Truth and logic: the sheer limitedness of absolutes.

Don't know about you guys, but I had never known how tough the life of the blogger was, before falling right into it about two years ago. At least I think it was two years ago. I mean, it's all dandy if you're the occasional blogger with no high hopes and no real intent, calmly strolling through the whole experience thinking your blog could never be more than a hobby. If, on the other hand, you have a project in mind - and it matters not how vague - of what your blog could - or, indeed, should - be, then it all changes. At that point you start realising how tricky it is to keep such a project alive, against other time-consuming activities, against frequent writer's blocks and against a deeply discouraging lack of interest from a web audience scattered all over a global network that sometimes just feels way too large.

So days, weeks, months go by without you getting a chance to write anything meaningful even though deep inside you'd love to because deep inside you care about what you do. If I believed in such a thing I'd say sometimes you almost feel it's a moral imperative, yet you just can't get around to doing it the way you'd like or as much as you'd like, for whatever reason. Then one day - and the long-winded introduction is almost over - you stumble upon something that reminds you why you set out to do what you do and you find new strength and motivation. I mean, even as a mildly involved atheist you often stumble upon such theistic nonsense as "But I am not endorsing religion. Only God, and Jesus who will save us from God," but in most cases you just can't be arsed to give it too much weight. Until, that is, you bump into such words of wisdom as "I can summarize by saying that atheism cannot account for rationality." Then it just gets personal and a head must fall. I'll stop beating about the bush and get to the point. Randomly surfing the web I ended up on a Facebook group where I found a clinically interesting thread opened by the Christian author of both aforementioned quotations.

As a worldview, some would say that atheism is intellectually bankrupt and is wrought with philosophical problems.

I'm sure some would. Proving it is a whole different story.

Others, obviously embrace it. I would like to attempt to point out the inability for the atheistic worldview to account for rationality.

And attempt you may.

I can summarize by saying that atheism cannot account for rationality. You see, logic is based upon universal truth statements which we call the laws of logic. Such laws are, for example, the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of excluded middle. These universal truth statements are what rational arguments are based upon. If these additional laws changed depending upon the situation, location, time, or an individual’s personal preferences, then there is no basis for rationality and truth could not be known. Truth would then depend upon situations and personal opinions. If that were the case, then I could say that blue sleeps faster than Wednesday and whatever I say is always true because I claim it.

But, this is not rational and you and I both know that it isn't.

Funny you should mention that, because "blue sleeps faster than Wednesday" makes about as much sense as Judeo-Christian theology and theists usually do claim it is true because...well, they claim it is true. They and their holy book, which they claim is god's word because god said it is. And god exists because the holy book says so. Never mind, for the sake of argument I will simply ignore - for now - that you have an imaginary friend. I find it quite interesting that someone would go about the business of demonstrating a certain world view is irrational without first laying out a definition of rationality in a way that can be agreed upon by all parties involved. But then again, you just can't do it. After centuries we still haven't come to an agreement about what constitutes rationality and rational behaviour. The only thing we have pretty much agreed upon is that humans have the intellect to devise more or less ideal theories of rationality but not the ability to conform to such idealised standards - because of biological or social constraints - to the point that, in many a practical domain, the rigid algorithmic logic as described by the aforementioned Laws of Logic often has to make way for a heuristic theory of logic and rationality. But, as the evolution of scientific investigation - and of human societies in general - over the past few centuries clearly demonstrates, such flexibility in the application of our notions of logic to rational investigation and decision-making has proven to be a strength for science and intellectual human endeavours rather than a weakness. (See Gigerenzer, G. & Selten, R., 2002)

In the Christian worldview, the universal truth statements are derived from God. These universal truth statements, these laws of identity, are conceptual by nature. Why? Because they are statements. Statements require minds and since logic is the process of the mind, the logical foundations upon which rationality depends, is of the mind and is conceptual by nature.

I'm afraid we're falling into the sterile world of semantics and rhetoric here, as it often happens when discussing such things. As we have just seen, algorithmic logic and rationality are not necessarily associated and rationality certainly doesn't necessarily depend upon formally - or informally - logical foundations. Plus, something's being conceptual is not really a meaningful identifier.

If the atheist were to say that logical processes are not of the mind or that the truth statements which are the foundations of logic are not of the mind, then he is being irrational. After all, truth is a statement which agrees with reality. And because truth is constructed in statements, a mind is required for such statements to be made.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "of the mind." Probably because the notion of mind is about as murky as that of logic and rationality. As far as I'm concerned, "mind" is what the brain does and I think such a definition can rationally account for all instances that require the use of the notion of mind. However, that's a different topic. Offering my interpretation I'd say that there's no doubt that the laws of informal logic which you here call "truth statements" are a product of the mind, since they're the epitome of ideal and unattainable notion. As for truth being aprioristically in agreement with reality, that largely depends on your notion of truth but in general I disagree. Personally, I prefer using the term "fact." Facts are ontologically factual and not constructed in statements or formulas. Statements or formulas can only describe an ontological fact. That aside, I agree that statements and formulas are the province of thinking minds - that is, of brain activity - and couldn't be otherwise.

