The God Function Deus Ex Grammatica

What if Theists and Atheists are both objectively wrong? What if the Agnostics have completely missed the point? THE ARGUMENT FROM GRAMMAR explores the omnipotent and omniscient ""God"" that is justified by reason in philosophy and religion. Brown demonstrates that we can justify this denotation in grammatical terms by recognizing in ""Subjects predicate"" a universally-valid Form of knowledge (""all knowledge"") and action (""all power""). Brown then proceeds to lay out an epistemological foundation for the human sciences, drawing upon a philosophical tradition rooted in the thought of Protagoras, Kant, Schopenhauer, and F.A. Hayek. Brown turns his critique of theism back upon the atheists in order to show how grammatical theory can also answer arguments against the God Thesis. If THE ARGUMENT FROM GRAMMAR can answer the objections of the Atheists while satisfying the Theists, then the future of the debate over the existence of a rationally-justified God shall be a debate over grammar and nothing more.

An in-depth, interdisciplinary exploration of contemporary religion and its issues. Covers materials fully by using self-contained chapters and sections that are relatively independent of each other. It also reflects on the many new developments in religion with several complete chapter rewrites. For anyone interested in Modern Religion.

Designed to accompany the Wheelock’s curriculum. From one of the country’s leading Latinists, this reader is the perfect complement to any Latin program, and the first collection of entirely authentic classical Latin texts that beginning students, from the very first day of their introduction to Latin, can read and enjoy. Beginning with simple graffiti, Scribblers, Scvlptors, and Scribes moves toward longer inscriptions and literary texts as students progress. Designed to accompany the bestselling Wheelock’s curriculum, its 40 chapters are linked with the 40 chapters of Wheelock’s Latin, but the book’s readings and design features make it suitable for use alongside any introductory college or high-school Latin textbook. Packed with hundreds of actual Latin inscriptions, proverbs, and texts, this outstanding textbook also includes dozens of photos and illustrations, maps, discussion and comprehension questions, grammar capsules, a Latin–English vocabulary section, a summary of forms, and much more.

A neuroscientist and a linguist show how evolution could have given rise to structured language. A machine for language? Certainly, say the neurophysiologists, busy studying the language specializations of the human brain and trying to identify their evolutionary antecedents. Linguists such as Noam Chomsky talk about machinelike "modules" in the brain for syntax, arguing that language is more an instinct (a complex behavior triggered by simple environmental stimuli) than an acquired skill like riding a bicycle. But structured language presents the same evolutionary problems as feathered forelimbs for flight: you need a lot of specializations to fly even a little bit. How do you get them, if evolution has no foresight and the intermediate stages do not have intermediate payoffs? Some say that the Darwinian scheme for gradual species self-improvement cannot explain our most valued human capability, the one that sets us so far above the apes, language itself. William Calvin and Derek Bickerton suggest that other evolutionary developments, not directly related to language, allowed language to evolve in a way that eventually promoted a Chomskian syntax. They compare these intermediate behaviors to the curb-cuts originally intended for wheelchair users. Their usefulness was soon discovered by users of strollers, shopping carts, rollerblades, and so on. The authors argue that reciprocal altruism and ballistic movement planning were "curb-cuts" that indirectly promoted the formation of structured language. Written in the form of a dialogue set in Bellagio, Italy, Lingua ex Machina presents an engaging challenge to those who view the human capacity for language as a winner-take-all war between Chomsky and Darwin.