I read Benedict's speech and I am not sure how Chris Bruce's comments relate to the speech. Benedict is clearly arguing for critical reflection, the use of reason in the life of faith and the engagement of religion with science and philosophy. Benedict proudly tells the story of a professor at the U. of Regensberg, where Benedict had taught, who spoke up about how odd it was that the University had two faculties devoted to something that didn't exist: God. In the speech, Benedict does not blame atheists or agnostics for anything. In fact, the target for the speech are liberal Christians, including most Protestants who would split off faith from reason. He points out that the critical project of Kant, which divides faith from reason, is the legacy of the Reformers. The reference to Mohammad is curious. Benedict is a careful thinker so it isn't an accident. It seems that the speech as a whole aims, in part, to distinguish himself from John Paul II. Where John Paul was more mystically inclined, Benedict is more the philosopher. Hence, Benedict emphasizes that faith must include the rational, something one would never have heard from John Paul. Where John Paul worked hard to build bridges with Muslims, Benedict here seems to be chastising them. In the speech, Benedict notes that the Prophet said that there is no compulsion in religion, and then makes his reference to the comments of a Byzantine Emperor. It seems to me that the message is to contemporary Muslims: Is it rational to use violence in defending the faith? Muslims, especially the Shia'a, are extremely rationalistic and so Benedict uses that devotion to reason against them. I am not surprised that some Muslims were upset, but I don't see any need to apologize. Also, I don't think it is a coincidence that Benedict quotes from a Byzantine Emperor shortly before meeting the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch. The emphasis on reason is used by Benedict to point out a difference between the Eastern and Western Catholic churches, but the approving quote of an Eastern leader shows his awareness that there can be important similarities. Finally, I don't think that Benedict's negative comments on critical thinking are solely religious. In fact, at several points in the speech he sounds Heideggerian. For instance: "Behind this thinking lies the modern self-limitation of reason, classically expressed in Kant's 'Critiques,' but in the meantime further radicalized by the impact of the natural sciences. This modern concept of reason is based, to put it briefly, on a synthesis between Platonism (Cartesianism) and empiricism, a synthesis confirmed by the success of technology. On the one hand it presupposes the mathematical structure of matter, its intrinsic rationality, which makes it possible to understand how matter works and use it efficiently: This basic premise is, so to speak, the Platonic element in the modern understanding of nature. On the other hand, there is nature's capacity to be exploited for our purposes, and here only the possibility of verification or falsification through experimentation can yield ultimate certainty. The weight between the two poles can, depending on the circumstances, shift from one side to the other. ... This gives rise to two principles which are crucial for the issue we have raised. First, only the kind of certainty resulting from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements can be considered scientific. Anything that would claim to be science must be measured against this criterion. Hence the human sciences, such as history, psychology, sociology and philosophy, attempt to conform themselves to this canon of scientificity." It isn't a great speech, but I think it is a significant one for Christians, especially Catholics. As for atheists and agnostics, I don't see the relevance. Sincerely, Phil Enns Toronto, ON ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html