Thanks for that; this part in particular: > I do not therefore consider them true and conclusive; indeed, keeping always before my mind's eye a most solid doct

Thanks for that; this part in particular: > I do not therefore consider them true and conclusive; indeed, keeping always before my mind's eye a most solid doctrine that I once heard from a most eminent and learned person, and before which one must fall silent, Assuming that the following really is the "theological angle" suggested by the Pope, it's literally saying that the Pope is a most eminent and learned person, and that the argument he's made is "solid doctrine" and an unassailable argument. And Simplicio isn't coming up with the argument himself; he's saying he's heard it from this other eminent and learned person. All that's perfectly consistent with a good-faith attempt to flatter the Pope's wisdom and influence, and accommodate his request regarding the theological "escape hatch". Unfortunately, it's also fairly open to being construed as being a sarcastic insult... or even an attempt at a sort of "dog whistle", where "devout" people take it as face value, but people "in the know" take it as being sarcastic. EDIT: And, seriously: > I know that if asked whether God in His infinite power and wisdom could have conferred upon the watery element its observed reciprocating motion using some other means than moving its containing vessels... From this I forthwith conclude that, this being so, it would be excessive boldness for anyone to limit and restrict the Divine power and wisdom to some particular fancy of his own. It's not saying "God could just magic things to make the water appear to move like this"; it's "There are lots of other possible reasons why the water might appear to move like that". It sounds to me like a description of necessary scientific humility. We have these observations, this one theory is consistent with them, but there lots of other possibilities, so we should keep an open mind and not be too insistent on one particular theory.