I Am Not Advocating A

Even If It Were True That We Need God To Be Moral, It Would Of Course Not Make God's Existence More Likely, Merely More Desirable (many People Cannot Tell The Difference)

It Is An Essential Part Of The Scientific Enterprise To Admit Ignorance, Even To Exult In Ignorance As A Challenge To Future Conquests.

Part Of The Appeal Was That Medawar Was Not Only A Nobel Laureate, But He Seemed Like A Nobel Laureate; He Was Everything One Thought A Nobel Laureate Ought To Be. If You Have Ever Wondered Why Scientists Like Popper, Try Medawar's Exposition. Actually Most Popperian Scientists Have Probably Never Tried Reading Anything But Medawar's Exposition.

I Hate The Neologism "owned" For "scored A Victory Over". I Have No Intention Of Owning Anyone, And Nobody Will Ever Own Me.

To Me, The Right Approach Is To Say We Are Profoundly Ignorant Of These Matters. We Need To Work On Them. But To Suddenly Say The Answer Is God - It's That That Seems To Me To Close Off The Discussion.