Let me clarify. If a rock is all that exists in the universe, it is true that a rock is the only thing that exists. But saying that it is the only thing that exists is a statement which requires a mind. If there are no minds, and the rock is all that exists, no statements can be made about the rock. It would not be known that it was the only thing existing. But truth statements are known. Therefore, all such truth statements require minds and the universal, logical absolutes, truth statements that form the basis of rational thought, require a mind to be made and known.

If a tree falls in a forest...

Atheism has no way of accounting for these universal truth statements. Atheists can try and state that the laws of logic are based upon human minds, but this cannot be because human minds are different and contradict each other as well as themselves. Since logical absolutes are universally true, they cannot be the product of human minds because human minds are limited, are not universally true, and often contradict each other.

You're assuming too much. In particular, you're assuming humans are incapable of agreeing on anything, which is ludicrous. Aerobic organisms require oxygen in order to survive. That is an example of notion anyone can agree with. It is heuristically true and therefore agreed upon by everyone. If we take the law of identity as another example, it gets even simpler. p=p is a tautology, self-evident  - at least in most cases, but let's not get into that now - and is therefore not only possible but likely for humans to agree on it. That of course doesn't apply to all laws of logic, which, as we've seen, have clear limits and are not - as you claim - universally true.

If the atheist wants to say that the logical absolutes are merely descriptions of behavior of the universe, then how would an atheist, by observation determine the third law of logic, the law of excluded middle, which says that statements are either true or false? He couldn’t.

Let's proceed with order. The law of excluded middle is probably the most limited of all informal logic laws. While there's no doubt that such tenet did serve a purpose in the development of our civilisation - one example in particular, Boolean logic and binary code, without which we wouldn't be here discussing this right now - it would be utter dishonesty to define the law of excluded middle as a universal truth. Both in the macroworld and in the quantum universe things are a tad more complicated than the binary dichotomy of Bolean logic. Take a statement such as "that tree is big." Is it true or false? By what or whose standards? Can Boolean dichotomial values fully describe the varying degrees of truth that we're frequently faced with in reality?

If the atheist wants to say that logical absolutes are the result of chemical processes in the brain, that can't work because it would mean that logic could be altered by brain chemistry.

Which is also true. Ever been drunk?

Some atheists say that logic is a product of human language, but that doesn't work because languages are subjective and culturally variable where logic is not.

Well, someone might argue that while languages per se are culturally determined, the underlying universal grammar - and I'm honest enough to admit the subject is still debated - is not and is much more constant, enough to allow for the construction of linguistic universals.

If the atheist says that logic is a property of the universe like motion and gravity, the problem here is that you cannot measure the laws of logic where such things like weight, mass, heat, and cold can be measured.

A property of the universe? That's a first, I've never heard it. That is, I've never heard an atheist use that argument. Creationists, on the other hand, are quite fond of it. Can't count the times I've heard theists of whatever convictions claim that the universe was fundamentally orderly and logical - finely tuned, if you like - and that that's evidence of an intelligent creator.

So, atheists repeatedly try to respond to the issue of trying to account for rationality founded in universal truth statements also known as logical absolutes. But in all their trying and all their attempted logical outcry, they fail. Why? Because atheism doesn’t have the substance to account for rationality. It is deficient as a worldview from this perspective.

Well, as has been shown, logical absolutes are not quite absolute in the first place. They're idealised frames we were able to create by abstraction but that fail to apply to and accurately describe the entire range of phenomena in our universe. So there's no deficiency in atheism as far as logic goes.

But, Christianity states that the universal truth statements reflect the universal mind. We, as God's creation, are able to recognize them because we are made in God’s image. Where Christianity provides an answer to this important issue, atheism clearly fails to deliver.

The Christian universal mind remains an unproven notion, however. All evidence points to its non-existence.

Fundies Say The Darndest Things

I surely know the mutated hot air of satan when I hear it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Never fear the sword of God if you're on His side.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While I agree that global warming is a scam, it is not the greatest scam. I suggest that the greatest scam is the theory of evolution.

For example, whereas there is no doubt that there is variation within the lower levels (within the same variety, species, genus and even family), never has anyone demonstrated the change of one creature from one higher level to another (across different phyla, classes, or orders) like from a fish to an amphibian. (That happens only in the biology textbooks.)

If evolution occurred, there should be abundant examples of transitional fossils. The lack of these fossils was a great embarrassment to Darwin but he had faith that they would be found. One hundred fifty years later Darwinists still have faith that the necessary transitional fossils will be found.

