RE: Origin of Language
February 22, 2018 at 4:38 pm
(This post was last modified: February 22, 2018 at 4:57 pm by JMT.)
(February 22, 2018 at 4:25 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: You mentioned Dawkins and Hitchens - you're aware they disagreed on some things in philosophy/morality/politics, right? How could you conclude that their thoughts were representative when they even disagree with each other?
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.
(February 22, 2018 at 4:35 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: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.(February 22, 2018 at 4:29 pm)JMT Wrote: "Evolutionism" is explained here, it is broad, but in general it is a worldview...
https://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/evolutionism.htm
Yes, I am reading that article on Wiki on "Origin of language" in between posts. I'm familiar with some of this material. All of the explanations come from evolution. In other words, evolution is giving the framework for the attempted answers, which is admitted on all hands, to be a very difficult problem.
You realize that site you linked is an incredibly biased, very christian-stilted site, right? The site is run by an organization called "AllAboutGOD." It's an unbelievably biased website to take your idea of "evolutionism" from, especially when they can't even get right what theory of evolution states. They cite NO sources when describing evolution, and describe it entirely dishonestly trying to lead the reader towards their pre-conceived conclusion.
Sorry dude, this website would be laughed out of any scholarly writing class at any level. You need to find better sources for your ideas. if you can't see how biased and dishonest that site is, then I really don't know how to engage with you. Read about evolution with sources written by people who study evolution, not creationist crackpots. You wouldn't read about calculus in a book written by a 2-year old, you wouldn't try to learn to be a dermatologist with books by a coal miner. Choose better sources.
"Evolutionism" as a term is almost exclusively used by creationists to smear science. Scientists don't use it, philosophers don't use it. It's only used as a disparaging word to warp a scientific theory into a worldview, so they can argue dishonestly against a straw man.
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.
(February 22, 2018 at 4:29 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: 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!!
