Origin of Language

[JMT]

No matter what beliefs one may profess; atheist, agnostic, buddhist, there is no uniformity across the board to the adherent's views. I was looking for generalities, as I mentioned in several early posts. They might be representative in their broad frame of reference, but we'd have to know a lot more than we know in order to know that.

---

Ok, but let's not get all blown out of proportion. Don't like the word evolutionism. Ok, fine, evolutionary theory. But actually it is defined elsewhere as a social theory developed in the 19th century and developing into the 20th century in it's broadness of meaning.

http://www.anthrobase.com/Dic/eng/def/evolutionism.htm

https://www.encyclopedia.com/science-and...olutionism

But it really doesn't matter too much, because I was taught cosmic, chemical and biological evolution in the university. And there is no question that science purports that evolution is the hub of all the sciences[/. Anyone who denies this just hasn't taken or paid attention in to what is being taught in university level classes in the sciences. In other words, it's just a core belief that serves as an interpretive framework for evidences. I'm sorry you don't like the word I used, or the website, but it is a word. A word may enter and exit dictionaries based on commonality of usage in a language population.

I focused on the word because more or less the only people that use that word anymore have a skewed, incorrectly-defined view of what evolution means, and you sort of confirmed that by linking to a site that can't even get the definition of evolution right.  Unless you don't accept the definition given by that site, in which case I've no idea why you linked to it.


And you're right!  Words do enter and exit the lexicon...and "evolutionism" is currently a worthless term, outside of creationist circles.  Glad we agree there.

And I don't understand why you call the theory of evolution to be a "core belief".  It's not a value judgment or belief system or moral proclamation.  It's a model that currently best describes what we see in nature, and that model has been and is helpful in examining other parts of nature.  

Why are you focusing on evolution anyway?  Atheists are free to absolutely reject evolution (they'd be being utterly anti-scientific and irrational), and..once again...billions of Christians accept evolution as well.  So it's clearly not an a/theism problem.

Ok, it's a "core idea." Are you denying that?

Why did I use that site? I don't know, just typed in the word and it came up. Had no idea it was Christian. Obviously I'd heard the word. Where did I hear it? I have no idea. I've been around science and Christianity for decades.

And since belief or faith just means confidence or full assurance in something, it's not necessarily a "religious term" implying some value judgment. The FDIC had posted at my bank for years "(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.--In view of the findings and declarations contained in subsection (a), it is the sense of the Congress that it should reaffirm that deposits up to the statutorily prescribed amount in federally insured depository institutions are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States." I really don't think they're making a moral or value judgment or belief system statement there!

As I mentioned before, maybe I need to find an "evolution forum," since I'll get more help there for the questions I'm trying to answer. But now I'm kinda locked in for the day, if you know what I mean. LOL. I'm totally willing to move on though, from evolution....As a last word, which model of evolution best explains nature? They aren't in agreement on this...Is it gradualistic, is it catastrophic? Just sayin....

---

-ism just describes something as a philosophy or system. So I don't know why that's a big deal. Anyway, atheists use language, so I just wondered how they justified it began. I'll go introduce myself now. LOL

---

The main reason for language is that the human brains are capable of generating it and the human vocal cords are capable of producing it.  A lot of it has to do with abstract and symbolic thinking, again a capacity facilitated by brain structure.

There are many types of intraspecies communication seen throughout the animal kingdom, and even among humans there are non-linguistic communications in use, such as body language and paraverbal communication, such as the actual inflections used to convey different meanings with identical word combinations.  For example:

"I stole your lunch." (falling inflection, assertion of fact)
"I stole your lunch?" (rising inflection, expressing denial and incredulity)

I agree with all this. Well stated. I guess it just pushes the question back further, to why the human brain is structured for language and why the human vocal chords are as well. Why do we as an animal species have these particular structures? I think that's where I'm trying to get to, really. Interesting example with inflection. Good observation...

[SaStrike]

I'm new to the forum. My first post actually. I'm glad to be here, so "Hi, to all!" and I hope to have some fruitful discussion and learn more about what atheists think.  

What is the atheist explanation for the origin of language? Is it general, in the sense of selective pressure in an evolutionary worldview? Or is it more specific? Put another way, why and how did language begin?

God invented the whale noise language. Very powerful and emotional. Satan created English though.

[polymath257]

I'm new to the forum. My first post actually. I'm glad to be here, so "Hi, to all!" and I hope to have some fruitful discussion and learn more about what atheists think.  

What is the atheist explanation for the origin of language? Is it general, in the sense of selective pressure in an evolutionary worldview? Or is it more specific? Put another way, why and how did language begin?

As others have said, atheism has little or nothing to do with evolution. Also, evolution, in the technical sense, is limited to *biological* evolution. It is a matter of how species change over time.

