Origin of Language

[JMT]

Well, I mean if you're looking for literally "what atheism is", then you don't need a book, it's way simpler than that.

There are tons of books written arguing against theism, why it's most likely untrue, why it's bad, etc etc.

There are books written for atheists who are just getting out of religion talking about ways to view the world now that you've gone through a huge ideological change, etc etc.

There are books about morality that refute the need for god in a philosophy of morality.

Lots and lots of different types of books written for different reasons by atheists with very different views, so it's hard to just recommend a book just "about atheism."  Can't say I've read Rosenberg's book though, so I'm afraid I can't really comment on it's substance.

I've listened to debates between theists and atheists such as Stein vs Bahnsen, et. al. and read Dawkins book, The God Delusion and Hitchen's book, God is not Great. They're both talking about many other things than atheism, such as evidences against Christianity, like the wars during Christendom, or justifications for morality apart from a god concept, etc...and, of course Dawkins spends lots of time talking about molecular determinism. So I assumed atheism was tied into these thinking patterns. But, these are just two guys....

I was thinking it might be a problem for an atheist to explain language origins, because, as far as we can tell from modern experiments with children learning language, they only learn language when they interact with a previous speaker. Even listening to TV or radio will not result in them speaking, due to the lack of personal interaction. That is where I am coming from. I appreciate your responses so far. They have been helpful in getting some other things straight...

[FatAndFaithless]

Again...go look at the theories on origin of language that have been linked already. None of them point to a god. There isn't "an atheist explanation" for anything, because atheism doesn't own theories or scientific models or explanations. There are plenty of theories and ideas for the origin of language that do not include a God. Does that make them an "atheist explanation"? If that's what you're looking for, great.

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?

[Fireball]

"How else could we tell you to blow your god out your ass?"

You never cease to amuse me, Min!

[Astreja]

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)

[Angrboda]

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.

[JMT]

..what exactly is "evolutionism"?  Evolution by natural selection is not a worldview.  It's a scientific theory that attempts to explain the diversity of biological life we currently see.  And it has a gargantuan amount of evidence to back it up.  And again billions of theists accept evolution as well, and I doubt you would call the Pope's worldview "evolutionism".

Did you check out the few origin-of-language links given earlier in this thread?  Because I can just about guarantee you they don't call "a speaking God" as the origin of language.  ...is that what you actually believe the origin of language is?

"Evolutionism" is explained here, it is broad, but in general it is a worldview...

https://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/evolutionism.htm

I will say this about "evolutionism," it is what I was trained in in the university for a biology degree!

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.

[Angrboda]

..what exactly is "evolutionism"?  Evolution by natural selection is not a worldview.  It's a scientific theory that attempts to explain the diversity of biological life we currently see.  And it has a gargantuan amount of evidence to back it up.  And again billions of theists accept evolution as well, and I doubt you would call the Pope's worldview "evolutionism".

Did you check out the few origin-of-language links given earlier in this thread?  Because I can just about guarantee you they don't call "a speaking God" as the origin of language.  ...is that what you actually believe the origin of language is?

"Evolutionism" is explained here, it is broad, but in general it is a worldview...

https://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/evolutionism.htm

I will say this about "evolutionism," it is what I was trained in in the university for a biology degree!

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.

That appears to be a Christian site propagating myths. "Evolutionism" is typically only a word given any currency by anti-evolution people.

From the "About Us" link at that website:

Many people refer to us as “Christians,” but we consider ourselves followers of Jesus. Like Jesus, we reject many of the issues found in “organized religion” (man-made attempts to reach God through rules and rituals). Actually, we believe religion has kept more people from the truth than anything in history. Although we reject man-made religion, we consider the personal pursuit of God as paramount in each of our personal life journeys.

[FatAndFaithless]

..what exactly is "evolutionism"?  Evolution by natural selection is not a worldview.  It's a scientific theory that attempts to explain the diversity of biological life we currently see.  And it has a gargantuan amount of evidence to back it up.  And again billions of theists accept evolution as well, and I doubt you would call the Pope's worldview "evolutionism".

Did you check out the few origin-of-language links given earlier in this thread?  Because I can just about guarantee you they don't call "a speaking God" as the origin of language.  ...is that what you actually believe the origin of language is?

"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.

[JMT]

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.

---

"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.

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.

---

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!!

[FatAndFaithless]

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.

---

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.

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.