Mardy (Entratas super religion)http://mardy.it/ia/categories/religion.atom2024-02-02T20:11:00ZAlberto MardeganNikolaThe “idiotism” of software developershttp://mardy.it/ia/blog/2022/11/the-idiotism-of-software-developers.html2022-11-08T20:11:55+03:002022-11-08T20:11:55+03:00Alberto Mardegan<p>Before you get angry at me for this title, please let me state that I count
myself in the number of the “idiots” and, secondly, that what I mean by
“idiotism” here is not to be intended as an offence, but as some traits of
mindset which are typical of very logical brains.</p>
<p>Some months ago I finished reading Dostoevskiy's “The Idiot”, a book about an
exceedingly good-hearted man, prince Lev Mishkin, whose behaviour was puzzling
the people around him so much that they thought of him as an idiot. Sure, the
fact that he was suffering from epilepsy didn't help, but it was far from being
the primary reason for their thinking, since his epileptic seizures were very
rare (if I remember correctly, only two occurred during the time of the story)
and everybody's opinion had already formed well ahead of witnessing him in such
a state.</p>
<p>He was an idiot because he was open, trustful, and especially because he could
not “read between the lines” of what was been said to him: his social conduct
was straight, and although he was following at his best the customs that he had
been taught, he was supposedly awkward and unable to perceive and parse all the
messages that are implicitly conveyed by social behaviours and human
interactions. I added the word “supposedly” because, as a matter of fact, his
behaviours were all perfectly normal for me: I only noticed their awkwardness
when it was pointed out by the other characters, at which point I couldn't help
smiling and acknowledging that, indeed, that thing he did was weird.</p>
<p>However, he was a good and caring person, and not without talents: he had an
interest in calligraphy, and everybody liked to listen to him, as his speech
was insightful and his thoughts were original. I wonder how many of my readers
can identify themselves in such a character?</p>
<p>I definitely can. I won't get into the details, but I've felt many times on me
the amused or puzzled glance of people (like that time in high school when I
could not open a door in front of dozens of people, and I heard them say “So,
that guy is the genius of mathematics?” — I'll never forget that!), often
without understanding the reason for their reactions. Still, generally people
seem to like my company and be genuinely interested in talking to me.</p>
<p>So, what's wrong with prince Lev Mishkin, me, and maybe with you too? Well, a few
things, I would say. I'm not going to claim any scientific truth on what I'm
going to say, these are just my own impressions and deductions, which seem
to be shared by other people in the interwebs too, judging from a quick search
I did; take them for what they are.</p>
<p>The first thing I notice is some common traits between us and autistic people:
we tend to work better with things, rather than with people; we can to focus on
a certain thing (work, a mathematical problem, a game) and forget about the
world around us; we have our unique hobbies, like solving puzzles, arguing
about a specific and very narrow topic, learning artificial (both human and
programming) languages; it's as if we needed to build a small, better world
where we would feel safe and at ease.</p>
<p>The other thing, which I actually consider harmful and which I put efforts to
change in my own life, is the fact that it's extremely easy to get us
interested into a specific aspect of a problem, and make us forget (or just not
notice) the big picture. That small part that we are looking at is stimulating
and challenging, and we are led to think that it's core of the issue, and maybe
of all the issues that affect our world. What is often missing is the ability
to take one step back and try to look at the issue from a different angle, and
especially the ability to listen for counter arguments; I mean, we do listen to
them, but since we have, in a way, “gamified” the issue, even when we think
that we are open to listen for the other side, we are in reality trying to win
the counter-arguments, rather than genuinely trying to understanding them.</p>
<p>Another thing which we have, is faith. Yes, you read it right: even though the
IT world is probably the one with the highest percentage of atheists, men
always need something to believe in. We just don't realize it, but we do hold a
blind trust in certain persons and authorities. This does not mean that this
trust lives forever and cannot be broken, but this generally does not occur
because of a conscious realization of ours. Much more often than we'd like to
admit, the reason why we lose faith in a certain person or authority is because
<em>the rest of the persons and authorities that we trust has told us so</em>. In
other words, even if there's undoubtedly a reasoning of our own, the full
realisation and conviction occurs after having collected and compared the
opinions (or statements) of those we trust. The net result is that the IT
population is the one most trustful of the mainstream media, because it's the
mainstream media who has more “voice”: that's where the most <em>reputable</em>
journalists, scientists, activists are (and “reputable” is the key word here,
since this reputation is recursively created by the mainstream media
themselves or by their sponsors).</p>
<p>I might be biased by my own experience here, but it seems to me that there
isn't a group of people more homogenous in their political (and generally,
world) views than that of IT workers. When, in 2018, I saw the leaked video of
Google's co-founder Sergei Brin and other executives' reaction at Trump's
presidential victory, what I found most surprising was not the contents of the
speech, as they were mostly mainstream opinions, but rather the fact that all
this could be said in a company meeting. Something like this, I though, could
never happen in an European company, as political matters are a conventional
tabu in the work environment. But the point is that Brin and others could say
those words only because <em>they knew</em> that the overwhelming majority of the
audience shared the same opinion. I don't think you could find the same
homogeneity of thought among shop assistants or philosophy professors.</p>
<p>Assuming that you have followed me this far into my rambling, and that you
recognize that there might be some truth in what I wrote, you might now be
wondering if there's a way to counterbalance our “idiotic” traits.
Unfortunately I don't have a full answer, as myself am only halfway there (but
maybe I'm too optimistic here? and does this road even ever end?), but there
are a few things that I think are absolutely worth trying:</p>
<ul>
<li>
<p>Talk with people. Better if face to face, or at least in a video call; just
1-on-1, avoid groups, or you'll get on the defensive and try to defend your
position for the sake of not losing the argument in front of an audience. But
it's not a fight. Your goal when talking should not be that of convincing or
getting convinced, but rather just to <em>understand</em> the other points of view.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Read both sides of the narrative. Try to see the other party's argument as
they themselves present it, and not how it is presented in the media you
usually read. Media often use this trick, to either invite “clown
representatives” of the other point of view just to ridicule it, or they give them
too little time, or extrapolate their answer out of context, just to make
them appear unsensible.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Always assume that other people are smart, and that no one is bad.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Whatever the argument, try to answer the key question: “Cui bono?” (who
profits?) to be at least aware of all the hidden interests behind this and
that. They don't necessarily invalidate a position, but they must be
considered.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Lose faith. The only faith you are allowed to keep is the faith in God (or
Gods), if you have it: but men, theories, institutions, authorities
(including religious ones!), these must always be assumed to be imperfect and
not blindly trusted. People serve their interests or can be manipulated. Try
always to start from a clean table and an empty mind, and see if they have
enough arguments to convince you. </p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Do never assume “They can not <em>all</em> be wrong” or “If this were wrong, at
least some media would report it”. It just doesn't work this way, this is
again a matter of having faith in the majority. Think of how many times in
(recent) history you were presented an unambiguous truth, which later came
out to be a scam (Iraq war being a famous one).</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Defocus. You might be spending a lot of energy into something that's not
worth it. I mean, feel free to pursue whatever hobbies you like, as long as
they make you feel better. But if you think you have a <em>mission</em>, think twice
about it. Think about the world you'd like to live in, and whether/how this
mission contributes to it.<sup id="fnref:saudi"><a class="footnote-ref" href="http://mardy.it/ia/blog/2022/11/the-idiotism-of-software-developers.html#fn:saudi">2</a></sup></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Ask questions. Be curious. Be challenging. For any topic, there are questions