What we do see is not evolution, but devolution. Mutations are supposed to be an engine of evolution. But, there are many more neutral or bad mutations than there are helpful ones.

A search of 189,807,786 medical and biological research abstracts found 453,732 articles about mutations, only 186 of which were beneficial (0.04%).

The devolution we see indicates the original genetic material was better than what we see today. The Bible says that when God finished creating all life he pronounced it "very good". The original genetic material would have had no defects. What we see today has devolved from it as a result of sin entering the world.

Yes, the biggest scam in history is evolution. We need to recognize it for what it is and return to the clear teaching of the Bible on origins. The Bible's record, after all, much better explains the devolution we see all around us.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Riteous people do not feel humility.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who knows how to file a DMCA against "fundies say the darnedest things"?

OK, so I've been researching what I can do to take Fundies (which is an offensive term) Say the Darnedest Things down, and I've come across something called a DMCA that I think will get the company that runs the server of the website to take them down at least for a little bit while I peruse other legal options. I'm not really sure how to file one though, anyone know how?
[...]
Ya that's pretty much what he [the lawyer] told me. I've decided not to file a DMCA because of that and the whole venomfangx thing. It's a shame because you guys really shouldn't be legally able to blaspheme the Lord.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More to come.

The next best thing to pet salvation in a Post Rapture World! Think of your pet, sign up now!

Don't know about you guys, but I love other animal species. I do have a problem with a few Homo Sapiens Sapiens from time to time - and with selected arthropods, I admit - but every other species in the Kingdom Animalia I find way too cute not to love. That's why I thought I'd pledge my blog to the cause of pet-caring in a Post-Rapture world. Yes, you heard me. Let's face it, when all the Christians are gone and we will be left behind to party and finally enjoy the planet, the pets that once belonged to them will also be left behind. Would you really be as cruel as to leave those poor things without a proper home? I think not. That's why the US-based initiative Eternal Earth-Bound Pets has decided to offer all pet-loving Christians some peace of mind in the hereafter and the certainty that their soulless pets will be taken care of by 100% certified blasphemers and atheists who are obviously not eligible for salvation. And all this for only $110.00 per pet, with an additional $15.00 fee per pet per household. The initiative is currently limited to the US alone, but I'm sure we European godless can also come up with a way to pledge our eternal damnation for a good cause.

Till death - or boredom and lack of a topic - do us part.

Since I have a thing for stating the obvious sometimes, I'll start off by saying that this blog has obviously been on a bit of a hiatus for a few months. I could try and sugar coat the thing, but I'm not one for fancy speeches so I'll just say that I haven't had the time, the energy and the inspiration to write anything about anything for a while.

On a purely personal note, I've been back from England since June. I've been trying to make university my number one priority since, but somehow the pent-up physical and mental exhaustion have proven somewhat tough to get rid of and have left me in a lazy mood that has affected just about every aspect of my life to date. And now I have to pay the price for that. I'm stuck with a few exams left before my dissertation and no real motivation to get any of them done in any kind of satisfactorily fashion. However, I think I'm starting to see a faint light at the end of the dark tunnel. I'm slowly realising what needs to be done and what needs to be done to get the things that need to be done done - AH! Now try and read that one fast.

What that means is that I'm slowly getting myself back on track and out of my sudden apathy crisis. University remains on top of my to-do list, but, for the record, I haven't forgotten this blog and the few people who seem to have an interest - even a clinical one - in reading my mental regurgitations. So expect to see more entries in the near future.

The Benefits of being an Atheist

For the first time in this blog's history, I have a guest article. Reference can be found at the bottom of the post. Enjoy.

Benefits of Being an Atheist

More often than not as an atheist, people want to pry into your reasoning and motivation for making such a choice. Reason and logic are the glue that holds atheists together, so a challenging discussion is always welcome. However, when the argument becomes heated, religious adherents often fall back on faith and the notion that their “plan” will one day become evident. This idea may offer comfort, but there are benefits of having an atheist worldview as well.

Adaptability

While religious people hold hard and fast to outmoded beliefs, atheists learn to adapt to change and don’t have to resist the inevitable. Evolution, be it societal or otherwise, will continue to push forward whether you like it or not. Social Darwinism is alive and well, and those who aren’t ready to change will soon find themselves left in the dust.

Healthy Realism

Realism is another notch in the atheist’s belt. Being able to look at things through a paradigm developed through authentic experience and education enables the atheist to accept things that are true and real without fear of repercussions in the religious context. When new discoveries or knowledge become available, atheists can look at the facts and make judgements based on reason and logic.

Skepticism

Questioning social and religious mores is another thing that atheists do quite often. Rather than blindly accepting what is given to them, atheist perform their due diligence and judge things based on their merit, not on the source of information. If the same source seems to be giving consistently inaccurate information, however, then the credibility of that source can be judged accordingly.

