<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Religion and Humanism</title>
	<atom:link href="http://usuphilosophy.com/2008/09/18/religion-and-humanism/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://usuphilosophy.com/2008/09/18/religion-and-humanism/</link>
	<description>Happenings in and around the USU Philosophy program</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 01:16:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://usuphilosophy.com/2008/09/18/religion-and-humanism/#comment-1560</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:37:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://usuphilosophy.wordpress.com/?p=307#comment-1560</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[That was a great FT article, the best thing I&#039;ve read there in years.  

&quot;In religious debate, believers get the enemies they deserve. When salt loses its savor, only the insipid will bother to reply, or even to notice.&quot;

Though I don&#039;t think I agree with Oakes on what constitutes saltiness.  I imagine he thinks it&#039;s orthodoxy. I think it&#039;s the imitation of Christ.  The discussion there (including Nietzsche) is unbalanced toward overvaluing intellectualism; it&#039;s still a good discussion.  I also still think some of the best criticism of Christianity comes from within and that the internal criticism can make substantial progress. The psyche builds a wall toward outsiders and outsiders are less likely to understand what the religious language means.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That was a great FT article, the best thing I&#8217;ve read there in years.  </p>
<p>&#8220;In religious debate, believers get the enemies they deserve. When salt loses its savor, only the insipid will bother to reply, or even to notice.&#8221;</p>
<p>Though I don&#8217;t think I agree with Oakes on what constitutes saltiness.  I imagine he thinks it&#8217;s orthodoxy. I think it&#8217;s the imitation of Christ.  The discussion there (including Nietzsche) is unbalanced toward overvaluing intellectualism; it&#8217;s still a good discussion.  I also still think some of the best criticism of Christianity comes from within and that the internal criticism can make substantial progress. The psyche builds a wall toward outsiders and outsiders are less likely to understand what the religious language means.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Doug</title>
		<link>http://usuphilosophy.com/2008/09/18/religion-and-humanism/#comment-1556</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Doug]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2008 19:37:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://usuphilosophy.wordpress.com/?p=307#comment-1556</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[John Paul II? Wait, I thought you were an Episcopalian! :)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John Paul II? Wait, I thought you were an Episcopalian! :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