that have not been answered in mainstream media<sup id="fnref:refugees"><a class="footnote-ref" href="http://mardy.it/ia/blog/2022/11/the-idiotism-of-software-developers.html#fn:refugees">1</a></sup>. Find the answer,
then find explanations, never stopping at the first satisfactory one, but
always get at least two competing answers. From here, ask more questions,
rinse and repeat. And at every step ask yourself this: why didn't I know
about this? Is someone trying to hide the truth from me?</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Aim at improving. Whenever you read something or talk to people, keep a
humble attitude and try to be challenged. Your goal should be that every
reading and every dialog should make you wiser, even if what you initially
read and heard sounded like garbage. There are always reasons for all these
thoughts you disagree with.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Reach out to the people nearby. Try not just to be sympathetic to the needs of
some population living far away from you, which the media has singled out as
being those needing your compassion, and try instead (or in addition to that)
to be sympathetic and helpful to the people around you. To your neighbours,
to those you see in the public transport and, first and foremost, to your
relatives.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>Summing up, what I want you to realize is that we IT workers are easily
exploitable. All those thought manipulation techniques represent a problem to
everyone, but it's particularly with us that they tend to be especially
effective; as a matter of fact, I've found that awareness of how the power
controls us is higher among uneducated people, because they are more
distrustful of the media and just tend to consume less of it. We, on the other
hand, are not only well educated to respect the authority (see <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv6TyJ1AbRM">Noam Chomsky on
education</a>), but our logical,
detail-focused mind can be easily externally controlled by continuously
stimulating it to focus on specific things and not others.</p>
<p>How would Dostoevskiy call us?</p>
<div class="footnote">
<hr>
<ol>
<li id="fn:refugees">
<p>My favourite one is: which country hosts more refugees from Ukraine? <a class="footnote-backref" href="http://mardy.it/ia/blog/2022/11/the-idiotism-of-software-developers.html#fnref:refugees" title="Jump back to footnote 1 in the text">↩</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn:saudi">
<p>I was recently surprised when I read people in a forum who were
discussing avoiding doing business with Saudi Arabia because of their human
rights record. Seriously? We are talking about a government who has indirectly
caused the death of more than 300 thousands people in Yemen, and your main
reason to criticize them is human rights? It's like asking the police to arrest
a killer because before the assassination he misgendered his victim! Yet the
elephant in the room continues to go unseen. <a class="footnote-backref" href="http://mardy.it/ia/blog/2022/11/the-idiotism-of-software-developers.html#fnref:saudi" title="Jump back to footnote 2 in the text">↩</a></p>
</li>
</ol>
</div><p>Before you get angry at me for this title, please let me state that I count
myself in the number of the “idiots” and, secondly, that what I mean by
“idiotism” here is not to be intended as an offence, but as some traits of
mindset which are typical of very logical brains.</p>
<p>Some months ago I finished reading Dostoevskiy's “The Idiot”, a book about an
exceedingly good-hearted man, prince Lev Mishkin, whose behaviour was puzzling
the people around him so much that they thought of him as an idiot. Sure, the
fact that he was suffering from epilepsy didn't help, but it was far from being
the primary reason for their thinking, since his epileptic seizures were very
rare (if I remember correctly, only two occurred during the time of the story)
and everybody's opinion had already formed well ahead of witnessing him in such
a state.</p>
<p>He was an idiot because he was open, trustful, and especially because he could
not “read between the lines” of what was been said to him: his social conduct
was straight, and although he was following at his best the customs that he had
been taught, he was supposedly awkward and unable to perceive and parse all the
messages that are implicitly conveyed by social behaviours and human
interactions. I added the word “supposedly” because, as a matter of fact, his
behaviours were all perfectly normal for me: I only noticed their awkwardness
when it was pointed out by the other characters, at which point I couldn't help
smiling and acknowledging that, indeed, that thing he did was weird.</p>
<p>However, he was a good and caring person, and not without talents: he had an
interest in calligraphy, and everybody liked to listen to him, as his speech
was insightful and his thoughts were original. I wonder how many of my readers
can identify themselves in such a character?</p>
<p>I definitely can. I won't get into the details, but I've felt many times on me
the amused or puzzled glance of people (like that time in high school when I
could not open a door in front of dozens of people, and I heard them say “So,
that guy is the genius of mathematics?” — I'll never forget that!), often
without understanding the reason for their reactions. Still, generally people
seem to like my company and be genuinely interested in talking to me.</p>
<p>So, what's wrong with prince Lev Mishkin, me, and maybe with you too? Well, a few
things, I would say. I'm not going to claim any scientific truth on what I'm
going to say, these are just my own impressions and deductions, which seem
to be shared by other people in the interwebs too, judging from a quick search
I did; take them for what they are.</p>
<p>The first thing I notice is some common traits between us and autistic people:
we tend to work better with things, rather than with people; we can to focus on
a certain thing (work, a mathematical problem, a game) and forget about the
world around us; we have our unique hobbies, like solving puzzles, arguing
about a specific and very narrow topic, learning artificial (both human and
programming) languages; it's as if we needed to build a small, better world
where we would feel safe and at ease.</p>
<p>The other thing, which I actually consider harmful and which I put efforts to
change in my own life, is the fact that it's extremely easy to get us
interested into a specific aspect of a problem, and make us forget (or just not
notice) the big picture. That small part that we are looking at is stimulating
and challenging, and we are led to think that it's core of the issue, and maybe
of all the issues that affect our world. What is often missing is the ability
to take one step back and try to look at the issue from a different angle, and
especially the ability to listen for counter arguments; I mean, we do listen to
them, but since we have, in a way, “gamified” the issue, even when we think
that we are open to listen for the other side, we are in reality trying to win
the counter-arguments, rather than genuinely trying to understanding them.</p>
<p>Another thing which we have, is faith. Yes, you read it right: even though the
IT world is probably the one with the highest percentage of atheists, men
always need something to believe in. We just don't realize it, but we do hold a
blind trust in certain persons and authorities. This does not mean that this
trust lives forever and cannot be broken, but this generally does not occur
because of a conscious realization of ours. Much more often than we'd like to
admit, the reason why we lose faith in a certain person or authority is because
<em>the rest of the persons and authorities that we trust has told us so</em>. In
other words, even if there's undoubtedly a reasoning of our own, the full
realisation and conviction occurs after having collected and compared the
opinions (or statements) of those we trust. The net result is that the IT
population is the one most trustful of the mainstream media, because it's the
mainstream media who has more “voice”: that's where the most <em>reputable</em>
journalists, scientists, activists are (and “reputable” is the key word here,
since this reputation is recursively created by the mainstream media
themselves or by their sponsors).</p>
<p>I might be biased by my own experience here, but it seems to me that there
isn't a group of people more homogenous in their political (and generally,
world) views than that of IT workers. When, in 2018, I saw the leaked video of
Google's co-founder Sergei Brin and other executives' reaction at Trump's
presidential victory, what I found most surprising was not the contents of the
speech, as they were mostly mainstream opinions, but rather the fact that all
this could be said in a company meeting. Something like this, I though, could
never happen in an European company, as political matters are a conventional
tabu in the work environment. But the point is that Brin and others could say
those words only because <em>they knew</em> that the overwhelming majority of the
audience shared the same opinion. I don't think you could find the same
homogeneity of thought among shop assistants or philosophy professors.</p>
<p>Assuming that you have followed me this far into my rambling, and that you
recognize that there might be some truth in what I wrote, you might now be
wondering if there's a way to counterbalance our “idiotic” traits.
