[mjolnir]

Uh, given the circumstances, he might be more inclined to agree…

As I recall, history says it was the Copernican Theory scholars who accused him of heresy, or some such.

Absolutely correct, Mr. Thorne. It was the reigning scientific orthodoxy in astronomy and physics, that of Aristolelianism, that Galileo objected to--- Galileo's intuition that the "book of nature" had been written in numbers by God actually corresponds very neatly to the point Pope Benedict made about the Logos: that God is supremely rational beyond our imagining and not arbitrary--- thus, contra Hume, the universe is intelligible to reason and a science based upon reason as opposed to (as Hume thought custom and habit is possible.

David Hume recognized that the same arguments that undercut faith in God undercut faith in reason. He didn't understand that such arguments would ever affect society for the worse because, not believing in the power of reason over custom to affect passion, he thought arguments based on reason were largely powerless to affect the larger culture.

History has shown Hume wrong; reason without faith undermines itself. Pope Benedict is absolutely correct--- we must recover the older sense of reason he speaks of.

[the invisib1e hand]

If I may humbly offer an observation by extrapolation that the God which was apparently proposed by Muhammed, if that God is not bound by reason, then he is the God of insanity.

And lo, if there isn't plenty of evidence to confirm it.

[cinives]

see my post #16, and the page referenced.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Bravo. Thanks for that.