<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: American Design of Science</title>
	<link>http://www.lawsocietyblog.com/archives/180</link>
	<description>Notes from the intersection of law, society, technology, economics, and culture</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 03:36:28 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Hanno Kaiser</title>
		<link>http://www.lawsocietyblog.com/archives/180#comment-663</link>
		<author>Hanno Kaiser</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2006 18:10:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.lawsocietyblog.com/archives/180#comment-663</guid>
		<description>It seems to me that Facchini got it exactly right. From a position of faith, objectivity, as assumed by the scientific point of view, should not even attempt to invade the existential realm of subjectivity, which includes religion. Any direct confrontation of the scientific and the religious has had disastrous consequences for the latter. Religion thrives on the paradox, because only what we cannot rationally comprehend requires a leap of faith. Once the miracle is made plausible, faith is no longer required.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems to me that Facchini got it exactly right. From a position of faith, objectivity, as assumed by the scientific point of view, should not even attempt to invade the existential realm of subjectivity, which includes religion. Any direct confrontation of the scientific and the religious has had disastrous consequences for the latter. Religion thrives on the paradox, because only what we cannot rationally comprehend requires a leap of faith. Once the miracle is made plausible, faith is no longer required.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