Education

Many atheists seem to know more about religion than religious adherents. That said, atheists can read religious texts dispassionately and take in the information to develop logical and reasonable arguments to the contrary. Spending time learning about what the other side thinks, feels, and believes can empower you to make informed arguments if need be without attachment.

Freedom

Ultimately, atheists experience true freedom. Being able to evaluate information and make choices without doing them because of an arbitrary belief system is one of the most empowering things that you can do. Additionally, being able to think and act without fear of retribution by an omnipotent being enables you to feel true freedom.

This post was contributed by Courtney Phillips, who writes about the cheapest MBA. She welcomes your feedback at CourtneyPhillips80 at gmail.com

Why is Darwin nearly extinct in textbooks?

From the website of the University of Salford, where I'm currently studying as an exchange student.

Why is Darwin nearly extinct in textbooks?

Friday, 6 February 2009

Charles Darwin is missing from many textbooks.

As Charles Darwin's 200th birthday approaches, new research from the University of Salford has identified a decline in references to the pioneering scientist in A level textbooks - despite the continuing presence of creationist theory.

Dr Paul Rees, a lecturer in biology and former A level teacher, examined textbooks and syllabuses used in the UK since the sixties, and found that textbooks currently in use sometimes completely fail to mention Darwin, and often only deal very sketchily with the theory of evolution.

On the other hand, creationism gets several references in current textbooks, including Hall et al 2006 which says the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is a minority view among the people of the world.

Dr Rees, who teaches in the School of Environment & Life Sciences said: "While the historical context of important theories, and the names of their proponents, are commonplace in textbooks written for some other subjects, such as psychology, in biology textbooks Darwin is sometimes not deemed important enough to mention.

"If people are giving space to nonsense like creationism, then they should certainly be mentioning the most important figure in our understanding of the natural world.

"Role models and icons are important to help young people become inspired by science. It's a shame that biology examiners and therefore textbooks don't always recognise this."

Dr Rees' research was first published in the journal School Science Review.

Nature vs. Nurture, round 295324329563234...

I had written a bit more than four or five long paragraphs as my personal reaction to an article I've just read on the latest issue of New Scientist but I was forced to delete everything as it turned out to be as awful and rambling a piece of writing as the article itself. I'm not usually that picky about it, but the more I read it, the more I think it is a confusing article, mixing - perhaps intentionally - things up.

It goes from claiming we have an inborn inclination to believe in the metaphysical to also claiming that there are no adaptive advantages in religion and belief. Unfortunately it forgets to explain how abstract beliefs have "permeated every human society" and survived this long without having been selected for together with their social construct-counterparts, religions. If Paul Bloom and Scott Atran's claim is really that belief in the supernatural is a natural trait resulting from "unique cognitive capacities that have made us so successful as a species" which also "work together to create a tendency for supernatural thinking," but that "a belief in life after death, for example, is hardly compatible with surviving in the here-and-now and propagating your genes," I'd love to see them try and explain how a trait can survive this long and being this pervasive without having been selected for. However hurtful it might be to me as an atheist to admit such a thing, religion does have its odd evolutionary advantages, and that's the only reason why faith still plagues our world today. For one, most religions have some sort of prohibition or regulation concerning self-inflicted death. Sure, the occasional religion will go as far as to reward death under certain circumstances, but luckily enough such strict religious observance is still limited in rate. Furthermore, it is fairly obvious that religions guarantee social cohesion amongst those who share a common belief, increasing stability and resulting in a clear evolutionary advantage. Also, has Scott Atran never heard the tenet "be fruitful and multiply"? Many religious regulations - ban on adultery and even religious tenets being the basis for civil and penal codes - no matter how narrow-minded in today's social context, are indeed aimed at ensuring some degree of stability within families, so as to make sure that the offspring can be raised relatively safely. Makes one wonder where Scott Atran found his degree. Cereal box? Plus, "unique cognitive capacities" must overlie neurological - and hence at least party genetic - elements. Unless, of course, we posit the existence of an unproven mind or soul and claim that goddidit.

However, following a long tradition of similar - and equally (self-)contradicting - articles, this one just can't but bring children under the spotlight once more. Apparently:

There is plenty of evidence that thinking about disembodied minds comes naturally. People readily form relationships with non-existing others: roughly half of all 4-year-olds have had an imaginary friend, and adults often form and maintain relationships with dead relatives, fictional characters and fantasy partners.

By any chance, am I the only one the two statements above give the creeps to? I, for one, have never had an imaginary friend - except for during the few years I was raised as a church goer and assumed god was real because everyone else around me did. And by all means I certainly don't have any sort of relationship with dead relatives of mine, fictional characters or fantasy partners (the odd fantasy about this or that Hollywood start doesn't count...). What the article describes - except for the part concerning kids' imaginary friends, a fairly common phenomenon and relatively harmless in most cases - are clear signs of schizophrenia.

