RE: Origin of Language
February 22, 2018 at 9:52 pm
(This post was last modified: February 22, 2018 at 10:07 pm by JMT.)
(February 22, 2018 at 6:57 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:(February 22, 2018 at 4:38 pm)JMT Wrote: [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
(February 22, 2018 at 7:08 pm)Whateverist Wrote:(February 22, 2018 at 2:04 pm)JMT Wrote: 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.
(February 22, 2018 at 4:38 pm)JMT Wrote: 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.
