<?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: Bad Reason and the ‘Manhattan Declaration’</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/01/1090/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/01/1090</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 01:32:57 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Aquinas and the Manhattan Declaration &#187; First Thoughts &#124; A First Things Blog</title>
		<link>http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/01/1090/comment-page-1#comment-134</link>
		<dc:creator>Aquinas and the Manhattan Declaration &#187; First Thoughts &#124; A First Things Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:09:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/?p=1090#comment-134</guid>
		<description>[...] Snell, professor of philosophy and Director of Eastern University&#8217;s philosophy program, responds to the critics of the Manhattan Declaration who believe that &#8220;the natural law forgets sin and thus [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Snell, professor of philosophy and Director of Eastern University&#8217;s philosophy program, responds to the critics of the Manhattan Declaration who believe that &#8220;the natural law forgets sin and thus [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Three for the Weekend: Statistics, Aquinas, and Bach &#124; Mere Orthodoxy</title>
		<link>http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/01/1090/comment-page-1#comment-111</link>
		<dc:creator>Three for the Weekend: Statistics, Aquinas, and Bach &#124; Mere Orthodoxy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Jan 2010 00:34:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/?p=1090#comment-111</guid>
		<description>[...] RJ Snell clarifies for those worried that Robert George&#8217;s take on human reason is too cheery that no, Aquinas does not think reason is infallible: Given original sin, the rational appetite is inordinate and can act counter to right reason. We do [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] RJ Snell clarifies for those worried that Robert George&#8217;s take on human reason is too cheery that no, Aquinas does not think reason is infallible: Given original sin, the rational appetite is inordinate and can act counter to right reason. We do [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

