Belief is a poor cognitive substitute for confidence. The jury can decide which evidence they have more confidence in, or neither, without ever venturing into an act of faith -- and that's just how they should do it.
Well, there were some Popes named Eugene, so you might be on to something...
The question was ignorant, as two minutes of Googling would show. However, to respond in such a brusque way without offering an explanation is just lazy and rude:
The Pope's proclamations are only considered infallible when speaking "ex cathedra", in other words from the Chair of St. Peter, in his role as the apostolic leader of the whole Church, in communion and in agreement with the bishops of the world, on matters of faith and morals.
Papal infallibility as described here has been invoked exactly twice in all of Church history, in both cases to officially declare doctrine that had already been universally agreed and believed by Catholics for centuries: The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and the Doctrine of the Assumption of Mary.
Other than in his official capacity as the Vicar of Christ, the Pope's pronouncements are no more "infallible" than anyone else's, although one should expect that when he's talking about Catholic Doctrine, he would (or at least should) know what he's talking about.
This declaration is not news to anyone who knows anything about Catholic teaching. Pope John-Paul II said much the same thing, and the idea of evolution of life was hypothesized as far back as St. Augustine (and probably earlier... I bet the Greeks considered it). The nature of a logical and objective universe being the creation of God has always been consistent with Catholic teaching. Just read Thomas Aquinas. However, given how poorly Catholic teaching is understood, even among Catholics, and how much the Bible literalists and other fundamentalists have distorted the "common wisdom" of what Christians actually believe (especially in the U.S.), it is useful for His Holiness to point this out.
"eugenics"
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I think the important point here is that the Pope is making clear that the theory of evolution and of the Big Bang as currently understood do not contradict Catholic teaching. In fact, LeMaitre was considering Einstein's equations with an eye towards the idea of how they jibe with the idea of God creating the universe when he figured out the new interpretation of what the equations could be saying about the origins of the universe. Einstein himself had always considered the Universe to be in a steady-state.
I agree that this is a non-story, but given the general ignorance of people about Catholic teaching, including most Catholics, and the way the debate has been grotesquely skewed because of the objectively anti-science Protestants (e.g., the Bible literalists and other fundamentalists), especially in the United States, while it is not news for the knowledgeable among us, it is likely to be news for the average person.
The Galileo story was as much about politics and people being thick-headed and stubborn all around as anything else. Name another one. Hint: Bruno doesn't count.
The Big Bang states that the Universe gave birth to itself, and by implication gave birth to any gods or other form of Deity that may be around today.
No, it doesn't. You might want to read up on the origins of the Big Bang theory, and the Catholic guy who invented it. It's entirely possible to believe that a being outside the space-time continuum created our universe with a bang -- or laid an egg which hatched, or farted or sneezed out the Cosmos.
I don't accept any of these theories, mind, but there's nothing directly contradictory about believing in a creator outside the continuum created in the Big Bang; indeed that's what some multiverse theories (e.g., black hole cosmology) amount to, though of course they're not speaking of a conscious creator.
But physicalism is indeed far to limited a model for observable reality.
Howso? You speak of "intelligence" and "consciousness", but the behavior I see of humans and other animals is quite adequately explained by a physicalist, neurological explanation. Sensory transducers tickle certain nerves, via the network of the nervous system other nerves fire in a chain and eventually make muscles move (or gland secrete or whatever). That these muscle movements in a human being sometime hit keyboard keys to spell out "I am a conscious being!", or cause complex vocalizations, is fundamentally no more mysterious than any other observable behavior of an organism with a brain.
Does this objective account explain my own subjective internal experience of life? The question is meaningless -- no set of observations of the external, objective universe have bearing on my internal, subjective experience. And if other beings have internal, subjective experiences, they are by definition not part of the external, objective, observable universe, and it's a fallacy to seek explanations of the unobservable in the observable. Indeed it seems a fallacy to seek explanations (in the causal sense) of the unobservable at all...
Stalin and Mao found no ideas in atheism -- lack of belief in a god or gods -- that led them to kill anyone. This simply because there are no such ideas. Atheism has no dogma, no canon, no nothing. The state of atheism consists of a lack of belief in a god or gods, and nothing else. Consequently, ideas like "kill some number of people" by definition come from another source. And in particular:
Stalin and Mao were psychopaths (crackpots, frankly), and that is where you want to look to find out what drove them to kill. Whatever you find, it is an absolute certainty it won't be atheism.
However, the crusades were, in fact, driven to a significant extent specifically by theist reasoning, canon and dogma. As were the murders and tortures perpetrated during the inquisitions, the witch-hunts and subsequent burnings, blood libel, and pogroms, many events such as the 9/11 incidents, various wars, as well as the lesser but still despicable centuries of subjugation of women, repression of sexuality, interference with relationships and legislation, social ostracism, and so on.
I will also say that theist thought has also been the prime motivator for a massive amount of great art in many forms -- sculpture, paintings, architecture, music and a whole host of various other artifacts, and when charity and compassion are foremost and the compulsion to impose belief is absent or at least minimal, theism is at its absolute best at doing little to no harm while doing extensive good. This does not, in any way, say that we should forget, or forgive, or ignore, the many evils done in the past, being done now, and those impending, in the cause of theism.
So you want to be very careful before you go waving Stalin and Mao around as examples of atheism causing problems, or, as a counter to the historical fact of the murders committed directly for the (various) causes of religion . Atheism providing a rationale to harm others is not the reality. It's never been the reality. Claiming it is the reality is either disingenuous or ignorant.
I'm completely harmless. I'm a married middle class worker who pays his taxes and has no interest in harming anyone.
Same could be said of most of the Japanese-Americans whom the federal government put in concentration camps during WWII.
Innocence and harmlessness are no protection when governments go bad.
those retailers pay very low transactions fees (less than 0.2%).
Not true. Apply Pay is linked to the buyer's credit card, so merchants still have to pay swipe fees to the bastards at Visa, MasterCard, et. al.
Why would I use it?
Because merchants are probably going to start charging you a fee to use your credit card. They may hide it by jacking up prices then offer a "CurrentC discount" or something (sort of like the so-called "cash discount" at the gas station), since it's still tricky to charge a CC fee, but merchants are getting reamed and are trying hard to find a way to stop it. Where do you think that cash back on your Visa card comes from?
It's a prison where horrible things had to happen to prevent ever more horrible things from happening.
It's a prison where people did horrible things and tried to excuse them by saying they had to, in order to prevent ever more horrible things from happening, but in reality prompted yet more horrible things. See political martyr, and please stop believing that you put out a fire by pouring more fuel on it, or stop horrors by committing more horrors.
I didn't want to work at all. But that eating thing, and that shelter thing, and that health thing...
> There is evidence that the human mind can communicate with matter at the quantum level.
Cite?
Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.
