Reply to Scott Walker

I was looking at Catholic Church and AIDS when I wrote "[the Church's] statements look naive and uninformed". Claiming that "The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom.", when the CDC says "Laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of STD pathogens", seems like a clear example of ideology taking precedence over facts.

Also, I think the Church has a weak internet presence; for example, the Vatican's website is only the 4th result for "Catholic Church."

The Church has indeed had many scientists; but they are in the minority today. Pope Benedict XVI apparently desires to change this, but the fact that Catholic scientists are the minority in the first place means something in the way the Church works has gone askew. I'm not certain if, as you seem to suggest, being Catholic makes one perform better in math or science; but I think it's irrelevant; the problem is demographics, not talent.

As far as history, I was trying to show that man created, if not God himself, then all of the notions and words surrounding God. I'm fairly confident the trilobites didn't have a bible, or a language, or even coherent thoughts that could conceive of "God"; what has changed since then, other than the works of man? I have no direct experience of God; the evidence I have read shows no direct experience of God; therefore I conclude it is not possible to directly experience God; thus God is not relevant to my decisions; thus I have no beliefs about God and consider any statements about him to not be statements of fact but instead statements about something else. (This argument applies mostly to God; something physical, such as the Catholic Church, is directly experienceable, and thus factors into my decisions; it can go so far as to causing me to say that "I believe in God", where the spoken word "belief" is redefined from my preferred meaning of expectations about one's direct experience to some sort of signal of approval of the Catholic Church)

My standard of evidence is not the requirement of "photos, data-readings, and peer reviewed articles"; but the Bible has factual inaccuracies, so I don't think one can easily deduce that Adam existed from the Bible. I don't see any evidence for Adam other than the Bible; thus I conclude, that the Biblical Adam is not directly experienceable  and thus irrelevant. Similarly for dead people (not experienceable, although their books etc. might be), fictitious ideas, nonsense ideas, etc.

As for the Ten Commandments, they may be clear in some situations, e.g. "Thou shalt not kill", but I think most decisions are not clear-cut, and multiple rules apply. I don't see any procedures for weighing values against each other to decide which is more important; thus, I say that it is "non-specific". As for arguing with hypotheticals, the whole point is that it is an extreme situation. Let's flesh it out a bit; say you wake up from being unconscious on a bridge with no railings, after having been kidnapped by Islamic terrorists, and find a man standing in front of you (near the edge), holding an AK-47 and apparently about to shoot 5 hostages. Surely it's clear that you should push him off the bridge or at least attempt to disarm him? Now consider a similar case, indistinguishable from the previous unless you know the context; the man holding the AK-47 (which is unloaded) is actually a hostage, who has been told that a sniper will shoot him if he doesn't appear to be about to kill the other 5 people, who are actually more terrorists that will torture you if you don't push the man with the AK-47 off the bridge, but will otherwise send you back free to America as you have shown that you agree with their morality. This, clearly, is a much less likely scenario; but after just waking up, you have no way of knowing which is which; perhaps the situation is even more complicated than I described. But you must act instantly, or else the sniper will shoot you once he notices you are awake (you can see the sniper from where you are lying on the ground). Or consider a war; perhaps Private Jenkins (who has a suicide explosive pack) can be sacrificed to save Privates Adam, Blaire, Cain, Dominic, and Eric; but if he is not sacrificed, then everyone else will die a horrible death but Jenkins will be spared at least temporarily while they remove his explosive pack.

Even with all details specified, I don't see much from the Church on how to decide on a course of action. But e.g. utilitarianism can make those quick decisions: 5 people alive is better than 1, if nothing to distinguish those people is known. Perhaps utilitarianism is not a "humane morality"; but if the Church cannot even provide an answer, then I don't see how it can have any claim to have a theory of morality; if the Church has no theory of morality, then it is just another institution set loose in the world without guidance, and I don't see any reason to accord it any special status beyond that of, say, a multinational political party.