by Christopher Gross and Patrick Looby
It is rare that philosophical arguments can be resolved by simply appealing to empirical data. In many instances, participants in the dispute may agree on the facts but disagree about the implications of those facts or how much weight should be given to them. However, there are rare cases where a thorough examination of the evidence proves one side is correct and the other side clearly wrong. The “debate” between Harry Knox and Pope Benedict is one of those rare instances.
As you may know, Harry Knox, who serves on President Obama’s faith-based advisory council, said earlier this week that he stood by a statement he made last year concerning the Pope. According to Knox, the Pope is “hurting people in the name of Jesus,” because the Holy Father has suggested that promoting condom use in Africa will not end the suffering caused by the AIDS epidemic there and in fact increases the spread of HIV/AIDS. The problem with Knox’s position, despite his appeal to the ‘science,’ is that the empirical evidence does not support his attack. It actually favors the Pope.
