That process is called the scientific method. Look it up. It's actually a very intuitive process you follow most of your life. Science merely makes it mandatory - a kind of accreditation or standard that has to be adhered to if you expect your theories to be viewed with the same trust and credibility as anyone else's who follows the same method. The scientific method is really relevant to every day life as well as LHC experiments:

Theory > experiment > evidence > proof OR create new theory

The scientific method in more detail. Dig it. 

Think about something simple: how you find your keys - possibly if they are in a bag - seriously:

1 - Theory: my keys are in that bag.
2 - Experiment: check in the bag. 
3 - Evidence: you either see them in the bag or you don't*.
*Let's pretend its a small bag and it is brightly lit!
4a - Proof: you see the keys.  Hooray! You found them. 
4b - New theory: you don't see the keys; try the kitchen drawer next (1 again)...

The process repeats - eventually you find the keys but now you have to find your wallet, so you use the same process again!

Second, its important to realise that both studies (religious and scientific) are the same in how they are structured - notwithstanding science using the scientific method. Science is a set of  theories and facts contributed by many scientists, just the same as religious texts are compilations of religious theories by religious authors. The differences are in the relative sizes of their respective sets (see Venn diagram in fig.1).

To help us understand what's the relationship between then and the difference in their scale, let's define the words.

Religion; is a set of beliefs about the nature of the universe. A belief can also be a theory or an idea or an axiom.

These beliefs are usually codified into a book; for example, see the Bible, the Koran or the Veydas. This codification is very similar to the way science collects the evidence it gathers. The main difference is that scientific literature is constantly evolving, rather than fixed in its dogma but let's pass this for this discussion.

Science; is the systematic collection of knowledge gained by the testing of theories by verifying them using observed evidence.

Science is fundamentally a recorded theory system, the same as religion except in the crucial difference that it requires each proposed theory be proven or refuted, using evidence. Further, science is therefore the collection of all theories, true or false, with the distinction being that the false theories are marked as such, and not followed directly.

So as Aristotle said; all Greeks are men, but not all men are Greeks, so there is a difference between the scale of religion theory and scientific theory. Science, by its holistic nature encompasses all religious theories. Religious theory is a subset of theories within the wider scientific literature of all proposed and yet to be proposed theories about the universe. 

Where the scientific method finds a religious theory to be true the two will coexist happily without any problem. If a theory is found to be refutable then it will not be followed. This is where scientists may be pushed to become atheists, as they find religious theories and beliefs that they one had to be refuted and they are forced to turn away from them.

The small portion of scientists that are religious are those that have not found their religious beliefs refuted by their knowledge of science in the area that they are familiar in. Equally, a religion that can be proven true, by using the scientific method (evidence), would be completely comfortable existing alongside science and be followed by scientists.

If there is a point in this, its that any religion can be followed by anybody, barring harm to others (J S Mill), as people are free to choose a system of life that they like. 

What people with religious beliefs must do, if they want to introduce their beliefs to others as being true, is engage others on the same intellectual level - using the scientific method - to show that their beliefs are true, on the basis of facts and evidence.  

To fail to do this is to go from faith, to fantasy and fanaticism. If this happens then a debate is pointless and likely to only annoy,  go nowhere and cause more alienation between the parties.

Hubble Deep Field View

More important is a personal point. For me, science is a spiritual experience. I have a stronger affinity for and a feeling wonder when I study and discover new ideas in science. My spirit is strongest when I'm learning.

My mind is boggled by the fact that this is happening a million times, simultaneously, every day, all day, in my body and in everyone else's.

The mechanism by which tight DNA spirals uncurl and unzip, ready for  replication; watching a flower opening, preparing for pollination; and images of the early galaxies in our young universe, the most distant objects we could ever observe, all make me feel connected to the grand structure of the cosmos and our fragile existence in it.

REALLY ancient history... 

The colossal Carl Sagan put it profoundly and perfectly in these two quotes;

Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense.

The brain is like a muscle. When it is in use we feel very good. Understanding is joyous.

Go on. Exercise your brain.

Look up the scientific method. See if you already use it every day without even realising it, and thank you for reading.