We support the Symbolic Anthropology orientation that Symbols and Symbolic Form evolve in the shift from proto-Homo Sapiens to Homo Sapiens beginning some 3 Million years ago or so. Symbolic Anthropology holds the orientation that through the use of Tools and Symbols, the evolving Homo Sapiens brain mass and physical skull size increase in size three-fold from the proto-Homo Sapiens’ beginnings. In a very real sense, through this process of evolution, Symbols become more and more abstract through this 3 Million year evolutionary process.
We also share with Ernst Cassirer the orientation that Language and Myth are deeply entwined with each other, ultimately driving patterns of Human Culture – over this 3 Million year evolutionary process. During this process we find the evolution of religious ideas, language and conception, word magic, successive phases of religious thought, and the rich powers of metaphor – becoming ever more abstract. A good introduction to Cassirer’s thoughts in these areas is his short work, Language and Myth. In the big picture, this short work is a great introduction to his large three-volume work, The Philosophy of Symbolic Form.
The Epistemology of Atheism holds that the Symbols and Symbolic Form of Atheism and the Symbols and Symbolic Form of Theism evolve over a 3 Million year time frame – with the significant orientation that the written word is no older than 100,000 years. Thus, better than 2.9 Million years of evolutionary history for the Symbols and Symbolic Form of Atheism and for the Symbols and Symbolic Form of Theism – have been lost forever. We do though have a slight glimpse, now and again, of this lost 2.9 Million year history.
Of primary importance to the Epistemology of Atheism is the orientation that Atheism literally means – without Theism. The origins of Theism and the origins of Atheism happened a long, long time ago – during the lost 2.9 Million years of history. The best that we can do today is to understand that “without Theism” means without Theism – without wild, unsupported claims as to the origins of either Atheism or Theism.
Let the conversation in this area begin.
Tags: Atheism, Cassirer, Epistemology, Geertz, Symbolic Anthropology, Theism
bible study…
It is tiresome striving to add up the hours we have spent tracking down taoism websites….
Hi all,
It appears that some Theistic Bible study group seriously believes that Atheism finds relationship with the Chinese tradition of Taoism. I vaguely remember that the “Tao” is usually translated as road, channel, way, or doctrine.
However, since this Theistic Bible study group appears to believe that a cryptic one-liner explains it all – we’ll just need to await for their return (a second coming?) for a fuller explanation. If this return actually happens – maybe they will be a tad more explicit in their mystical sayings. But then, Theism tends to thrive in mysticism.
I’ll send them an email inviting them to return.
Bob
Latest updated section from the Website on this issue: (See the Website entry for links to the references below).
Some argue that the word Epistemology is a branch of philosophy that deals with determining what is and what is not true. One one hand,this is begging the question of having the ability to measure “truth” – as though there is an “external” something that one measures against. From our orientation, there is no, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any “external” something. On the other hand, Propositional Knowledge may be a way of determining truth.
We take a more general approach that Epistemology is a study of HOW we Know, What we know. With this general orientation, we may then easily speak of such constructs as an Epistemology of Religion, an Epistemology of Theism, and Epistemology of Atheism, an Epistemology of Knowledge, etc.
Naturally, the largest grouping of this set series would be the Epistemology of Epistemology. By having sub-sets of this largest set, such as the Epistemology of Atheism, or the Epistemology of Theism – one is able to compare and contrast elements from one sub-set to any other sub-set.
But herein lays a problem for Theists. Every Theist, by definition, operates out of an Epistemology of Theism – which begins with the proposition that the Epistemology of Theism is not only the largest grouping of the series of sub-sets – but also – that none of the other sub-sets even exist! A Theist,under the influence of the Epistemology of Theism, is the drunken sailor of philosophy – frequently loud and tipsy.
The sub-set of the Epistemology of Atheism recognizes itself as a sub-set of the largest grouping of the Epistemology of Epistemology.
The sub-set of the Epistemology of Atheism begins with the concept of Being Without Theism. Thus, we must first begin by taking a look at the concept of Theism – in the broadest sense of the word – so that we then have the broadest sense of what being without any Theism really means.
In the broadest sense – the word Theism – refers to any centralized Something, that is conceptually larger than a personal self AND that needs a personal self to acknowledge both the larger aspect of that Something and how the personal self finds incorporation within the larger Something. This is a very personal definition of Theism.
This broadest sense of the word Theism would include the following areas as particular brands of Theism – the Christian tradition (and all of its sects), the Hindu tradition (and all of its sects), the Muslim tradition (and all of its sects), the Buddhist tradition (and all of its sects), National Socialism, Stalinist Communism, the Native American tradition (and all of its sects) – and thousands of others.
The key is all of this discussion about Epistemology and sub-sets – is that the ONLY way of addressing ANY of the numerous issues involved is through the use of Symbols and Symbolic Form.
Traditionally, Atheism follows the outline within the Wiki definition of Atheism.
However, we at Assertive Atheist Moments believe that both Theism and Atheism arise from the usage of Symbols and Symbolic Form – which evolve in sync with the evolution of Human Beings. Thus the Assertive Atheist Moments definition of the word Atheism is both larger than the traditional definition of the word and – most importantly – the concept of Atheism has been around since the beginning of the evolution of Symbols and Symbolic Form. This evolution of Symbols and Symbolic Form coincides with the evolution of Homo Sapiens from proto-Homo Sapiens, covering a time span of 3,000,000 years.
Symbols & Human Evolution
Symbolic anthropology posits the orientation that for Human Beings, Symbols and Symbolic Form began their evolution in conjunction with the use of Tool Making better than 3 Million years ago. A good place to begin to grasp this orientation is with the Wiki entry for Clifford Geertz. Geertz believes that the evolutionary three-fold increase in the size of the Human brain (from proto-Homo Sapiens to Homo Sapiens) is due to the Human use of Symbols and Making Tools.
In practical terms the use of Symbols evolve with Humans, thus the Symbols of Theism evolve with Humans and the Symbols of Atheism evolve with Humans.
All Religious Theists believe that their particular brand of Religious Theism precedes Humans and all Human activities, including using symbols and tools. Thus, many Religious Theists will have a difficult time dealing with Symbolic Anthropology.
Symbols and Symbolic Form may be used for both Good and Evil. When Symbols are used for Good, they tend to congregate within the philosophical (not political) concept known as meliorism. The word ameliorate also refers to the human element involving improvement.
Pretty insightful post. Never thought that it was this simple after all. I had spent a good deal of my time looking for someone to explain this subject clearly and you’re the only one that ever did that. Kudos to you! Keep it up
Many threads here seem to try and disprove other people’s faith. I have no problem with the idea of faith – there are a few things that I take on faith that I have never seen myself with my own two eyes – such as the brain in the person next to me, and the theory of the atom etc. I have looked at the evidence and made a decision that it is probably true.