The following, obvious step in the article is to give an appearance of scientificity to the whole thing by quoting some experiment allegedly proving that children are naturally prone to building a teleological view of the world. Yeah, I'm talking about Deborah Kelemen and her experiments. For those who don't know what I'm talking about, Deborah Kelemen is a psychologist working at the Child Cognition Laboratory at Boston University. According to the author of the article:

When Deborah Kelemen [...] asked 7 and 8-year-old children questions about inanimate objects and animals, she found that most believed they were created for a specific purpose. Pointy rocks are there for animals to scratch themselves on. Birds exist "to make nice music," while rivers exist so boats have something to float on.

However, reality is a tad different. Quoting from one of Kelemen's publications:

Analyses of the individual tasks to this point can be summarized as follows: Across age groups, children’s clearest intuitions about origins occurred with artifacts and natural events, with both purpose and design seen as highly relevant to explaining artifacts (which children view as humanmade) but somewhat irrelevant to explaining natural events (which children view as having physical–causal antecedents).
Children’s explanations for animals and nonliving natural objects fall somewhere between these poles but although Year 2 and Year 5 children had an equivalently strong tendency to generate artifact-like teleofunctional ideas when answering open-ended origins questions about animals and natural objects, it was younger children who showed more pronounced teleofunctional and intelligent design intuitions in closed-ended tasks. For example, Year 2 children were more likely to actively endorse teleofunctional over physical causal accounts when explaining natural objects and were more likely to endorse intelligent design rather than nondesign when explaining animals.
In the case of Year 5 children, the shift from being likely to generate teleofunctional explanations of animals and natural objects in an open-ended task, to then becoming ambivalent or eschewing them in the closed-ended origins-teleology task, potentially reflects children’s increasing scientific knowledge base—physical–causal response options probably triggered children’s latent knowledge of popular scientific explanations that they have not yet mastered enough to generate for themselves. There is some evidence, then, that older children’s reasoning undergoes some form of transition around 9 to 10 years of age as they increasingly retain and elaborate physical–causal explanations that are alternatives to teleofunctional and design explanations of the biological and nonbiological natural world.

I apologise for the long quote, but it was necessary. For those who can't be bothered to read through it all, I'll sum it up for you. What Kelemen is saying is that - surprise surprise - kids grow up. Yep. Two-year-olds are more likely than five-year-olds - and five-year-olds more likely than nine or ten-year-olds - to resort to teleofunctional arguments to explain the biological and non-biological natural world - e.g. birds exist to make nice music and they were created by god, rain exists so that we can have water and plants can grow and rain is sent by god. That's it. The oh so revolutionary discovery made by Deborah Kelemen is that as kids grow up and acquire deeper scientific knowledge of how the physical, natural world works they will progressively leave teleological - and theological - arguments behind unless imprinted to do so by their social environment (e.g. family, school, community).

Then the article "leaves them kids alone" to focus on adults and how, supposedly, they find it overwhelmingly difficult or even impossible to jettison their religious, superstitious beliefs and are bound to fall back into them whenever difficulties strike. Now, while that might be true of some, even many, people, that in no way means that religious belief is inborn, for the reasons I have just explained. It simply means that childhood imprinting might be harder to overcome for some than it is for others, something I can totally agree with. Harder but by no means impossible. Therefore, the claim that "god isn't going away, and that atheism will always be a hard sell. Religious belief is the 'path of least resistence' [...] while disbelief requires effort," is bollocks, as proven by the overwhelming number of atheists who tread happily though their godless existence. I'm one of them. Atheism was never a "hard sell" to me, rather the obvious solution to the cognitive dissonance that learning more about the world had caused in me as it conflicted with my previous upbringing. Disbelief requires no effort, only curiosity and a bit of opennes.

Finalmente ateobus

Direttamente dal sito dell'UAAR.

