You’re right–I think, I am.
(Trivia for the uninitiated: Descartes’ theory of animals-as-machines hinges on the existence of God. An atheist must reject his theory.)
Daniel
(Might we need an irony disclaimer here?..I hate the thought, but in present company, you never know…)
D’OH! Beat me to it.
Oh boy Eve thats terrible 
If God is unknowable whats the deal with these religions telling us what God considers a sin?
I love it when people top me! I gotta say, if this jernt ain’t the Algonquin Round Table, it’s the next-best thing.
The two propositions are not mutually exclusive.
Consider a black box. We may shoot a particle into it and observe the result. We may infer things from that result. We do not claim to have solved the black box, though, even if we can consistently predict the result of a given particle shot in a given direction.
(nitpick)
Actually, I work with clones every day. Yep. Clone after clone after clone. There’s like 15 different clones just sitting in our -20 freezer right now. They’ve been there for months. We never feed them either. Do I feel bad about it? Not in the least.
…this is because sometimes, a clone is a genetic duplicate organism, and sometimes, a clone is just a recombinant plasmid…
(/nitpick)
I guess I’ll just have to disagree, the black box isn’t unknowable in your scenario rather just beyond the current level of technology. 500 years ago it was impossible to tell if a bone was broken but that information was never unknowable.
Still, for something that you claim to be unknowable, you certainly seem to know a lot about him. For example you know many general things about his fundamental nature such as he is good, omniscienct, omnipotent, omnipresent and eternal. Not to mention all of the specific things such as a hatred of homosexual acts, sex outside of marriage, a preference for AIDS spreading instead of condoms among thousands of other things.
Can you specify what it is you actually don’t know about him?
That’s your own particular prejudice, brother. There’s folk out there who feel that way about people who work in banks, oil companies, the Democratic/Republican/Tory/Labour/Communist Party, porn studios, the Catholic Church, weapons manufacturers, Fox/CNN News, etc.
Fortunately, we humans are complex creatures who refuse to be shoehorned into caricatures of “how we must be” because we are associated with X or Y activity.
I’ve just started reading Sagan’s Demon Haunted World, and I have to resist the temptation to post the first two chapters (which I’ve read). Though it’s just the beginning of the book, many of the issues raised here are answered in them.
YOu haven’t answered where he existed? Was he nowhere? In a way you are agreeing with me God is existence itself.Y ou say God always existed,and is unknowable, so, how can you state that He exists for sure?
Monavis
Bricker I forgot in my last post in which I replied to you that in your earlier post you stated that God was an entity, now you say he isn’t.
Monavis
So what? Isn’t it kind of spineless for you or any other believer to be willing to accept the limited scientific perspective on spiritual concepts as somehow defining those concepts? Wouldn’t someone with real faith just say, “It doesn’t matter whether or not science is capable of confirming or demonstrating life after death as a material phenomenon, I personally know that it truly exists in a supernatural way.”
Why are so many believers so insecure in their beliefs that they aren’t happy unless science is compliantly furnishing materialist support for their beliefs? Why do you consider a phenomenon “taken away” just because there’s no scientific confirmation of it?
And why would you care whether “most” say that “there is nothing beyond the material world”? Yes, there does exist a certain attitude—I call it “scientificism”—that considers the scientific structure of material cause and effect the only valid interpretation of truth and reality. It’s not necessary to believe in scientificism—that is, to believe that there’s nothing beyond the material world—in order to be a good scientist.
But what do you care whether they do, or whether “most” do? It’s just a belief. It cannot be proved scientifically. And it is not in any way a prerequisite for understanding or doing science.
Nope. Science as an epistemological tool is, as other people have pointed out, morally neutral about feelings and moral choices prompted by feelings.
Your main confusion seems to be that you’re mixing up science as a viewpoint or methodology with certain aspects of contemporary scientific culture. You see that some scientists are “scientificists” or strict materialists who sneer at the ideas of other faiths. You see that some scientists perform experiments that involve animal suffering. And in a muddled way, you think that science itself must be somehow responsible for that, so you blame science.
