Grim

Most concise observation, while our knowledge of the world has multiplied exponentially (despite religious dogma and deliberate intervention) our knowledge of Jesus or 'god' remains unchanged - except for interpretations made according to the researchers' beliefs and agendas - not a concrete piece of evidence in 2000+ years.

George,
I certainly wasn't implying that your response was dishonest, as you say, you engage with existential questions; I was alluding to those who refuse to acknowledge the inconsistencies in their belief systems.
George: "I understand that by “delusion” you mean the pursuit of (and belief in) the objective dimension of “truth” - understood differently by the old Greeks, differently by medieval and post-medieval philosophers, and differently by contemporary philosophers and scientists".
I mean that however we rationalise the world, it is based on our experience of it. I don't discount the possibility that humans are capable of mystical experiences or insights that incite their faith in whatever rationalisation of it suffices for them. My own inclination is to put such experience in my "yet to be explained" basket (by which I do "not" mean that it must have a purely rational explanation), rather than to ascribe it to some pre-established religion or school of thought--unless of course the relationship seems irrefutable, which hasn't happened to me yet.
As I've said a few times, I don't subscribe to postmodernism, which to me is like a popularised aestheticism or culturalism (the link I wanted to send you is copyrighted, but it's Lyotard's "Answering the Question, What is Postmodernism").
I don't know what to say about truth that I haven't said. To me it is the merest banality to that there is no such thing as an indivisible truth, for science or religion. Clearly, going by your post on the other thread, you understand completely, so presumably you're using the word figuratively to describe a "world view" or "spiritual horizon" to which we may aspire as ultimate truth. I have no problem with that, in fact I applaud it, but would describe it as a philosophy (and still human truth); which, moreover, has no need of institutions that are demonstrably and historically worldly and corrupt. If there is an horizon of ultimate truth, I don't believe it is properly represented by any institution on Earth.

Grim,
Is it true that you are an atheist?

If so, then why are we discussing the knowledge of God? I would say that it is a waste of time to discuss our knowledge of a nonexistent being, wouldn’t it?

But while I’m waiting for your answer on that, I’ll give brief answers to your questions.

Christians believe that Jesus was the fullest revelation of God. That is, he is as close to the likeness of God that anyone is ever going to see. In fact, you can go as far as saying that seeing him was seeing God.

Therefore, anything coming later (i.e. in the last two thousand years) is at best an inferior shadow of that full revelation.

Those whom Jesus did teach directly, and those whose lives were a lot closer to him in time and geography, wrote down the records, which today we call the Bible.

The Bible is not thought to contain infinite knowledge about anything. But Christians do believe that it contains sufficient knowledge for living a godly life and for eternal life as described by Jesus, and guaranteed by his death and resurrection.

So while other types of knowledge obtained through the sciences, etc. are increasing, and are increasingly useful in many areas, it is the knowledge of the Bible that is useful for living a life that is pleasing before God. That is, if you believe in God. As I said, if you don’t, I don’t know why we are bothering to talk about it.

In regards to language, it is true that they are always changing. Some say that they devolve as much as evolve. That is, some say that perhaps they are losing their richness. They are losing some of their grammatical inflections, and things like that. Try comparing current English with written English of the time before the printing press. I’ve heard it said that today’s English is less sophisticated than old English. But I’m not sure what this has to do with the subject of the knowledge of God.

Dan,

It would be most helpful to the discussion if you could stop dodging and weaving. I’m starting to feel like an adult in a supermarket grabbing a child by the wrist and trying to get them to walk in a straight line instead of running around the place.

<<When you [that’s me] say evolution is a demonstrable science while the ideas of the other two, Marx and Freud, are mere philosophies, you are helping to clarify my point.

That was exactly what I was saying.>>

I also pointed out that evolution is a natural science and the other two are social sciences (rendering your point irrelevant); something you conveniently forgot in your next paragraph...

<<In their day, Marx and Freud were considered scientific. They were considered able to be put to experiment. Many consider the day the Berlin Wall fell to be the end of a failed experiment.>>

Natural science: the sciences involved in the study of the physical world and its phenomena. (http://tinyurl.com/yalazpo)

Social science: the branch of science that studies society and the relationships of individuals within a society. (http://tinyurl.com/yclxdo6)

<<The ideas still persist, but as ideas, as philosophies.>>

...and they always were just ideas and philosophies. So there was no change.

<<They’re discussed in the halls of ‘social sciences’. Other ideas are making them look old fashion.>>

Thanks for finally acknowledging the “social” part, but...

<<Darwin still holds sway in intellectual circles...>>

We’re talking about evolution here, not Darwin. One is a science, the other is a person.

But whether or not evolution holds sway in “intellectual circles” isn’t relevant here, because evolution is not a social science.

<<...even within the science faculties.>>

EVEN within science faculties?

You make it sound like science faculties are just a secondary and almost surprising place for evolution to be.

<<But Johnson was predicting the day when Darwin’s idea will too be downgraded, to be held onto by some, and discussed at length in philosophical domains.>>

With everything supporting evolution and nothing contradicting it, we can now say with complete confidence that Johnson was wrong.

Continued...

...Continued

But I asked that you point me to something that contradicts evolution, and this is what I got...

<<[Darwin’s idea] makes little sense...>>

To who?

I can understand it wouldn’t make much sense to yourself as you don’t give others the impression that you understand evolution or in fact, science.

Could you elaborate please? Or can we take your lack of response as admission that the following isn’t true?

<<...Secondly, it is supported by little evidence.>>

Evolution is a theory of both history and the present day. We see it happening all the time in ring species and such...

<<But in the context that I’m talking about here, its problem is that it is a theory of history, and as such not subject to testing like the real experimental sciences.>>

That’s not a problem at all, because as we’ve established once before, eyewitness accounts are usually less reliable than evidence left behind. Just ask a forensic scientist.

Still waiting for an explanation of how “Darwinism needed a patch and paint job” too.

Thanks.

Rusty Catheter,
As I have already stated I believe evolution is probably the most likley process of life. However I am not asking the process but the source of additional genes not formerly present to form a completely new species totally independent of its parent and not able to breed with its cousins. Which is what defines a separate species.

However the new species is not superior or better just totally different, eg apes and humans. Where are the examples of beings between apes and human. The Australian aboriginals have been seperated from European society for thousands of years yet they have the same genes and are able to marry and bear offspring. If it takes millions of years then there ought to be many variant branches between apes and man breeding even today.