Yet There Is Method In It

“Functional Conclusion 1: The male nipple serves no functional purpose, but the nipple exists, or begins its existence when we are gender-neutral and therefore for the male is only a reminder of when it indeed was functional.”

No problem there – men have nipples because almost(?) all mammals have nipples. Well its not an explanation but it is easier to answer “Why do mammals have nipples?”

“Functional Conclusion 2 & 3: Clothes and Food serve functional purposes.” (you are emphasizing usefulness for humans)

“Functional Conclusion 4: Swearing served a variety of functional purposes…” (2nd)

“Functional Conclusion 5:…” “…functionality supersedes aesthetics.” (3rd time)

This is a very human centric view of the existence of (admittedly human) observed phenomena. For a deserted island somewhere, this does not have any obvious purpose.  Could you provide more thoughts on this?

“An interesting response, if not somewhat disheartening.”  yeah sorry about that!

“To the Iban society, religion is an integral functional part of the whole.” … I agree with that. I guess I am trying to say religion was formerly integral to other societies but they have become secular over time. When you say “collapse of society” I think it might be a “significant change in society”. Take Ireland for example:

In the 1970s, more than 90% of Irish Catholics said they went to Mass once a week. Now the number is 44%, according to a recent survey.  LA Times

There has been a massive change in life style but not what I would call a collapse. Ireland life in the 1920s (my history is a bit vague) was strongly tied to religion. Is it possible you can think of example of a society collapse due to loss of religion?

“I would guess practise the triple-religion of Buddhism, Taoism and Confucuianism [sic - first time I ever wrote one of those!].” Taoism is polytheistic? Buddhism promotes spirituality over “worldly life” so would be incompatible with Atheism – but I am not sure what exact question was used in the survey. Confucuianism probably is not a religion but is a belief system which might come under functionalism theory. I am not sure what I think about that right now…

“Vietnam the majority of the population practise ancestor worship, irrespective of their religious adherence, how do we balance that with the notion of the state being atheist?”

I agree this is not really religous belief and I am not considering it right now. We can start a separate discussion on non-religious belief changes affecting society? Perhaps later…

“As of Sweden, 75% adhere to the Church of Sweden…”

According to Norris and Inglehart (2004), 64% of those in Sweden do not believe in God. According to Bondeson (2003), 74% of Swedes said that they did not believe in “a personal God.” According to Greeley (2003), 46% of Swedes do not believe in God, although only 17% self-identify as “atheist.” According to Froese (2001), 69% of Swedes are either atheist or agnostic. According to Gustafsoon and Pettersson (2000), 82% of Swedes do not believe in a “personal God.” According to Davie (1999), 85% of Swedes do not believe in God. ref

Most surveys point to a majority non-theistic belief in Sweden. Regardless of these two countries, the fact is there are some societies which have changed from religious to secular and they still manage to get by.

“I would propose that we carefully consider the terminology behind the statistics.” Details, details….

“Many of those who would be described as irreligious would still hold some form of spiritual belief or superstition”. This is just bogging down the discussion! You were saying relgion which is deeply integrated into society is necessary to prevent collapse. Vague beliefs or superstitions don’t fall into this category of capable of societal collapse.

“…hardly a resounding victory for the Dawkins appreciation society.” I will grant that most people, including scientists, have weird beliefs.

“But is dechristianization the same as atheism?” I don’t think the impact of this resurgent mix of spirituality is that significant for the maintenance of the integrity of society. Except for perhaps Princess Diana worship…*I prepare to get shot at by somone*

“who said anything about truth?” You have a point that it fulfils some need but at the price of the truth? Thats too high in my opinion. Remember your comment if we come to debate the positive and negative impact of religion… We got to watch Inherit the Wind some time. Or perhaps you have seen it?

“…the religious collapse you talk about is in reality only the collapse of organised or institutional religion.” Thats an interesting distinction which I had not considered. I will think about it some…

On functionalism generally, guess who had something to say (paraphased by me):

The psychological explanation: to extract something familiar from something unknown relieves, comforts, and satisfies us, besides giving us a feeling of power. … First principle: any explanation is better than none. … We use the feeling of pleasure (“of strength”) as our criterion for truth.

The “why?” shall, if at all possible, result not in identifying the cause for its own sake, but in identifying a cause that is comforting, liberating, and relieving. A second consequence of this need is that we identify as a cause something already familiar or experienced, something already inscribed in memory. … Result: one type of causal explanation predominates more and more, is concentrated into a system and finally emerges as dominant — that is, as simply precluding other causes and explanations. N

I thought about leaving the quote there as its probably antagonised you enough.. but I better let Nietzsche finish off digging his hole:

The whole realm of morality and religion belongs in this category of imaginary causes or “explanations” for disagreeable feelings. N

Update: I just read on to these comments:

“By proposing this argument are you not making a moral observation? Do you still believe in murder? Where does your belief in murder come from is it a social taboo?” Neitzsche would agree with you and call for the revaluation of all values. I would say murder can be based on humanistic thinking and does not rely on metaphysics. I need to expand my point when I have time…

“When religion completely ceases to exist then society equally will do so.” Aaahh now we get to what I call the core of your argument. You don’t think a secular society is viable? I again point to the figures for Sweden and other majority secular countries.

To be continued… (I ran out of time)

Anti Citizen One

Response to this.

PS Onion strikes again