As for language, quite a lot has been done with studies of communication in other animals. It is clear that other primates can use simply symbolic sounds to convey meaning. The main impediments are the structure of the throat (position of the hyoid bone, for example). There are many claims of chimps and bonobos using sign language effectively, including invention of new signs in novel situations.

So, perhaps the best place to start in understanding the evolution of language is to look at how other animals communicate and *can* communicate. Then look at when the relevant structures in the throat change enough to the human model to allow speech. I've seen various reports this change has happened as far back as some Homo erectus. It isn't easy because the hyoid bone isn't connected to other bones and the soft structures of the throat don't fossilize.

Next, look at the artistic and technical abilities of early humans. I saw a report a couple of days ago suggesting that many of the cave paintings seen across the world were put there because of the acoustic aspects of the caves, suggesting sounds were used for communication--speech. That would place some form of language as early as 70,000 years ago. The H. erectus evidence would push that back by a factor of 10.

Another tactic you can take is look at the available evidence for ancient languages. Quite a lot is known about linguistics for Mesopotamian and Mediterranean cultures and the basics for other language areas are being investigated actively. As far back as we have any records, all groups of humans had language and very different languages, at that.

[Angrboda]

I once saw a nature documentary in which a group of roughly a half dozen unrelated species of animals had learned to interpret each others signals of alarm. If that type of interspecies cooperation can develop, I see nothing improbable about primates developing a more and more complex set of signals, causing coevolution of brain structures which lend themselves to such practices.

[brewer]

[edit]
But it really doesn't matter too much, because I was taught cosmic, chemical and biological evolution in the university. And there is no question that science purports that evolution is the hub of all the sciences. Anyone who denies this just hasn't taken or paid attention in to what is being taught in university level classes in the sciences. In other words, it's just a core belief that serves as an interpretive framework for evidences. I'm sorry you don't like the word I used, or the website, but it is a word. A word may enter and exit dictionaries based on commonality of usage in a language population
[edit]

bold mine

Just out of curiosity what university did you attend? I ask because some of the ideas you're presenting sound pretty slanted. Was it a Christian university? If yes, then I doubt you were actually taught evolution correctly. 

You'd probably get along better is you stop attaching "ism" to evolution. 

-ism: a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement:

Evolution and atheist(s) have little to nothing to do with "ism".

[Whateverist]

I'm new to the forum. My first post actually. I'm glad to be here, so "Hi, to all!" and I hope to have some fruitful discussion and learn more about what atheists think.  

What is the atheist explanation for the origin of language? Is it general, in the sense of selective pressure in an evolutionary worldview? Or is it more specific? Put another way, why and how did language begin?

Fascinating question and one that interests me greatly. But for me I'm looking for a natural explanation along the lines of how did birds become capable of flight or why did whales and other mammals return to the sea.

I hope you don't find god-did-it a satisfying answer because to my mind that is no explanation at all. But I've only just read the OP so I'll just give you a thumbs up for the question and hope for the best.

---

The general assumption is that atheism, by denying God, implies naturalism, which dictates the answers you can derive.  However, Buddhists may deny God while at the same time endorsing a metaphysics that is incompatible with naturalism.  You can also have people who deny God, but not the supernatural.  So, no, atheism doesn't point to any specific worldview.  It's a generalization that atheists endorse naturalism, and in certain parts of the west, this may be largely true.  But it does not follow logically that an atheist necessarily believes other propositions such as naturalism.

Thanks for your kind and helpful reply. It sounds though, that we basically agree, as my early posts used the term "generally" to refer to the connection between atheism and evolution (which is not exactly the same as naturalism, but I'm not trying to be a punk). It's true that my generalization was localized to the West, so your point is very valid about the East. Thanks! This is a good post!!

I certainly subscribe to naturalism. To my mind, what characterizes your thinking is less about theism and more about supernaturalism. Why do you believe so strongly in that which cannot be detected?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Hypothesis:  The French invented language.

Test of Hypothesis:  Ask any Frenchman.  I dare you.

Boru

[JMT]

[edit]
But it really doesn't matter too much, because I was taught cosmic, chemical and biological evolution in the university. And there is no question that science purports that evolution is the hub of all the sciences. Anyone who denies this just hasn't taken or paid attention in to what is being taught in university level classes in the sciences. In other words, it's just a core belief that serves as an interpretive framework for evidences. I'm sorry you don't like the word I used, or the website, but it is a word. A word may enter and exit dictionaries based on commonality of usage in a language population
[edit]

bold mine

Just out of curiosity what university did you attend? I ask because some of the ideas you're presenting sound pretty slanted. Was it a Christian university? If yes, then I doubt you were actually taught evolution correctly. 

You'd probably get along better is you stop attaching "ism" to evolution. 

-ism: a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement:

Evolution and atheist(s) have little to nothing to do with "ism".

Texas Tech University

---

I'm new to the forum. My first post actually. I'm glad to be here, so "Hi, to all!" and I hope to have some fruitful discussion and learn more about what atheists think.  