But that’s fallacious. Science per se is simply an epistemological tool that works in certain very effective but very limited ways to explain natural phenomena in material terms. If some people choose to elevate its assumptions into a belief system, or to foster a sub-culture that devalues emotions or empathy for suffering, that’s a cultural and social issue, not a scientific one.
“Showing compassion” is not the same thing as “uncritically accepting unsupported claims and accusations”. Science is morally neutral about emotions, as we noted earlier, but emotions are not a valid excuse for doing or accepting bad science.
Could you please summarize the main points, then?
Not before coffee. 
I’ll pick out some salient points later; though I’ve got a gig today, so it may be tomorrow or so before I do.
I think the best part of that book was his analogy about the fire breathing dragon. To paraphrase it badly, a friend tells you that he has a fire breathing dragon in his garage. You go over to see it, but there is nothing there. So, your friend tells you that it is invisible. You put flour on the floor to try to detect its foot prints, and your friend tells you that it hovers. You put heat detectors in the garage to try to detect the flame, and your friend tells you that it is a heatless flame. You spray spray paint everywhere to try to paint it, but your friend insists that it is a noncorporeal dragon.
At some point you have to ask what the difference is between an invisible, non-corporeal, heatless flame breathing hovering dragon and no dragon at all.
I agree with the part of “real science” you described, but the problem is, real science exists only in the text books, and not in reality.
So I will go back over what I said:
In the real world scientists believe the brain creates consciousness, if you mention the word spiritual they will remind you the supernatural doesn’t exist. Push them and they will call you ignorant. This is how science behaves to those who don’t believe as they do. This thread is full of examples.
In the real world scientists believe feelings and emotions get in the way of critical thinking and logic. You said: “You see that some scientists perform experiments that involve animal suffering. And in a muddled way, you think that science itself must be somehow responsible for that, so you blame science.” So you think I am muddled for thinking science is responsible for what scientists do? Very strange type of logic. If science doesn’t like what scientists do, science should speak out. If they don’t, then the general population will.
Religious doctrine should be accepted on faith, say the Christians. Do not use critical thinking or logic, only faith is acceptable.
While scientists say faith, emotions, and feelings only get in the way of critical thinking, and logic. Only objective calculations free of feelings can be used.
Now if you are intelligent enough to know that religion is wrong, you should be intelligent enough to know that science is wrong also. Man is not one or the other, but a synergy of both.
On the Terri Schivo brutality.
You said: “Showing compassion” is not the same thing as “uncritically accepting unsupported claims and accusations”. Science is morally neutral about emotions.
There were no facts in the Schivo case, on the one side we have a husband who broke his marriage vows, lied and cheated on his wife, saying she told him she wanted to die. On the other side we had the family that wanted to care for her saying she did not want to die. Both sides had “friends” who heard. All evidence was hearsay evidence. So there was no facts, yet there was no compassion either. I think this incident brought to light a lot of things. Oh, yes, the doctors’ testimony cancelled each other out.
If science is “morally neutral about emotions” then science can’t be trusted to do the right thing any more. Something has to change, and I hope the American public will do something quickly to change it.
I really, really think (based on years of reading your posts) that this statement is the root of where you are misinformed.
I (as a scientist) will NEVER say that the supernatural (which I guess we’re defining as ghosts, or spirit, or astrology or your favorite NDEs, or really whatever you want) doesn’t exist. I will merely say that there is not sufficient evidence to say that it DOES exist. And, by definition, the supernatural is an extraordinary claim, and will require extraordinary evidence.
If experiments proved the spirit tomorrow, I think that would be wicked cool.
Even so, I know for certain that technicians who work with clones are often very emotional. There was a case in the news a few years ago about a scientist working on the Dolly Project who first tried to get a male sheep, but whose results were disastrous: due to an error in the DNA replication, the ram ended up covered in penises (penes?). One in the right spot, but another on each foot, one on the end of its nose, one above each ear, and a good two dozen others, sprouting all over the body.
Worse, that sheep got turned on by just about anything.
The technician felt terribly for the sheep, of course, but he just couldn’t deal with the situation. So he finally decided to put it out of his misery, and took it tot he roof of his building and pushed it off.
He was arrested, of course.
Daniel
Still you presist in distortion of fact to support your predetermined beliefs. And you accuse scientists of bias?