Unfortunately I don't have a full answer, as myself am only halfway there (but
maybe I'm too optimistic here? and does this road even ever end?), but there
are a few things that I think are absolutely worth trying:</p>
<ul>
<li>
<p>Talk with people. Better if face to face, or at least in a video call; just
1-on-1, avoid groups, or you'll get on the defensive and try to defend your
position for the sake of not losing the argument in front of an audience. But
it's not a fight. Your goal when talking should not be that of convincing or
getting convinced, but rather just to <em>understand</em> the other points of view.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Read both sides of the narrative. Try to see the other party's argument as
they themselves present it, and not how it is presented in the media you
usually read. Media often use this trick, to either invite “clown
representatives” of the other point of view just to ridicule it, or they give them
too little time, or extrapolate their answer out of context, just to make
them appear unsensible.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Always assume that other people are smart, and that no one is bad.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Whatever the argument, try to answer the key question: “Cui bono?” (who
profits?) to be at least aware of all the hidden interests behind this and
that. They don't necessarily invalidate a position, but they must be
considered.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Lose faith. The only faith you are allowed to keep is the faith in God (or
Gods), if you have it: but men, theories, institutions, authorities
(including religious ones!), these must always be assumed to be imperfect and
not blindly trusted. People serve their interests or can be manipulated. Try
always to start from a clean table and an empty mind, and see if they have
enough arguments to convince you. </p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Do never assume “They can not <em>all</em> be wrong” or “If this were wrong, at
least some media would report it”. It just doesn't work this way, this is
again a matter of having faith in the majority. Think of how many times in
(recent) history you were presented an unambiguous truth, which later came
out to be a scam (Iraq war being a famous one).</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Defocus. You might be spending a lot of energy into something that's not
worth it. I mean, feel free to pursue whatever hobbies you like, as long as
they make you feel better. But if you think you have a <em>mission</em>, think twice
about it. Think about the world you'd like to live in, and whether/how this
mission contributes to it.<sup id="fnref:saudi"><a class="footnote-ref" href="http://mardy.it/ia/blog/2022/11/the-idiotism-of-software-developers.html#fn:saudi">2</a></sup></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Ask questions. Be curious. Be challenging. For any topic, there are questions
that have not been answered in mainstream media<sup id="fnref:refugees"><a class="footnote-ref" href="http://mardy.it/ia/blog/2022/11/the-idiotism-of-software-developers.html#fn:refugees">1</a></sup>. Find the answer,
then find explanations, never stopping at the first satisfactory one, but
always get at least two competing answers. From here, ask more questions,
rinse and repeat. And at every step ask yourself this: why didn't I know
about this? Is someone trying to hide the truth from me?</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Aim at improving. Whenever you read something or talk to people, keep a
humble attitude and try to be challenged. Your goal should be that every
reading and every dialog should make you wiser, even if what you initially
read and heard sounded like garbage. There are always reasons for all these
thoughts you disagree with.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Reach out to the people nearby. Try not just to be sympathetic to the needs of
some population living far away from you, which the media has singled out as
being those needing your compassion, and try instead (or in addition to that)
to be sympathetic and helpful to the people around you. To your neighbours,
to those you see in the public transport and, first and foremost, to your
relatives.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>Summing up, what I want you to realize is that we IT workers are easily
exploitable. All those thought manipulation techniques represent a problem to
everyone, but it's particularly with us that they tend to be especially
effective; as a matter of fact, I've found that awareness of how the power
controls us is higher among uneducated people, because they are more
distrustful of the media and just tend to consume less of it. We, on the other
hand, are not only well educated to respect the authority (see <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv6TyJ1AbRM">Noam Chomsky on
education</a>), but our logical,
detail-focused mind can be easily externally controlled by continuously
stimulating it to focus on specific things and not others.</p>
<p>How would Dostoevskiy call us?</p>
<div class="footnote">
<hr>
<ol>
<li id="fn:refugees">
<p>My favourite one is: which country hosts more refugees from Ukraine? <a class="footnote-backref" href="http://mardy.it/ia/blog/2022/11/the-idiotism-of-software-developers.html#fnref:refugees" title="Jump back to footnote 1 in the text">↩</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn:saudi">
<p>I was recently surprised when I read people in a forum who were
discussing avoiding doing business with Saudi Arabia because of their human
rights record. Seriously? We are talking about a government who has indirectly
caused the death of more than 300 thousands people in Yemen, and your main
reason to criticize them is human rights? It's like asking the police to arrest
a killer because before the assassination he misgendered his victim! Yet the
elephant in the room continues to go unseen. <a class="footnote-backref" href="http://mardy.it/ia/blog/2022/11/the-idiotism-of-software-developers.html#fnref:saudi" title="Jump back to footnote 2 in the text">↩</a></p>
</li>
</ol>
</div>L'acqua santa non ritorneràhttp://mardy.it/ia/blog/2022/02/lacqua-santa-non-ritornera.html2022-02-03T18:30:13+03:002022-02-03T18:30:13+03:00Alberto Mardegan<p>Forse ciò che mi ha colpito di più la scorsa estate, quando sono ritornato in
Italia in tempo di pandemenza, è stato trovare le acquesantiere vuote. La
sensazione provata in quel gesto abituale, stavolta culminato col tocco della
pietra asciutta con le mie dita, mi ritorna periodicamente alla memoria e mi
infonde un certo senso di incompletezza, decadenza, se non proprio di
sgradevolezza.</p>
<p>Sono tornato a rifletterci più di una volta, e — forse per il fatto di vivere
all'estero e di non aver ascoltato o letto le motivazioni ufficiali della sua
rimozione — la domanda più martellante che il ricordo dell'acqua santa mi
suggerisce è questa: abbiamo tutti perso la fede?</p>
<p>Già, perché se da un punto di vista scientifico sappiamo benissimo che la
benedizione del sacerdote non cambia la composizione chimica dell'acqua e non