Genova, gli ateobus UAAR ‘tornano’ in circolazione

Avrebbero dovuto sfilare per la città dicendo che Dio non esiste, ma sono stati bloccati dalla concessionaria degli spazi pubblicitari che li trovava lesivi delle convinzioni religiose. Oggi gli ateobus hanno ottenuto il semaforo verde per un nuovo slogan e si preparano a dare ai genovesi due notizie allegre: “La buona notizia è che in Italia ci sono milioni di atei. Quella ottima è che credono nella libertà di espressione”.
«Dopo tutto l’inatteso bailamme per i vecchi ateobus, - spiega Raffaele Càrcano, segretario generale dell’Uaar - volevamo lanciare un altro messaggio: volevamo dire che, tra gli italiani, uno su sette è ateo o agnostico, anche se politici, media e aziende municipalizzate non ne tengono conto. La nostra è una campagna per la loro visibilità, perché più visibilità significa meno discriminazione e più rispetto». La IGP Decaux, la concessionaria degli spazi pubblicitari della società di trasporti genovese, ha dato il via libera al nuovo slogan, al posto del prece-dente: “La cattiva notizia è che Dio non esiste. Quella buona è che non ne hai bisogno”.
Intanto la Uaar non ha desistito con il vecchio slogan, anzi. Il gruppo Facebook che sostiene gli ateobus ha già 4000 sostenitori e sono stati raccolti 23 000 euro di donazioni per metterli in circolazione in altre città. «Non desistiamo perché è in gioco la libertà di espressione: – insiste Carcano – dobbiamo ribadire che, per la nostra Costituzione, credenti e non credenti hanno gli stessi diritti, compreso quello di dire “Dio c’è” o “Dio non c’è”».

Comunicato stampa Uaar

L’Uaar ha diffuso questo comunicato perché la notizia, a sua insaputa, era già trapelata sulla stampa. Ne ha infatti dato notizia questa mattina Repubblica, nella cronaca di Genova, e la notizia è stata prontamente ripresa dal Secolo XIX e dall’ANSA.

Nota tecnica: l’UAAR ha deciso di parlare di “un italiano su sette” in base ai dati forniti dall’ultimo rapporto sulla libertà religiosa redatto dal Dipartimento di Stato Americano, non certo sospettabile di simpatie nei confronti dell’ateismo e dell’agnosticismo. Vi si può infatti leggere che “the most recent data indicate that approximately 14 percent of the population identifies itself as either atheist or agnostic“.

Che il dibattito abbia inizio. A quanto pare la comunità di atei e agnostici sullo stesso sito dell'UAAR sembra essere piuttosto divisa nelle sue reazioni al nuovo slogan. C'è chi ritiene che si tratti di un passo indietro, di una pubblica "calata di braghe," e chi invece sostiene si tratti di una seplice risposta "al nuovo fronte" apertosi in Italia in seguito al primo slogan, bocciato dalla IGP Decaux. Personalmente non penso si tratti di un passo indietro o di un compromesso al ribasso da parte dell'UAAR, che, dal canto suo, ha comunque ottenuto una notevole copertura mediatica nonostante la bocciatura del primo slogan. E tutti sappiamo quanto sia difficile ottenere copertura mediatica in un paese come l'Italia.

Quindi l'UAAR - e con l'associazione anche l'intera comunità di atei e agnostici italiani, membri o meno - ha dovuto e deve chiedersi se sia più utile perseguire la via della provocazione su un tema "teorico" quale l'esistenza di una divinità o mostrare un po' di pragmatismo e sfruttare questa occasione per affermare un'altra realtà di fatto con potenziali benefici sociali per tutti i non-credenti. Quello che l'UAAR sta dicendo al paese con questo nuovo slogan è che gli atei esistono e sono tanti, e che essere atei non è un disonore. Se davvero si tratta di una guerra, sfruttare le circostanze piuttosto che ostinarsi a perseguire una strada senza via d'uscita non significa calare le braghe, significa mostrare una notevole superiorità e adattabilità. Darwin sarebbe orgoglioso.

Ancora ateobus.

Oggi ho ricevuto una e-mail di risposta dalla IGPDecaux, risposta che non avrebbe potuto essere più insignificante.

Buongiorno

con riferimento alla Sua richiesta d'informazioni sulla campagna UAAR pervenutami via mail, precisiamo quanto segue.

Abbiamo ritenuto di non poter esporre il messaggio cosi come si presentava sul bozzetto inviatoci dall'agenzia, dato il combinato disposto dell'articolo 10 e 46 del Codice di Autodisciplina Pubblicitaria ( il codice è scaricabile all'indirizzo: www.iap.it/it/codice.htm)

Ricordiamo che il Codice di Autodiscilplina Pubblicitaria è giunto alla 44° edizione ( la prima risale al 1966 ) ed è adottato da tutte le concessionarie e da tutti i mezzi pubblicitari italiani.

Cordiali saluti

Benedetta Arlati

Direzione Marketing - Responsabile Comunicazione e Immagine

tel. +39 02 62498294

fax. +39 02 6599037

www.igpdecaux.it

IGPDecaux S.p.A.

Piazza Cavour, 1 - 20121 Milano

Punto primo, io non ho mai richiesto informazioni, bensì ho scritto una e-mail di protesta. Punto secondo, anche se avessi richiesto informazioni, tale e-mail di risposta non riporta nulla che i precedenti comunicati stampa non contenessero già. Punto terzo, il fatto che il Codice di Autodisciplina Pubblicitaria abbia una lunga tradizione e venga adottato da tutte le concessionarie di pubblicità non rende la sua applicazione nel caso della campagna UAAR meno ingiusta.

In sostanza, in questo momento sono ancora più arrabbiato come persona e come cittadino. Perché sembra sempre che certa gente cerchi disperatamente di sotterrare le cagate che fa, invece di porvi rimedio?

Ateobus e IGPDecaux

Una piccola nota tecnica per chi fosse interessato a intervenire sulla vicenda degli spazi pubblicitari negati all'UAAR dalla società che li gestisce, la IGPDecaux. Invito tutti gli utenti con un account Facebook a iscriversi al gruppo relativo alla campagna. Invito inoltre tutti a inviare e-mail di protesta alla responsabile relazioni con il pubblico della società che ha deciso di uccidere la libertà di espressione di una minoranza già abbastanza discriminata in Italia. L'indirizzo è benedetta.arlati@igpdecaux.it

Autobus "atei" finalmente anche in terra italica...o forse no.

Ci sono momenti particolarmente importanti che semplicemente richiedono un nuovo post sul blog, non importa quanto sia impegnato con saggi da scrivere ed esami da sostenere. Purtroppo la notizia qui in Inghilterra, dove mi trovo al momento, mi è giunta con lieve ritardo ma colgo ugualmente l'occasione per congratularmi con l'UAAR per il coraggio dimostrato nel dar vita alla campagna sociale in questione e per esprimere il mio cordoglio per il (rinnovato) trapasso della libertà di espressione in Italia.

Pare infatti che non avremo, almeno per ora, "ateobus" a Genova o in altre città italiane. Questo perché la IGPDecaux, società che gestisce gli spazi publicitari sugli autobus in questione ha negato all'UAAR la libertà di parola e agli italiani la libertà di pensiero, senza dubbio sotto forti pressioni da parte della curia genovese. Riportando dal sito dell'UAAR:

La concessionaria di pubblicità IGPDecaux ha comunicato le motivazioni alla base della decisione di non accettare la pubblicità degli autobus UAAR “in base al combinato disposto dell’articolo 10 e 46 del Codice di Autodisciplina Pubblicitaria“.

Tale Codice recita:
Art. 10 – Convinzioni morali, civili, religiose e dignità della persona
La comunicazione commerciale non deve offendere le convinzioni morali, civili e religiose dei cittadini. Essa deve rispettare la dignità della persona umana in tutte le sue forme ed espressioni.
Art. 46 – Appelli al pubblico
È soggetto alle norme del presente Codice qualunque messaggio volto a sensibilizzare il pubblico su temi di interesse sociale, anche specifici, o che sollecita, direttamente o indirettamente, il volontario apporto di contribuzioni di qualsiasi natura, finalizzate al raggiungimento di obiettivi di carattere sociale.
Tali messaggi devono riportare l’identità dell’autore e del beneficiario della richiesta, nonché l’obiettivo sociale che si intende raggiungere.
I promotori di detti messaggi possono esprimere liberamente le proprie opinioni sul tema trattato, ma deve risultare chiaramente che trattasi di opinioni dei medesimi promotori e non di fatti accertati.
Per contro i messaggi non devono:
sfruttare indebitamente la miseria umana nuocendo alla dignità della persona, né ricorrere a richiami scioccanti tali da ingenerare ingiustificatamente allarmismi, sentimenti di paura o di grave turbamento;
colpevolizzare o addossare responsabilità a coloro che non intendano aderire all’appello;
presentare in modo esagerato il grado o la natura del problema sociale per il quale l’appello viene rivolto;
sovrastimare lo specifico o potenziale valore del contributo all’iniziativa;
sollecitare i minori ad offerte di denaro.
Le presenti disposizioni si applicano anche alla comunicazione commerciale che contenga riferimenti a cause sociali.

Adesso, che l'Art. 10 non sia applicabile alla campagna UAAR lo capirebbe anche un bambino di sei, in quanto i messaggi sociali proposti dall'associazione non includevano alcun invito ad iscriversi alla stessa o a contribuire economicamente ad essa. Per quanto riguarda l'Art. 46, non posso che sperare che tutte le emittenti televisive comincino ad applicare un simile codice di comportamento per quanto riguarda gli spot pubblicitari che mandano in onda. In quel modo potremmo finalmente dire addio alle odiate pubblicità sull'8x1000 all'ugualmente odiata Chiesa Cattolica, in quanto essi senza dubbio sfruttano "indebitamente la miseria umana nuocendo alla dignità della persona" e sovrastimano "lo specifico o potenziale valore del contributo all’iniziativa."

Inoltre posso dire di conoscere personalmente persone che senza dubbio hanno sentito, in innumerevoli occasioni, le loro "convinzioni morali, civili, religiose e dignità della persona" polverizzate da esempi di comunicazione commerciale senza dubbio discutibili in gusto e intento. Tali pubblicità sono tuttora visibili su mezzi pubblici presenti sull'intero territorio nazionale. Non mi sento neanche obbligato a riportare esemi specifici. Scegliete una pubblicità a caso e state pur certi che almeno una volta quella pubblicità avrà insultato qualcuno.

E che rispondere a coloro che ritengono la campagna dell'UAAR come "l'ultima delle provocazioni contro la Chiesa Cattolica?" Piuttosto triste che i media debbano dare anche in questa occasione un tale esempio di inveterato servilismo nei confronti di una monarchia assoluta, di uno stato straniero a cui permettiamo di interferire con la vita politica e sociale italiana. Esattamente quale parte del testo pubblicitario proposto dall'UAAR:

«La cattiva notizia è che Dio non esiste. Quella buona, è che non ne hai bisogno»

faceva menzione della Chiesa Cattolica? Il fatto che l'Italia sia un paese a maggioranza cattolica fa necessariamente di ogni attacco logico, filosofico, scientifico e puramente razionale contro la semplice nozione di un essere supremo un attacco contro la Chiesa Cattolica? O si tratta più semplicemente di quello, di una critica alla pura idea di dio e ai devastanti effetti che essa ha avuto nella storia umana e nel nostro presente, non solo a livello globale ma anche a livello strettamente individuale? Consiglierei al pontefice e al suo club un po' di sana modestia - lo ammetto, piuttosto difficile aspettarsene da coloro che hanno la pretesa di essere rappresentanti in terra di una divinità la cui esistenza non è mai stata provata nonostante millenni di tentativi.

C'è da dire che forse l'UAAR il suo risultato lo ha raggiunto ugualmente e che tutta l'attenzione mediatica a livello nazionale potrebbe aiutare la giusta causa dell'incredulità e dello scetticismo molto più di quanto un paio di cartelloni nel capoluogo ligure avrebbero potuto fare. Resta tuttavia il fatto che l'Italia non potrà mai e poi mai considerarsi un paese moderno finché la libertà d'espressione continuerà ad essere repressa dalla paura della maggioranza dominante di contemplare la possibilità che si stia sbagliando.

Children ain't born believers.

I've been wanting to post a blog entry on this for quite a while but university's been awfully exhausting lately and I haven't had a chance to. A few days ago I stumbled upon an article on the subject and I've decided to actually chip in my two cents on the topic now that I have a few minutes to spare. There you go, the original article on the Telegraph website. It is a few weeks old, but as I've said I haven't had too much time on my hands lately.

For those who can't be bothered to read the article, it goes on about Dr Justin L. Barrett's "research" and bold statements. Dr Barrett - formally known as a psychologist and cognitive scientist, but de facto a Christian apologist - claims that, according to psychological experiments carried out on children, kids seem to possess an innate tendency to identify purpose or meaning in things. True. What is ignored in this reasoning, though, is the why. Barrett obviously needed to assume that such a tendency be actually a yearning for divine presence in our lives, but there is absolutely nothing suggesting any such thing. What kids do is form a basic assumption, a framework, on which to base their development. Dr Barrett, it seems, has studied kids desperately trying to find in them proof that his own personal belief was worth something but has never bothered to talk to kids and understand them. Anyone who has ever had any sort of contact with a young child will be familiar with that exciting - albeit sometimes annoying - phase kids start going through at about three to four years of age. The "why" phase. Their brain goes "look at that! There HAS to be a reason why that thing is like that! Let's ask mum!" That's really all the mystery there is to it. It's a phase, one kids slowly grow out of as they acquire more factual knowledge of the world. Barrett's assumption is that the natural world and man-made objects will innately appear as different to children and that couldn't be any more wrong. Quite the opposite. Their tendency to, at first, consider the natural world as equal to common objects created by man - therefore as having a first cause - is physiological and is exactly what pushes them to enquire about it, stomping parents with questions and absorbing notions where available. They have no reason to assume there is any difference between the universe and a telephone because they don't know any better - yet. It's an autocatalytic reaction and it's part of children's development. Hardly proof of a divine.

He also goes on to say that such a tendency inevitably leads kids to develop a belief in a superior, intelligent entity that imbued everything that exists with a purpose. Wrong. If anything, kids' curiosity is the essence of scepticism. Kids believe in Santa Claus. Kids believe in the Tooth Fairy. Kids believe in what they are exposed to - until they start getting dangerously curious - but kids do not develop complex theologies unless imprinted to adopt one first.

Ultimately, what the experiments have actually proved is that children possess:

• a certain notion of causality, needed to make sense of this new, big, confusing world in our early developmental stages, when we lack actual knowledge.
• an impressive creativity.
  

Nothing more.

You owe me, bitch!