Paul

<<However, the recognised scientific method of discovery involves making 
precise statements about the way that the world works.  These statements 
must be precise enough to be capable of disproof by experiment or 
observation. Good theories are the ones left standing in the face of 
experiments designed to disprove them, and those that lead to further 
predictions cause progress.  >>

Agreed. But my point was that making the statement/theory comes first, 
then "testing to destruction."

<<Accordingly, if you happen to have access to any single proven 
hypothesis concerning reality, please feel free to present it.  (He 
says, confidently, knowing that none such exist.)>>

No. Of course not. But as per other posts, I do question if the 
scientific method works for every question we need to answer? 
Particularly with what happens in the bits of the universe we are 
currently unable to observe?  Or as John W Campbell put it---"Any 
sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Not 
meaning to denigrate either science or religion with that comment, 
rather to opine that there may be stuff we _cannot_ know.
And yes I know, not scientific and if we stray off the path then we 
really don't know where we are going.
I suppose I tend to return to my original position of doubt!

<<The question of why we are here has been adequately addressed
scientifically>>

Again, not sure if I expressed what I meant clearly enough. To 
reproduce, build, evolve, are those enough? Are those good enough aims??
Sorry, I have not read the Ridley book but will get to it.

<<Given that there are perfectly good explanations of how morality 
evolved, how am I supposed to feel about the idea that it was invented 
by a god or by a religion?  Religion has written morality down (on stone 
tablets, no less) and prefixed it with some "love the lord thy god" 
items, implying that the religion and the morality are a matching set. 
If they are, why does the morality antedate the religion by tens of 
thousands of years?>>

Sorry, cannot answer that one. I thought religion was about as old as 
man?  But will have to read Ridley to see what he says on that!!
And some would say that morality is indeed pretty old and came with the 
soul.
As for the ten commandments story, I thought it was just a story to 
illustrate a point. I never got that idea that the religion and the 
morality were a matching set and I thought it was pretty universally 
accepted in RC land that dates in the Old Testament were pretty 
meaningless. I also thought that there was an element of writing the 
stuff to give it more significance to the followers of Moses but surely 
that does not imply that morality only came into existence then?


Mark Twain? Ah, the meaning of suffering!! Exaggerated to make the point 
of course but nevertheless, intended to provoke thought.

  A very odd thing, to be discussing this today.
I would have had great difficulty, once, trying to make sense of the RC 
belief that suffering has virtue and value. Oddly enough, that was back 
when I was working hard at being a good RC. These days, having come 
through some serious suffering myself and not being much of a RC at all, 
I find it a lot easier to agree that suffering _can_ be valuable. Even 
odder.

My reference to today? Because I was thinking, today, of the AWARE 
conference I spoke at on Thursday. AWARE Defeat Depression is a 
professionally-run voluntary body with support groups, helpline and 
educational programmes for depression. It was their first volunteer 
conference in N Ireland and about 50 attended. I got talking to some of 
them. Most of them had suffered depression. At dinner five of us got on 
to the subject of, did any good come out of it? Would we go back in 
time, if we could, and try to prevent it? Would we try to wipe it out of 
our memories? We actually all agreed that it was an awful experience to 
have, not to be wished on worst enemy, but we had all gained a lot as a 
result of it.

I am not asking who else has had depression (even though I know at least 
25% of you have) or other significant illness but what does the team 
think about this?
Can suffering an illness ever work to good?
And if some have better lives as a result of having suffered, then that 
would tend to disprove the hypothesis that all suffering is bad and to 
be avoided at all costs.

Sorry, getting back to Mark Twain, <<Man's inhumanity to man
Makes countless thousands mourn! >> does not fit with the thrust of his 
piece, which seems to be that God is responsible for us all and 
therefore should not make us suffer.

What is he telling us here? That god is a malign thug? That there cannot 
be a god because if there was one willing to treat this poor man so 
badly then he would self-destruct in an eruption of contradictions? That 
there is no theological explanation for human suffering?
I think his humanity and compassion are obvious but his meaning is not 
clear to me at all.

Anyway, I remain with my doubts about the ability of the scientific 
method to answer all the big questions.  While believing passionately in 
its ability to answer a lot of less-than-giant questions and pissed off 
with the amount of bad science (from crappy medical research to Gillian 
McKeith et al) that gets thrown at us. Contradictory?

Declan