le conferisce alcuna proprietà antivirale, sappiamo anche, da fedeli, che
l'acqua in cui intingiamo le dita è acqua <em>santa</em>. E ciò che è santo, per
definizione, ci avvicina a Dio, e non va temuto. L'acqua benedetta non si beve
a tavola, non si getta nel lavandino; al contrario, ci eleva: viene usata nei
battesimi, e negli esorcismi per scacciare i demoni. Nella cerimonia
dell'aspersione si prega con queste parole:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Signore Dio onnipotente, fonte e origine della vita, benedici quest’acqua con
la quale saremo aspersi, fiduciosi di ottenere il perdono dei peccati, <strong>la
difesa da ogni malattia</strong> e dalle insidie del maligno, e la grazia della tua
protezione. Nella tua misericordia donaci, o Signore, una sorgente di acqua
viva che zampilli per la vita eterna, perché, liberi da ogni pericolo
dell’anima e del corpo, possiamo venire a te con cuore puro. Per Cristo
nostro Signore.<sup id="fnref:1"><a class="footnote-ref" href="http://mardy.it/ia/blog/2022/02/lacqua-santa-non-ritornera.html#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Altrettanto esplicito è il testo della benedizione in latino, laddove recita
<em>“ut creatura tua, mysteriis tuis serviens, ad abigendos dæmones morbosque
pellendos divinæ gratiæ sumat effectum”</em> (“affinché la tua creatura [l'acqua],
diventi un agente di grazia divina al servizio dei tuoi misteri, per scacciare
gli spiriti maligni e allontanare le malattie”). Fermo restando che va
condannato l'uso superstizioso dell'acqua benedetta così come di tutti gli
altri oggetti santificati e dei rituali, la fede ci impone di riconoscere che
il fedele autenticamente credente nel Signore non potrà corrompersi venendo a
contatto con l'acqua santa, indipendentemente da quanti virus e batteri ne
siano stati versati dentro.</p>
<p>Chi ha un minimo di fede sa benissimo che il Signore non permetterà che chi lo
cerca venga attaccato da una malattia trasmessa proprio da un oggetto
santificato; sa pure che, se una propria futura malattia fosse contemplata nel
disegno divino, questa si abbatterebbe su di lui nonostante vaccinazioni,
mascherine, distanziamenti sociali e aquesantiere vuote. Il che, si badi bene,
non significa non essere artefici della propria vita: significa riconoscere il
ruolo del sacro e il potere del Signore di operare nel nostro quotidiano.
Quindi non rassegnazione, ma ricerca attiva del divino.</p>
<p>È per questo che provo un certo rammarico e un profondo senso di delusione,
soprattutto rivolto alle autorità ecclesiastiche che, obbedendo ciecamente e
convintamente ai diktat del potere politico, vuoi con chiusure dei luoghi di
culto nei periodi del <em>lockdown</em>, vuoi con distanziamenti, mascherine e
rimozione dell'acqua benedetta, hanno dimostrato, nella mia percezione, di
riporre maggior fede nell'Organizzazione Mondiale della Sanità che nella
Provvidenza.</p>
<p>Temo che non sia stata colta appieno la pericolosità di questi cambiamenti per
quanto riguarda gli effetti a lungo termine sulla fede delle comunità. Comunità
che un tempo si meravigliavano per l'avventatezza dei religiosi che prestavano
le loro cure ai lebbrosi e ai malati di peste, incuranti della propria
incolumità e desiderosi soltanto di servire Dio e le sue creature. Non solo
oggi mancano esempi simili, ma anche la sola menzione del concetto di
"Provvidenza" non viene accettata, se non nei contesti più astratti.</p>
<p>La rimozione dell'acqua benedetta o, forse peggio ancora, il suo ritorno in
forma di un pratico dispenser, relega Dio nei piani più alti dell'iperuranio,
dove vivono le belle idee che mai, tuttavia, potranno influenzare la vita
terrena.</p>
<p>Io, senza vergognarmene, continuerò a credere che l'acqua santa non possa
contagiare il fedele.</p>
<div class="footnote">
<hr>
<ol>
<li id="fn:1">
<p>Dal Messale Romano, edizione 2020, pagina 990. <a class="footnote-backref" href="http://mardy.it/ia/blog/2022/02/lacqua-santa-non-ritornera.html#fnref:1" title="Jump back to footnote 1 in the text">↩</a></p>
</li>
</ol>
</div><p>Forse ciò che mi ha colpito di più la scorsa estate, quando sono ritornato in
Italia in tempo di pandemenza, è stato trovare le acquesantiere vuote. La
sensazione provata in quel gesto abituale, stavolta culminato col tocco della
pietra asciutta con le mie dita, mi ritorna periodicamente alla memoria e mi
infonde un certo senso di incompletezza, decadenza, se non proprio di
sgradevolezza.</p>
<p>Sono tornato a rifletterci più di una volta, e — forse per il fatto di vivere
all'estero e di non aver ascoltato o letto le motivazioni ufficiali della sua
rimozione — la domanda più martellante che il ricordo dell'acqua santa mi
suggerisce è questa: abbiamo tutti perso la fede?</p>
<p>Già, perché se da un punto di vista scientifico sappiamo benissimo che la
benedizione del sacerdote non cambia la composizione chimica dell'acqua e non
le conferisce alcuna proprietà antivirale, sappiamo anche, da fedeli, che
l'acqua in cui intingiamo le dita è acqua <em>santa</em>. E ciò che è santo, per
definizione, ci avvicina a Dio, e non va temuto. L'acqua benedetta non si beve
a tavola, non si getta nel lavandino; al contrario, ci eleva: viene usata nei
battesimi, e negli esorcismi per scacciare i demoni. Nella cerimonia
dell'aspersione si prega con queste parole:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Signore Dio onnipotente, fonte e origine della vita, benedici quest’acqua con
la quale saremo aspersi, fiduciosi di ottenere il perdono dei peccati, <strong>la
difesa da ogni malattia</strong> e dalle insidie del maligno, e la grazia della tua
protezione. Nella tua misericordia donaci, o Signore, una sorgente di acqua
viva che zampilli per la vita eterna, perché, liberi da ogni pericolo
dell’anima e del corpo, possiamo venire a te con cuore puro. Per Cristo
nostro Signore.<sup id="fnref:1"><a class="footnote-ref" href="http://mardy.it/ia/blog/2022/02/lacqua-santa-non-ritornera.html#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Altrettanto esplicito è il testo della benedizione in latino, laddove recita
<em>“ut creatura tua, mysteriis tuis serviens, ad abigendos dæmones morbosque
pellendos divinæ gratiæ sumat effectum”</em> (“affinché la tua creatura [l'acqua],
diventi un agente di grazia divina al servizio dei tuoi misteri, per scacciare
gli spiriti maligni e allontanare le malattie”). Fermo restando che va
condannato l'uso superstizioso dell'acqua benedetta così come di tutti gli
altri oggetti santificati e dei rituali, la fede ci impone di riconoscere che
il fedele autenticamente credente nel Signore non potrà corrompersi venendo a
contatto con l'acqua santa, indipendentemente da quanti virus e batteri ne
siano stati versati dentro.</p>
<p>Chi ha un minimo di fede sa benissimo che il Signore non permetterà che chi lo
cerca venga attaccato da una malattia trasmessa proprio da un oggetto
santificato; sa pure che, se una propria futura malattia fosse contemplata nel
disegno divino, questa si abbatterebbe su di lui nonostante vaccinazioni,
mascherine, distanziamenti sociali e aquesantiere vuote. Il che, si badi bene,
non significa non essere artefici della propria vita: significa riconoscere il
ruolo del sacro e il potere del Signore di operare nel nostro quotidiano.
