[rotexo]

I liked the simple observation in point 35: 'as Pope Francis observes, “the very use of the word ‘intelligence’” in connection with AI “can prove misleading”[69] and risks overlooking what is most precious in the human person.' I was texting my buddy that the proper acronym could be ABNECUI (Almost, But Not Entirely, Completely Unlike Intelligence, to rip something from Douglas Adams).

At a more profound level, I really appreciated point 18 under "Relationality": 'human intelligence is not an isolated faculty but is exercised in relationships, finding its fullest expression in dialogue, collaboration, and solidarity. We learn with others, and we learn through others.'

I was raised Protestant, but taught to be fundamentally skeptical of the political and historical baggage of any religious institution. Though I recognize that writings like this are a result of deeply held faith, it always feels paradoxical when leaders wax poetic about the mystery of God and then say 'so here is what God thinks you should do.' How could they know? That probably sounds basic, but it is my reaction. What draws me back in is the emphasis on our relationships with other human beings. Those relationships are the things that are actually in front of us, and can make a meaningful difference in our day-to-day lives. Something very useful to keep in mind when developing AI (or ABNECUI).

[throw0101c]

> it always feels paradoxical when leaders wax poetic about the mystery of God and then say 'so here is what God thinks you should do.' How could they know?

Perhaps we were told it:

> "Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?" He [Jesus] said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Commandment

Which is taken from the Torah. See also:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sermon_on_the_Mount

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sheep_and_the_Goats

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Good_Samaritan

The leaders are probably just reiterating/reminding people.

[rotexo]

Yes, I recognize that these are articles of deeply-held faith. I am open to the idea of God, I am open to the idea that God is fundamentally mysterious and beyond our mortal understanding. I simply feel that I always have to exercise skepticism regarding the words of religious institutions, though, because it seems to me that power-hungry individuals could use legitimate teachings as a camouflage for their immoral selfish impulses. Though maybe some institutions can effectively guard themselves against this, selecting people truly committed to God for leadership (I find myself likely to believe, for instance, that Pope Francis in particular is truly committed to God via the humans around him).

I guess all of the doubts are a reminder for me to focus on other humans with love. That is the part of the Bible's teachings (or the teachings of other religions) that are accessible to my experience.

[kittikitti]

> Which is taken from the Torah.

Proceeding to link to Wikipedia while claiming the Vatican took their opinions from the Torah especially since their references are an actual bibliography is very reductive.

[nyokodo]

> How could they know?

I can’t speak for any religious leader but in terms of Catholic leadership: because in many matters God spoke through the Prophets and then He came down and told us directly which is preserved in Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15-17), and the Holy Spirit guides the Church (John 14:26) and does so through the prime ministerial office of the Pope the successor of Peter (Mathew 16:13-19) and through the Bishops the successors of the Apostles (Acts 1:12-26)(Acts 15)

[nonameiguess]

Granting it's been 30 years since I've considered myself Catholic, so speaking entirely from the perspective of a non-believer at this point, but to me, the central dilemma is say I buy that we and our universe have a thinking, feeling creator that watches events, possibly intervenes, and actually cares how we behave in a way we can translate into human language and moral directives, given all the thousands upon thousands of conflicting historical text claiming to be that, why should I accept what one specific council of European priests 600 years ago or whatever decided is to be considered holy canon?

Other commenters trying to compare to science seem to misunderstand the analogy. You don't have to accept the conclusions of Francis Bacon himself because he sort of formalized the scientific method as we know it today. Nor do we read the texts of Newton and consider that eternal canon. Science involves empirical investigation and all claims can be corroborated or contradicted by further investigation. They're probabilistic claims based on statistical analysis of the currently available known evidence and always subject to change.

If you don't think this works, then explain how AI is able to exist in the first place, because adjusting probability estimates based on statistical modeling of incoming evidence conditioned on past evidence is exactly what machine learning does.

I love Catholicism for all the reasons given elsewhere. It has produced a grand tradition of clear writers and erudite thinkers. The basic morality and orientation of man's purpose with respect to other men rings "true" to me even if it lies outside of empiricism. But the core dogma of "believe specific claims of fact because they were written down in one text and not another" is bad epistemology no matter how you cut it. If God himself ever spoke to me directly, I'd have no choice but to consider that (but would also have to consider that I might be insane). No priest and no prophet, however, is ever going to convince me that they speak with the mandate of God just because they believe it very strongly themselves.

[grahamj]

Books are written by people. It’s humans all the way down.

[jajko]

AI term if fine, no need to muddy the waters even more. There is the first word - Artificial in past and current world means subpar, fake, imitation that often breaks apart when you get closer and you should never expect to match original in quality nor experience.

Artificial plants, artificial meat, artificial light, and so on. Nothing great there, just cheaper, tolerable, often low quality, don't expect that much etc.

[BalinKing]

I'm not Catholic, and I share your distrust of religious institutions. So with that disclaimer, I think my answer would be that God chooses, at times, to teach us things in a "small enough" way that we can understand them.

For example, consider when the Bible gives concrete statements about what God wants us to do or not to, or when Jesus uses analogies and parables. Do we necessarily get the full picture? No, and there's a lot about the Christian life that one only learns through experience. One of those things IMO is that some questions have unknowable answers. E.g. "why did this particular tragedy occur?", or perhaps more fundamentally, "how could a holy and perfect God ever show mercy to us imperfect humans?". Or maybe even more directly to the thrust of your comment, "how could we ever hope to understand anything about God?".

Something else that comes to mind is that God became human Himself, and I imagine that—at least in part—this would be to allow us to understand Him better. Through Jesus' life, we got to see what it would look like for God to live a human life. (Admittedly, the question then becomes, how does God become man in the first place, which I have to categorize under "questions with unknowable answers".)

Finally, the Bible often talks about the Holy Spirit helping Christians to understand "spiritual" things. That is to say, it's not quite a matter of us trying to reach logical conclusions on our own, since—as you say—that wouldn't be possible for a God that's beyond our limits of comprehension. Rather, we get some supernatural help in the matter.

Maybe the tl;dr is that, just because we can't understand everything (or maybe even most things) about a God that is fundamentally greater than us in every way, doesn't imply that we can't understand anything.

[jcarrano]

I once read that the collapse of the Roman empire set back technological progress a few centuries. Maybe it was a good thing. Could you imagine having atomic bombs with a XV century mentality? I'm not saying that the 500 years ago the mentality was worse, but maybe we weren't prepared yet.

[mrguyorama]

[flagged]

[dang]

If you could please make your substantive points without fulminating, we (and the site guidelines - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) would appreciate it.

[aeneasmackenzie]

Papal infallibility is not invoked that often. Here’s an example, in section 4 (wherefore…) [0]

In particular papal infallibility was not involved in the Protestants’ complaints, and the response to their complaints (Trent) was a council and again has nothing to do with papal infallibility.

The pope was also an absolute monarch at the time, but protestants didn’t care about that aspect.

0: https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters...