<?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/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Four Points of Contact</title>
	<atom:link href="http://metaphorager.net/four-points-of-contact/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://metaphorager.net/four-points-of-contact/</link>
	<description>All That&#039;s News To Me, I Print</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:49:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: micha</title>
		<link>http://metaphorager.net/four-points-of-contact/#comment-443</link>
		<dc:creator>micha</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Apr 2010 17:05:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://metaphorager.net/?p=349#comment-443</guid>
		<description>In your language, though, I would have said:
It is the nature of religious &lt;b&gt;knowledge&lt;/b&gt; to be compelling only to the &lt;b&gt;knower&lt;/b&gt;.

There are religious experiences that are as sure to the one experiencing them as your knowledge that you were typing this blog entry. However, they are inherently internal, and thus can&#039;t be compelling to anyone else.

The personal nature of religion that I was asserting does not inhere in the distinction you&#039;re making with the words &quot;belief&quot; vs. &quot;knowledge&quot;. Even at the level of knowledge, the &quot;evidence&quot; isn&#039;t one that can be shared. If it could, we would be in the empirical domain, and thus be discussing science, not religion.

IMHO, this was the point of our ancestors&#039; words at Mt Horeb, &quot;we will do and we will listen&quot; (Exodus 24:7). The thing Judaism is based on is &quot;listening&quot; to our own doing.

-micha</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In your language, though, I would have said:<br />
It is the nature of religious <b>knowledge</b> to be compelling only to the <b>knower</b>.</p>
<p>There are religious experiences that are as sure to the one experiencing them as your knowledge that you were typing this blog entry. However, they are inherently internal, and thus can&#8217;t be compelling to anyone else.</p>
<p>The personal nature of religion that I was asserting does not inhere in the distinction you&#8217;re making with the words &#8220;belief&#8221; vs. &#8220;knowledge&#8221;. Even at the level of knowledge, the &#8220;evidence&#8221; isn&#8217;t one that can be shared. If it could, we would be in the empirical domain, and thus be discussing science, not religion.</p>
<p>IMHO, this was the point of our ancestors&#8217; words at Mt Horeb, &#8220;we will do and we will listen&#8221; (Exodus 24:7). The thing Judaism is based on is &#8220;listening&#8221; to our own doing.</p>
<p>-micha</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.521 seconds -->