Quindi non rassegnazione, ma ricerca attiva del divino.</p>
<p>È per questo che provo un certo rammarico e un profondo senso di delusione,
soprattutto rivolto alle autorità ecclesiastiche che, obbedendo ciecamente e
convintamente ai diktat del potere politico, vuoi con chiusure dei luoghi di
culto nei periodi del <em>lockdown</em>, vuoi con distanziamenti, mascherine e
rimozione dell'acqua benedetta, hanno dimostrato, nella mia percezione, di
riporre maggior fede nell'Organizzazione Mondiale della Sanità che nella
Provvidenza.</p>
<p>Temo che non sia stata colta appieno la pericolosità di questi cambiamenti per
quanto riguarda gli effetti a lungo termine sulla fede delle comunità. Comunità
che un tempo si meravigliavano per l'avventatezza dei religiosi che prestavano
le loro cure ai lebbrosi e ai malati di peste, incuranti della propria
incolumità e desiderosi soltanto di servire Dio e le sue creature. Non solo
oggi mancano esempi simili, ma anche la sola menzione del concetto di
"Provvidenza" non viene accettata, se non nei contesti più astratti.</p>
<p>La rimozione dell'acqua benedetta o, forse peggio ancora, il suo ritorno in
forma di un pratico dispenser, relega Dio nei piani più alti dell'iperuranio,
dove vivono le belle idee che mai, tuttavia, potranno influenzare la vita
terrena.</p>
<p>Io, senza vergognarmene, continuerò a credere che l'acqua santa non possa
contagiare il fedele.</p>
<div class="footnote">
<hr>
<ol>
<li id="fn:1">
<p>Dal Messale Romano, edizione 2020, pagina 990. <a class="footnote-backref" href="http://mardy.it/ia/blog/2022/02/lacqua-santa-non-ritornera.html#fnref:1" title="Jump back to footnote 1 in the text">↩</a></p>
</li>
</ol>
</div>Europa e Islamhttp://mardy.it/ia/blog/2016/10/europa-e-islam.html2016-10-29T11:51:00+03:002016-10-29T11:51:00+03:00Alberto Mardegan<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<i>(iste articulo es scripte in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlingua" target="_blank">interlingua</a>, le lingua auxiliar international)</i><br>
<i><br></i>
Hodie io legeva un articulo in le sito de Reuters, qui me faceva pensar un poco:<br>
<br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-mosques-insig-idUSKCN12S0HE" target="_blank"><img alt=" Lege le articulo in Reuters" border="0" src="http://mardy.it/archivos/imagines/blog/a1f89c4073f9223669dc36c351b9c875-Screenshot_from_2016-10-29_14-27-00.png"></a></div>
Io recommenda que vos lo lege integremente (<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-mosques-insig-idUSKCN12S0HE" target="_blank">clicca ci pro vader al articulo</a>); si vos non comprende le anglese, io va synthetisar lo multo brevemente. Alicun refugiatos de Syria trova que le moscheas in Germania es troppo conservative: illos insenia un Islam multo radical, con un interpretation multo litteral del Corano, simile a illo que veni inseniate in le Wahabismo o Salafismo.<br>
<br>
Io es convincite que Europa debe esser tolerante de tote religiones que es compatibile con nostre leges. Refugiatos qui arriva a Europa es sovente le victimas de nostre guerras o disfrutamento economic, e nos ha le responsabilitate de offerer les un compensation. Si nos ha destruite lor casa in lor pais, nos debe offerer les un altere casa. E nos debe permitter a illes de professar lor religion.<br>
<br>
Le construction de Moscheas in Europa es un cosa que io reguarda positivemente, ma nos non pote abandonar le musulmanos a se mesme. Nos debe laborar con illes e assecurar nos que le Islam que es inseniate in nostre moscheas es compatibile e respectose de nostre valores. Certemente, un interpretation litteral del Corano, qui promove le Jihad (guerra sancte), non es compatibile con nostre leges.<br>
<br>
Alicuno poterea pensar que le solution al problema es simplemente prohiber le construction de nove moscheas, ma isto portarea a un resultato totalmente opposite, como jam ha essite verificate in Italia (e io crede, in multe altere partes de Europa): le communitates islamic devenirea ancora plus isolate e impossibile a controlar; le inseniamento del Islam poterea prender formas ancora plus radical.<br>
<br>
Europa necessita Moscheas aperite.</div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<i>(iste articulo es scripte in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlingua" target="_blank">interlingua</a>, le lingua auxiliar international)</i><br>
<i><br></i>
Hodie io legeva un articulo in le sito de Reuters, qui me faceva pensar un poco:<br>
<br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-mosques-insig-idUSKCN12S0HE" target="_blank"><img alt=" Lege le articulo in Reuters" border="0" src="http://mardy.it/archivos/imagines/blog/a1f89c4073f9223669dc36c351b9c875-Screenshot_from_2016-10-29_14-27-00.png"></a></div>
Io recommenda que vos lo lege integremente (<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-mosques-insig-idUSKCN12S0HE" target="_blank">clicca ci pro vader al articulo</a>); si vos non comprende le anglese, io va synthetisar lo multo brevemente. Alicun refugiatos de Syria trova que le moscheas in Germania es troppo conservative: illos insenia un Islam multo radical, con un interpretation multo litteral del Corano, simile a illo que veni inseniate in le Wahabismo o Salafismo.<br>
<br>
Io es convincite que Europa debe esser tolerante de tote religiones que es compatibile con nostre leges. Refugiatos qui arriva a Europa es sovente le victimas de nostre guerras o disfrutamento economic, e nos ha le responsabilitate de offerer les un compensation. Si nos ha destruite lor casa in lor pais, nos debe offerer les un altere casa. E nos debe permitter a illes de professar lor religion.<br>
<br>
Le construction de Moscheas in Europa es un cosa que io reguarda positivemente, ma nos non pote abandonar le musulmanos a se mesme. Nos debe laborar con illes e assecurar nos que le Islam que es inseniate in nostre moscheas es compatibile e respectose de nostre valores. Certemente, un interpretation litteral del Corano, qui promove le Jihad (guerra sancte), non es compatibile con nostre leges.<br>
<br>
Alicuno poterea pensar que le solution al problema es simplemente prohiber le construction de nove moscheas, ma isto portarea a un resultato totalmente opposite, como jam ha essite verificate in Italia (e io crede, in multe altere partes de Europa): le communitates islamic devenirea ancora plus isolate e impossibile a controlar; le inseniamento del Islam poterea prender formas ancora plus radical.<br>
<br>
Europa necessita Moscheas aperite.</div>The atheist congregationhttp://mardy.it/ia/blog/2012/01/atheist-congregation.html2012-01-20T18:19:00+04:002012-01-20T18:19:00+04:00Alberto Mardegan<div style="text-align: center;">or<br>
<i>A fanatic atheist is no better than a fanatic believer</i></div>
<p>When in disagreement on some topic with a believer,
</p><ol>
<li>mock him, betting he'll soon leave the discussion</li>
<li>accuse him of saying things he never said, but that you suppose he might think</li>
<li>bring all remotely related topics into the discussion — with more front opens, you have more chances of finding him at fault</li>
<li>if other fellow atheists join the discussion and say something you disagree with, don't point out their mistake; after all you just want to win, no matter what</li>
<li>mock him for believing in X</li>
<li>ask him to prove the things he believes in</li>
<li>if you can't find any arguments, leave the discussion with some excuse</li>
<li>blame him for some horrible things he didn't do, but that other people of his same faith did</li>
<li>provide unsolicited definitions from wikipedia for some random words which he used: it makes you look smarter</li>
<li>quote other fellow atheists who seemingly support your point</li>
<li>quote other believers who seemingly support your point</li>
<li>say that his arguments are confuted by any basic logic book, but don't provide any reference to your claims</li>
<li>if his arguments seem to corner you, pretend that you don't understand them or, better, ignore them</li>
<li>whatever he says, contradict him — especially when irrelevant to the topic</li>
<li>make a claim, and leave to your opponent the proof of its fallacy</li>
</ol>
<p>If you are an atheist and have some experience in discussing with believers, you'll probably recognize in some of these points the same behaviours that some believers have shown when discussing with you, just in reverse form. And I bet you hate them. Therefore, you'll be glad to know that the pain you suffered in having to debate with this nonsensical people has also been experienced by a believer (me) who has burnt out quite a few neurons trying to have a logical discussion with members of the <i>atheist congregation</i>. That is, you have been avenged! ;-)</p>
<p>A necessary premise: I firmly do not believe that all atheists belong to what I'm now calling <i>the atheist congregation</i>; though at the moment I cannot find in my circle of acquaintances a single atheist whom I know for sure would not behave like that, I believe that there are atheist who can reason without being heated by hatred or fanaticism — and one of the main reasons for me to write this blog post is exactly to prove that to myself.</p>
<p>I mentioned that I took part on a discussion with atheists; I'll soon provide you the links for you to read it, as I bet you won't just take my word for true, but instead you'll want to check if those behaviours I listed above are actually coming from atheist, or if I'm just defaming or even, on the contrary, I happened to exhibit them myself. And since it's a public discussion in Google+, you'll also have a change to take part on the fun. Before that, however, let me say a couple of words to introduce the topic.<br>
The topic of the discussion only marginally involves religion; actually, I would say that the main point is logic, and reason why I took it at heart is not that people were offending my religion, but the fact that they were offending my (and everybody's) <em>logic</em>. What really struck me was realising how these people I was talking to were just interested in demolishing me as the expression of religion, and even those who are actually my friends in real life accused and insulted me for writing things which they would easily agree with, had they been written by an atheist. Some or my discussion partners were just not reading what I was writing, and they took me as the symbol of all believers and religions, and blindly attack on whatever argument they could think of; some others tried to focus on a logical debate, unfortunately forgetting to apply the logic reasoning itself and, either in good or bad faith (this I honestly don't know) go on claiming they were right.</p>
<p>Hoping to have aroused your arguing interest a bit, here's finally the link to the discussion, as I saved it on October 14th, 2011 (it has now been quiet for more than 2 months): <a href="http://www.mardy.it/archivos/web/Think%20like%20an%20atheist.html">saved discussion</a>. If instead you plan to take part in it, jump to the live Google+ thread <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/108736516888538655285/posts/dqmbYCZsC9q">here</a>.</p>
<h3>Believing in religion is (not) illogic</h3>
<p>The main points of the discussion were <i>“religion is illogic”</i> and <i>“believing in religion is illogic”</i>. Initially, since the discussion started on a different topic and I didn't want to broaden the discussion (as instead the other participants were obviously aiming to) I agreed with those statements, thinking that my conversation partners used the word “illogical” meaning “extraneous to, not involving logic”, and not really “not logical”; but alas, it was not so, and they all actually meant that either <i>“religion is against logic”</i> or <i>“believing in religion is against logic”</i>.</p>
<p>Again, since I thought that we had just a disagreement on the meaning of the term “logical”, along the discussion I tried to replace “religion” with some other unprovable statement, to see if my partners would also say that, for instance, also “believing that tomorrow will rain is illogical”; but they didn't, and all my attempts to get them to explain what the difference between the two things is were vain. I also tried to see if we could settle the discussion by relaxing the terms, by replacing the word “illogic” with whatever other word they wanted, but to no avail.</p>