What is the atheist explanation for the origin of language? Is it general, in the sense of selective pressure in an evolutionary worldview? Or is it more specific? Put another way, why and how did language begin?

Fascinating question and one that interests me greatly. But for me I'm looking for a natural explanation along the lines of how did birds become capable of flight or why did whales and other mammals return to the sea.

I hope you don't find god-did-it a satisfying answer because to my mind that is no explanation at all. But I've only just read the OP so I'll just give you a thumbs up for the question and hope for the best.

---

Thanks for your kind and helpful reply. It sounds though, that we basically agree, as my early posts used the term "generally" to refer to the connection between atheism and evolution (which is not exactly the same as naturalism, but I'm not trying to be a punk). It's true that my generalization was localized to the West, so your point is very valid about the East. Thanks! This is a good post!!

I certainly subscribe to naturalism. To my mind, what characterizes your thinking is less about theism and more about supernaturalism. Why do you believe so strongly in that which cannot be detected?

I don’t thing my thinking is more or less about theism. But to answer your question, I think it is obviously detectable, as detectable as reason and logic.

I also wonder why a supernatural explanation is rejected from the get go. If you only permit a natural explanation, that’s all you are bound to see. I’m saying it’s a narrow minded approach. I think every approach should be considered, and the occam’s razor answer heeded. Sometimes the simplest is the best. Certainly my plant taxonomistbprofessors emphasized this, but only in a naturalistic defense of reference.

Let me also address the statement that a god did it explanation is no explanation at all. Let’s say someone from an isolated tribe saw a computer at work. If he asks where it came from and you answered that men invented or built it, that would only tell you who. It wouldn’t tell you how. At the same time the answer men built them would be true. You could possibly go on and explain how, if you knew enough about the origin of computers. So, stating who doesn’t explain how, but it does identify a source.

[Whateverist]

I don’t thing my thinking is more or less about theism. But to answer your question, I think it is obviously detectable, as detectable as reason and logic.

I don't think that's true, I mean the part about the supernatural being as detectable as reason or logic. Reason and logic are things which we ourselves engage in so we know them first hand as such. But you think the supernatural is something altogether different and real apart from ourselves. So I ask you why, why do you believe such nonsense?

I also wonder why a supernatural explanation is rejected from the get go. If you only permit a natural explanation, that’s all you are bound to see. I’m saying it’s a narrow minded approach. I think every approach should be considered, and the occam’s razor answer heeded. Sometimes the simplest is the best. Certainly my plant taxonomistbprofessors emphasized this, but only in a naturalistic defense of reference.

If you're worried about what you can see forget about the supernatural, it is impervious to our senses supposedly.

But I'm no fan of Occam's razor. Anytime you're forced to rely on it, I say just admit you're not yet in position to know and leave it for tomorrow. But if you want to join in the guessing go right ahead.

Let me also address the statement that a god did it explanation is no explanation at all. Let’s say someone from an isolated tribe saw a computer at work. If he asks where it came from and you answered that men invented or built it, that would only tell you who. It wouldn’t tell you how. At the same time the answer men built them would be true. You could possibly go on and explain how, if you knew enough about the origin of computers. So, stating who doesn’t explain how, but it does identify a source.

To say a god did it is to say the answer is beyond us. Nothing more. A real explanation relates what is to be explained to other things we understand and can demonstrate. You cannot demonstrate the supernatural. To argue for the supernatural is to argue for your eternal infancy.

[JMT]

[quote="Whateverist" pid='1705834' dateline='1519355975']
[quote='JMT' pid='1705798' dateline='1519350721']
I don't think that's true, I mean the part about the supernatural being as detectable as reason or logic. Reason and logic are things which we ourselves engage in so we know them first hand as such. But you think the supernatural is something altogether different and real apart from ourselves. So I ask you why, why do you believe such nonsense?

I know you don’t think so. You’re an atheist. What I mean about reason and logic is they are not proven by empiricism. They are ideas that are not physical.

[quote='JMT' pid='1705798' dateline='1519350721']

If you're worried about what you can see forget about the supernatural, it is impervious to our senses supposedly.

If it’s supernatural, it would have obvious manifestation in the natural.

But I'm no fan of Occam's razor. Anytime you're forced to rely on it, I say just admit you're not yet in position to know and leave it for tomorrow. But if you want to join in the guessing go right ahead.

I just tried to see what you would say, but as you and I agree, simplest is not always correct.

[quote='JMT' pid='1705798' dateline='1519350721']

To say a god did it is to say the answer is beyond us. Nothing more. A real explanation relates what is to be explained to other things we understand and can demonstrate. You cannot demonstrate the supernatural. To argue for the supernatural is to argue for your eternal infancy.

LOL! I hope that makes you feel good about yourself. You should at least get something out of the dialogue. “Eternal infancy” LOL. Nice religious connotation

---

I’ve got to figure out this forum. Sorry for the cut up dialogue and messiness. Arghh....