<h3>The members of the atheist congregation</h3>
<p>On one side, I think it's bad taste to post the names of the people involved in the discussion, since one would normally name the sin but not the sinner, but in this case I'll make an exception, for a couple of reasons: the first is that the discussion is already public (and my blog is not likely to attract that many readers more), and the second is that I'm not at all convinced that they will feel any shame, given that they are most likely still convinced to be on the side of the reason. So, they might need a small lesson — unless I'm either wrong myself (which should be proven logically) or every atheist reading this post is a member of the <i>congregation</i> as well.
So, I'll quickly go through the behaviours and arguments that I find most wrong.</p>
<p><em>Salvatore</em>, after a few messages filled with mockings, insults, and misunderstandings on pretty much all things which I never wrote, conveniently <a href="http://www.mardy.it/archivos/web/Think%20like%20an%20atheist.html#z13yc31hyyfoz5caw04ce5qq5oetchvqxcw#1317061308930000">fled from the discussion</a> refusing to write more until I would provide solid evidence for God's existence (which I never claimed as a fact). Ironically, not before quoting <i>“Arguing with a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon. It'll knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and fly back to its flock to claim victory.”</i>.</p>
<p><em>Felipe C.</em> was quite active in the discussion, and he's the <i>guy of a thousand definitions</i>; he would argue over any tiny detail, no matter how irrelevant to the discussion, quote definitions from wikipedia and generally nitpick on everything, while at the same time misunderstanding (or pretending to misunderstand) my arguments. But let's get to the main point. He was the one initially claiming that <i>“believing in religion is illogic”</i> and <i>“it's illogical (as in wrong logic) to believe in something without evidence.”</i>; however, when I finally (after many attempts) got him to admit that he could believe a fact (a tale) even without evidence, he <a href="http://www.mardy.it/archivos/web/Think%20like%20an%20atheist.html#z13yc31hyyfoz5caw04ce5qq5oetchvqxcw#1317759004625000">argued</a> that believing in religion was illogical because of the risks (of living your life for something which might not be there) and low likelihood. As if logic ultimately depended on the risks or likelihood of something. Wow, I definitely need to pick up some books and get back to logic again!</p>
<p><em>Felipe B.</em> wrote <a href="http://www.mardy.it/archivos/web/Think%20like%20an%20atheist.html#z13yc31hyyfoz5caw04ce5qq5oetchvqxcw#1317073132717000">just a post</a>, but it was so great to read it in the context of a <i>logical</i> discussion that I'd recommend it to everyone.</p>
<p><em>Zeeshan</em> joined the discussion only later on, and provided support for his fellow atheists' points by saying that one of the principle of logic is that <i>“in the absence of sufficient evidence to back-up an assertion, it is logical to assume the negation of that assertion even if there is no evidence to support the negation of the assertion either”</i>, but unfortunately <a href="http://www.mardy.it/archivos/web/Think%20like%20an%20atheist.html#z13yc31hyyfoz5caw04ce5qq5oetchvqxcw#1317235857630000">he couldn't provide any back-up for his assertion either</a>. :-)</p>
<p>It's also worth noticing that in this discussion, people making statements <i>“religion is illogic”</i> all insisted (except from Felipe C.) that the burden of the proof was on me, despite the fact that I never said that <i>“religion is logic”</i>. If you claim that something is illogical, you should be able to find the logical fault in it.</p>
<h3>Why this post?</h3>
<p>As I wrote above, I'm totally confident that most atheists are capable of discussing using just their logic, without being biased by the fact that the discussion partner is a believer; that they don't need to defend other atheists' arguments at all cost, and that they can recognize logic faults independently from where the arguments come from. So, if you came to read till this point, I'd invite you to tell me what you think of the discussion I had with these atheists, and whether or not you agree that what I wrote in this post applies to them (taken as a group — obviously not all I wrote applies to each of them individually). Please leave your comments to this post. However, if you don't agree with me as far as the “religion is illogical” discussion is concerned, please write your arguments <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/108736516888538655285/posts/dqmbYCZsC9q">in the Google plus thread</a> itself. I reserve the right to delete off topic comments from this post. I will count insults and irrelevant comments as points for me, but please don't exaggerate with them. :-)<br>
And indeed, if you were to prove me wrong in that infamous thread, please do it <em>logically</em>: that is, take “religion” or “believing in religion” and <em>prove</em> that they are illogic, finding the logic contradiction in them. If you cannot prove that they are illogic but you just believe that “believing in religion doesn't make sense”, feel free to write that as well: that's a legitimate opinion of yours.</p>
<p>Religion or atheism never caused any harm: it's fanaticism that did.</p>
<p style="margin-left: 4em;text-indent: -4em;">Peace and love,<br>
a mathematician and a believer</p><div style="text-align: center;">or<br>
<i>A fanatic atheist is no better than a fanatic believer</i></div>
<p>When in disagreement on some topic with a believer,
</p><ol>
<li>mock him, betting he'll soon leave the discussion</li>
<li>accuse him of saying things he never said, but that you suppose he might think</li>
<li>bring all remotely related topics into the discussion — with more front opens, you have more chances of finding him at fault</li>
<li>if other fellow atheists join the discussion and say something you disagree with, don't point out their mistake; after all you just want to win, no matter what</li>
<li>mock him for believing in X</li>
<li>ask him to prove the things he believes in</li>
<li>if you can't find any arguments, leave the discussion with some excuse</li>
<li>blame him for some horrible things he didn't do, but that other people of his same faith did</li>
<li>provide unsolicited definitions from wikipedia for some random words which he used: it makes you look smarter</li>
<li>quote other fellow atheists who seemingly support your point</li>
<li>quote other believers who seemingly support your point</li>
<li>say that his arguments are confuted by any basic logic book, but don't provide any reference to your claims</li>
<li>if his arguments seem to corner you, pretend that you don't understand them or, better, ignore them</li>
<li>whatever he says, contradict him — especially when irrelevant to the topic</li>
<li>make a claim, and leave to your opponent the proof of its fallacy</li>
</ol>
<p>If you are an atheist and have some experience in discussing with believers, you'll probably recognize in some of these points the same behaviours that some believers have shown when discussing with you, just in reverse form. And I bet you hate them. Therefore, you'll be glad to know that the pain you suffered in having to debate with this nonsensical people has also been experienced by a believer (me) who has burnt out quite a few neurons trying to have a logical discussion with members of the <i>atheist congregation</i>. That is, you have been avenged! ;-)</p>
<p>A necessary premise: I firmly do not believe that all atheists belong to what I'm now calling <i>the atheist congregation</i>; though at the moment I cannot find in my circle of acquaintances a single atheist whom I know for sure would not behave like that, I believe that there are atheist who can reason without being heated by hatred or fanaticism — and one of the main reasons for me to write this blog post is exactly to prove that to myself.</p>
<p>I mentioned that I took part on a discussion with atheists; I'll soon provide you the links for you to read it, as I bet you won't just take my word for true, but instead you'll want to check if those behaviours I listed above are actually coming from atheist, or if I'm just defaming or even, on the contrary, I happened to exhibit them myself. And since it's a public discussion in Google+, you'll also have a change to take part on the fun. Before that, however, let me say a couple of words to introduce the topic.<br>
The topic of the discussion only marginally involves religion; actually, I would say that the main point is logic, and reason why I took it at heart is not that people were offending my religion, but the fact that they were offending my (and everybody's) <em>logic</em>. What really struck me was realising how these people I was talking to were just interested in demolishing me as the expression of religion, and even those who are actually my friends in real life accused and insulted me for writing things which they would easily agree with, had they been written by an atheist. Some or my discussion partners were just not reading what I was writing, and they took me as the symbol of all believers and religions, and blindly attack on whatever argument they could think of; some others tried to focus on a logical debate, unfortunately forgetting to apply the logic reasoning itself and, either in good or bad faith (this I honestly don't know) go on claiming they were right.</p>
<p>Hoping to have aroused your arguing interest a bit, here's finally the link to the discussion, as I saved it on October 14th, 2011 (it has now been quiet for more than 2 months): <a href="http://www.mardy.it/archivos/web/Think%20like%20an%20atheist.html">saved discussion</a>. If instead you plan to take part in it, jump to the live Google+ thread <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/108736516888538655285/posts/dqmbYCZsC9q">here</a>.</p>
<h3>Believing in religion is (not) illogic</h3>
<p>The main points of the discussion were <i>“religion is illogic”</i> and <i>“believing in religion is illogic”</i>. Initially, since the discussion started on a different topic and I didn't want to broaden the discussion (as instead the other participants were obviously aiming to) I agreed with those statements, thinking that my conversation partners used the word “illogical” meaning “extraneous to, not involving logic”, and not really “not logical”; but alas, it was not so, and they all actually meant that either <i>“religion is against logic”</i> or <i>“believing in religion is against logic”</i>.</p>
<p>Again, since I thought that we had just a disagreement on the meaning of the term “logical”, along the discussion I tried to replace “religion” with some other unprovable statement, to see if my partners would also say that, for instance, also “believing that tomorrow will rain is illogical”; but they didn't, and all my attempts to get them to explain what the difference between the two things is were vain. I also tried to see if we could settle the discussion by relaxing the terms, by replacing the word “illogic” with whatever other word they wanted, but to no avail.</p>
<h3>The members of the atheist congregation</h3>
<p>On one side, I think it's bad taste to post the names of the people involved in the discussion, since one would normally name the sin but not the sinner, but in this case I'll make an exception, for a couple of reasons: the first is that the discussion is already public (and my blog is not likely to attract that many readers more), and the second is that I'm not at all convinced that they will feel any shame, given that they are most likely still convinced to be on the side of the reason. So, they might need a small lesson — unless I'm either wrong myself (which should be proven logically) or every atheist reading this post is a member of the <i>congregation</i> as well.
So, I'll quickly go through the behaviours and arguments that I find most wrong.</p>
<p><em>Salvatore</em>, after a few messages filled with mockings, insults, and misunderstandings on pretty much all things which I never wrote, conveniently <a href="http://www.mardy.it/archivos/web/Think%20like%20an%20atheist.html#z13yc31hyyfoz5caw04ce5qq5oetchvqxcw#1317061308930000">fled from the discussion</a> refusing to write more until I would provide solid evidence for God's existence (which I never claimed as a fact). Ironically, not before quoting <i>“Arguing with a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon. It'll knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and fly back to its flock to claim victory.”</i>.</p>
<p><em>Felipe C.</em> was quite active in the discussion, and he's the <i>guy of a thousand definitions</i>; he would argue over any tiny detail, no matter how irrelevant to the discussion, quote definitions from wikipedia and generally nitpick on everything, while at the same time misunderstanding (or pretending to misunderstand) my arguments. But let's get to the main point. He was the one initially claiming that <i>“believing in religion is illogic”</i> and <i>“it's illogical (as in wrong logic) to believe in something without evidence.”</i>; however, when I finally (after many attempts) got him to admit that he could believe a fact (a tale) even without evidence, he <a href="http://www.mardy.it/archivos/web/Think%20like%20an%20atheist.html#z13yc31hyyfoz5caw04ce5qq5oetchvqxcw#1317759004625000">argued</a> that believing in religion was illogical because of the risks (of living your life for something which might not be there) and low likelihood. As if logic ultimately depended on the risks or likelihood of something. Wow, I definitely need to pick up some books and get back to logic again!</p>
<p><em>Felipe B.</em> wrote <a href="http://www.mardy.it/archivos/web/Think%20like%20an%20atheist.html#z13yc31hyyfoz5caw04ce5qq5oetchvqxcw#1317073132717000">just a post</a>, but it was so great to read it in the context of a <i>logical</i> discussion that I'd recommend it to everyone.</p>
<p><em>Zeeshan</em> joined the discussion only later on, and provided support for his fellow atheists' points by saying that one of the principle of logic is that <i>“in the absence of sufficient evidence to back-up an assertion, it is logical to assume the negation of that assertion even if there is no evidence to support the negation of the assertion either”</i>, but unfortunately <a href="http://www.mardy.it/archivos/web/Think%20like%20an%20atheist.html#z13yc31hyyfoz5caw04ce5qq5oetchvqxcw#1317235857630000">he couldn't provide any back-up for his assertion either</a>. :-)</p>
<p>It's also worth noticing that in this discussion, people making statements <i>“religion is illogic”</i> all insisted (except from Felipe C.) that the burden of the proof was on me, despite the fact that I never said that <i>“religion is logic”</i>. If you claim that something is illogical, you should be able to find the logical fault in it.</p>
<h3>Why this post?</h3>
<p>As I wrote above, I'm totally confident that most atheists are capable of discussing using just their logic, without being biased by the fact that the discussion partner is a believer; that they don't need to defend other atheists' arguments at all cost, and that they can recognize logic faults independently from where the arguments come from. So, if you came to read till this point, I'd invite you to tell me what you think of the discussion I had with these atheists, and whether or not you agree that what I wrote in this post applies to them (taken as a group — obviously not all I wrote applies to each of them individually). Please leave your comments to this post. However, if you don't agree with me as far as the “religion is illogical” discussion is concerned, please write your arguments <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/108736516888538655285/posts/dqmbYCZsC9q">in the Google plus thread</a> itself. I reserve the right to delete off topic comments from this post. I will count insults and irrelevant comments as points for me, but please don't exaggerate with them. :-)<br>
And indeed, if you were to prove me wrong in that infamous thread, please do it <em>logically</em>: that is, take “religion” or “believing in religion” and <em>prove</em> that they are illogic, finding the logic contradiction in them. If you cannot prove that they are illogic but you just believe that “believing in religion doesn't make sense”, feel free to write that as well: that's a legitimate opinion of yours.</p>
<p>Religion or atheism never caused any harm: it's fanaticism that did.</p>
<p style="margin-left: 4em;text-indent: -4em;">Peace and love,<br>
a mathematician and a believer</p>Opinioneshttp://mardy.it/ia/blog/2009/07/opiniones.html2009-07-05T17:09:00+04:002009-07-05T17:09:00+04:00Alberto Mardegan<div style="text-align: left; padding: 3px;"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/mardytardi/3690720920/" title="photo sharing"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3640/3690720920_beffc3cc74.jpg" style="border: solid 2px #000000;" alt=""></a><br><span style="font-size: 0.8em; margin-top: 0px;"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/mardytardi/3690720920/">Opiniones</a>, originally uploaded by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/people/mardytardi/">mardy78</a>.</span></div><p>Circa duo septimanas retro Union del Humanistas e le Union del Pensatores Libere finlandese applicava lor propaganda atheista (o agnostic) sur le autobuses de Helsinki, sequente le exemplo de simile organisationes in altere citates. Io ha perdite le occasion de photographar iste autobuses (le propaganda ha justo finite), ma vos pote leger un nova correlate <a href="http://yle.fi/uutiset/news/2009/06/some_bus_drivers_refuse_to_work_on_quotatheistquot_busses_817141.html">in le sito del principal television finlandese, YLE</a>.<br>Le texto, que esseva scribite in finlandese, diceva “Deo forsan non existe. Ora cessa de preoccupar te e gaude del vita.”.</p>
<p>Heri io videva un replica sympathic, scribite a grande characteres sur un boteca de libros christian: “De facto, Deo existe. Simplemente demanda al autista.”.</p><div style="text-align: left; padding: 3px;"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/mardytardi/3690720920/" title="photo sharing"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3640/3690720920_beffc3cc74.jpg" style="border: solid 2px #000000;" alt=""></a><br><span style="font-size: 0.8em; margin-top: 0px;"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/mardytardi/3690720920/">Opiniones</a>, originally uploaded by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/people/mardytardi/">mardy78</a>.</span></div><p>Circa duo septimanas retro Union del Humanistas e le Union del Pensatores Libere finlandese applicava lor propaganda atheista (o agnostic) sur le autobuses de Helsinki, sequente le exemplo de simile organisationes in altere citates. Io ha perdite le occasion de photographar iste autobuses (le propaganda ha justo finite), ma vos pote leger un nova correlate <a href="http://yle.fi/uutiset/news/2009/06/some_bus_drivers_refuse_to_work_on_quotatheistquot_busses_817141.html">in le sito del principal television finlandese, YLE</a>.<br>Le texto, que esseva scribite in finlandese, diceva “Deo forsan non existe. Ora cessa de preoccupar te e gaude del vita.”.</p>
<p>Heri io videva un replica sympathic, scribite a grande characteres sur un boteca de libros christian: “De facto, Deo existe. Simplemente demanda al autista.”.</p>Omniscientia e libere arbitriohttp://mardy.it/ia/blog/2007/04/08/omniscientia-e-libere-arbitrio.html2007-04-08T00:00:00+04:002007-04-08T00:00:00+04:00Alberto Mardegan<p>Como es conciliabile le omniscientia de Deo e le libere arbitrio del homine in le religion christian? Isto es un thema que ha essite amplemente debattite per philosophos e teologos, e mesmo per physicos; in internet on trova multe textos super iste subjecto, a confirmation que multe personas se ha interessate de isto e multe de illes non ha ancora trovate un responsa satisfactori.</p>
<p>Io scribe iste articulo pro adder mi puncto de vista al enorme quantitate de parolas jam scribite. Io ha trovate un responsa e illo es totalmente satisfacente pro me: illo es, que <em>le contradiction inter libere arbitrio e omniscientia simplemente non existe</em>. Iste position es extrememente conveniente in un contexto logic, perque illo non require alicun demonstration o commento ulterior: <em>il es illes qui sustene que il ha un contradiction, que debe demonstrar lo!</em> Io non pote demonstrar que il non existe un contradiction, viste que le argumentos sub discussion non es practicamente experientiabile: on pote forsan cercar demonstrationes super le existentia del libere arbitrio, ma le omniscientia de Deo es certemente indemonstrabile. Il es possibile demonstrar que il non existe contradiction inter duo cosas practicamente realisabile si on porta un exemplo de lor existentia al mesme tempore, per exemplo on poterea demonstrar que le presentia del Sol non es in contradiction con le pluvia — il suffice attender un die in le qual iste phenomenos se verifica al mesme loco e al mesme tempore. Ma io non pote demonstrar que il non ha contradiction inter le nazismo e le morte de Papa Johannes secunde, perque iste eventos non es reproducibile. O ancora, io non pote demonstrar que il non ha contradiction inter Deo e <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinocchio">Pinocchio</a>, perque le existentia de ambes es indemonstrabile. Alora, si tu crede que il ha un contradiction inter Deo e Pinocchio, <em>tu</em> debe demonstrar lo!
E quando tu lo ha demonstrate, io va cercar de confutar tu demonstration, si illo me pare errate.</p>
<p>On poterea terminar le discussion hic. Ma post que iste argumento es interessante, e in general io ama discuter super iste themas, io va scriber alicun lineas pro tentar de explicar perque io crede que il non ha un contradiction, o como solver un <em>eventual</em> contradiction. Istos es pensatas personal, e non debe esser intendite como un tentativa de demonstration. Io ha duo argumentos.</p>
<p>Le prime: le facto que io sape que tu facera un certe action non significa in ulle modo que io limita tu libertate! On poterea portar millenas de exemplos pro isto. Vamos imaginar que tu camina per le strata e porta un bursa plen de monetas de auro. Io (un persona a te incognite) passa proxime a te, e in un instante prende tu bursa e curre via con illo. In le 90% del casos, tu reaction es prevedibile: tu currera detra a me, pro cercar de re-obtener possession de tu bursa. Io ha scribite solmente 90%, perque personas es multo differente e multissime casualitates pote influentiar lor actiones; ma si io adde alicun elementos al historia, per exemplo que tu es un homine grande e forte, durante que io (le robator) es un individuo parve, debile e lente, alora on pote dicer que le probabilitate que tu va sequer me post quando io prende tu bursa es del 98%. Perque io non dice 100%? Le ration es que io non te cognosce e, como io scribeva pauc antea, le comportamento human es influentiate per millenas de minuscule factores. Ma si io cognosce te, tu historia, tu sensationes, e tote le contexto del action, io poterea saper con un probabilitate del 100% si tu currera detra a me o non. Esque isto esserea in contradiction con tu libertate? Io te prende le bursa, e es secur que tu me sequera; ma io non limita tu libertate, e <em>tu es sempre libere</em> de decider de non sequer me. Le problema es que io non ha, e humanamente non pote haber, un cognoscentia total de te e del contexto; ma si Deo es omnisciente, Ille los sape.
Deo sape toto lo que nos facera; ma perque isto deberea limitar nostre liberate in facer lo? Si io invia un articulo a un magazin de mathematica, e in le demonstration de mi these io scribe "1 + 1 = 3" io es certe, absolutemente certe, que illes non publicara mi articulo; ma io non limita lor libertate, perque illes es certemente libere de publicar lo, si illes vole.</p>
<p>Le secunde argumento va in un altere direction, e implica un total acceptation del essentia de Deo. Illo es multo simple: cata persona cognosce su proprie passato, e le decisiones que illes ha prendite. Ora, suppone que tu ha vivite usque nunc con plen controlo super tu libere arbitrio. Actualmente tu sape (si tu lo memora) toto lo que tu ha facite e es, in un certe senso, “omnisciente” super tu passato. Esque iste cognoscentia presente es in contradiction con le libere arbitrio que tu habeva quando tu ageva? Io spera que totes es de accordo in responder “obviemente no!”. Ma si tu habeva cognoscite tu futuro jam durante tu actiones, tu probabilemente haberea volite cambiar lo. E al mesme maniera, si tu cognosceva le futuro del altere personas, tu forsan cercarea de facer alique pro cambiar lo, in le maniera que te place plus. Il es clar que isto es un paradoxo: si tu succede in cambiar le futuro, le cognoscentia que tu habeva del futuro non es plus valide, ergo on contradice le hypothese initial. Isto pote significar que le hypothese initial es irrealisabile, o que alicun passos del rationamento es invalide o non pote succeder. In altere parolas, <i>tu non pote cognoscer le futuro</i> o <i>si tu pote cognoscer lo, tu comocunque non lo cambia</i>. Si nos applica iste rationamento a Deo, le consequentia es que, si Ille es omnisciente, Ille non cambia le futuro. Ma on dice anque que Deo es omnipotente, e isto significa que Ille pote etiam cambiar le futuro, <em>si Ille lo vole</em>. Alora, le conclusion plus logic es que <em>Deo es omnisciente e Ille pote etiam cambiar le futuro, ma Ille non lo face</em>.
Ma isto es un rationamento incomplete, perque illo non considera totalmente le omnipotentia de Deo: Ille pote cognoscer le futuro e cambiar lo, si tante vices quante Ille vole. Alora, quando on dice que Deo es omnipotente, on debe conceder a Ille le omnipotentia plus plen: saper le futuro, lo que tu facera deman, dar te tote le libertate pro facer lo que tu vole, e supertoto <em>cambiar le futuro assi que illo coincide con lo que tu produce con tu libere arbitrio</em>.</p><p>Como es conciliabile le omniscientia de Deo e le libere arbitrio del homine in le religion christian? Isto es un thema que ha essite amplemente debattite per philosophos e teologos, e mesmo per physicos; in internet on trova multe textos super iste subjecto, a confirmation que multe personas se ha interessate de isto e multe de illes non ha ancora trovate un responsa satisfactori.</p>
<p>Io scribe iste articulo pro adder mi puncto de vista al enorme quantitate de parolas jam scribite. Io ha trovate un responsa e illo es totalmente satisfacente pro me: illo es, que <em>le contradiction inter libere arbitrio e omniscientia simplemente non existe</em>. Iste position es extrememente conveniente in un contexto logic, perque illo non require alicun demonstration o commento ulterior: <em>il es illes qui sustene que il ha un contradiction, que debe demonstrar lo!</em> Io non pote demonstrar que il non existe un contradiction, viste que le argumentos sub discussion non es practicamente experientiabile: on pote forsan cercar demonstrationes super le existentia del libere arbitrio, ma le omniscientia de Deo es certemente indemonstrabile. Il es possibile demonstrar que il non existe contradiction inter duo cosas practicamente realisabile si on porta un exemplo de lor existentia al mesme tempore, per exemplo on poterea demonstrar que le presentia del Sol non es in contradiction con le pluvia — il suffice attender un die in le qual iste phenomenos se verifica al mesme loco e al mesme tempore. Ma io non pote demonstrar que il non ha contradiction inter le nazismo e le morte de Papa Johannes secunde, perque iste eventos non es reproducibile. O ancora, io non pote demonstrar que il non ha contradiction inter Deo e <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinocchio">Pinocchio</a>, perque le existentia de ambes es indemonstrabile. Alora, si tu crede que il ha un contradiction inter Deo e Pinocchio, <em>tu</em> debe demonstrar lo!
E quando tu lo ha demonstrate, io va cercar de confutar tu demonstration, si illo me pare errate.</p>
<p>On poterea terminar le discussion hic. Ma post que iste argumento es interessante, e in general io ama discuter super iste themas, io va scriber alicun lineas pro tentar de explicar perque io crede que il non ha un contradiction, o como solver un <em>eventual</em> contradiction. Istos es pensatas personal, e non debe esser intendite como un tentativa de demonstration. Io ha duo argumentos.</p>
<p>Le prime: le facto que io sape que tu facera un certe action non significa in ulle modo que io limita tu libertate! On poterea portar millenas de exemplos pro isto. Vamos imaginar que tu camina per le strata e porta un bursa plen de monetas de auro. Io (un persona a te incognite) passa proxime a te, e in un instante prende tu bursa e curre via con illo. In le 90% del casos, tu reaction es prevedibile: tu currera detra a me, pro cercar de re-obtener possession de tu bursa. Io ha scribite solmente 90%, perque personas es multo differente e multissime casualitates pote influentiar lor actiones; ma si io adde alicun elementos al historia, per exemplo que tu es un homine grande e forte, durante que io (le robator) es un individuo parve, debile e lente, alora on pote dicer que le probabilitate que tu va sequer me post quando io prende tu bursa es del 98%. Perque io non dice 100%? Le ration es que io non te cognosce e, como io scribeva pauc antea, le comportamento human es influentiate per millenas de minuscule factores. Ma si io cognosce te, tu historia, tu sensationes, e tote le contexto del action, io poterea saper con un probabilitate del 100% si tu currera detra a me o non. Esque isto esserea in contradiction con tu libertate? Io te prende le bursa, e es secur que tu me sequera; ma io non limita tu libertate, e <em>tu es sempre libere</em> de decider de non sequer me. Le problema es que io non ha, e humanamente non pote haber, un cognoscentia total de te e del contexto; ma si Deo es omnisciente, Ille los sape.
Deo sape toto lo que nos facera; ma perque isto deberea limitar nostre liberate in facer lo? Si io invia un articulo a un magazin de mathematica, e in le demonstration de mi these io scribe "1 + 1 = 3" io es certe, absolutemente certe, que illes non publicara mi articulo; ma io non limita lor libertate, perque illes es certemente libere de publicar lo, si illes vole.</p>
<p>Le secunde argumento va in un altere direction, e implica un total acceptation del essentia de Deo. Illo es multo simple: cata persona cognosce su proprie passato, e le decisiones que illes ha prendite. Ora, suppone que tu ha vivite usque nunc con plen controlo super tu libere arbitrio. Actualmente tu sape (si tu lo memora) toto lo que tu ha facite e es, in un certe senso, “omnisciente” super tu passato. Esque iste cognoscentia presente es in contradiction con le libere arbitrio que tu habeva quando tu ageva? Io spera que totes es de accordo in responder “obviemente no!”. Ma si tu habeva cognoscite tu futuro jam durante tu actiones, tu probabilemente haberea volite cambiar lo. E al mesme maniera, si tu cognosceva le futuro del altere personas, tu forsan cercarea de facer alique pro cambiar lo, in le maniera que te place plus. Il es clar que isto es un paradoxo: si tu succede in cambiar le futuro, le cognoscentia que tu habeva del futuro non es plus valide, ergo on contradice le hypothese initial. Isto pote significar que le hypothese initial es irrealisabile, o que alicun passos del rationamento es invalide o non pote succeder. In altere parolas, <i>tu non pote cognoscer le futuro</i> o <i>si tu pote cognoscer lo, tu comocunque non lo cambia</i>. Si nos applica iste rationamento a Deo, le consequentia es que, si Ille es omnisciente, Ille non cambia le futuro. Ma on dice anque que Deo es omnipotente, e isto significa que Ille pote etiam cambiar le futuro, <em>si Ille lo vole</em>. Alora, le conclusion plus logic es que <em>Deo es omnisciente e Ille pote etiam cambiar le futuro, ma Ille non lo face</em>.
Ma isto es un rationamento incomplete, perque illo non considera totalmente le omnipotentia de Deo: Ille pote cognoscer le futuro e cambiar lo, si tante vices quante Ille vole. Alora, quando on dice que Deo es omnipotente, on debe conceder a Ille le omnipotentia plus plen: saper le futuro, lo que tu facera deman, dar te tote le libertate pro facer lo que tu vole, e supertoto <em>cambiar le futuro assi que illo coincide con lo que tu produce con tu libere arbitrio</em>.</p>