Interview with the atheist-rationalist Francesco Avella

(Bibliotheka Edizioni)

A collection of poems that, we are sure, will raise a

fuss of criticism from all those who blindly believe in
religion, in the most intransigent Catholic fringe, in
the most noble bacchettoni and moralists. For all the
others, instead, Il palazzo della ragione may prove to
be an interesting, personal reflection of an author
who, calling himself an atheist rationalist, tries to
undermine, point by point, the dogmas of religion, not
just Christian.
Avella poses doubts, sows questions, raises certainties
acquired over the centuries, becoming a promoter of a
rationalist crusade that seeks to pierce the veil of faith
that, according to his philosophical poetics, prevents
us to see beyond the myth, superstition, reassuring
wing that something in the afterlife awaits us. We have
asked this "out of the chorus" voice to speak to us
more deeply about his work and his thoughts.

In the preface he defines himself as "atheist-

rationalist".
I would like you to better explain his point of view and
the path that led to this kind of extreme nihilism.

More than "extreme nihilism", we should speak of

simple realism.
From an early age, we receive a heavy religious
indoctrination that, in most cases, prevents us from
being critical of what in the end is only a belief on a
par with many others.
If I do not believe in ghosts or woodland elves, why
should I believe in a belief based solely on man-made
fantasy stories that have occurred over the millennia?
For the average Italian, it seems normal to believe in
Jesus and ridiculous to believe in Zeus or in Horus,
but the reality is that, if these same Italians were born
in ancient Greece or in ancient Egypt, they would have
believed in Zeus and Horus with the same conviction
with which today they believe in Jesus.
God is only a belief, and Christianity is only one of the
many religions created by man.
The terror that has always gripped humanity is the
atavistic fear of its finiteness.
Do you think, then, that religion was created just to
alleviate this ancestral terror?

Of course, but you can add two other great

motivations: the need to explain everything and the
arrogance to consider themselves special.
From the earliest times, man has also used religions to
explain natural phenomena (earthquakes, lightning,
etc.) or diseases, instead of admitting his ignorance
and being able to learn more.

Moreover, we have always considered ourselves so

important and special that we do not accept that we
are merely mere animals, and that, with the belief
called "God", we can become special beings; we are so
important that the Lord of Lords, the Almighty
Almighty being, has not only had the brilliant idea of
creating the world for us, but has even "sacrificed" for
the whole of humanity.

What could be more arrogant than believing oneself to

be created in the image and likeness of God?
If you think about it, there is only one thing
considered more arrogant: to think that you are so
important as to justify your sacrifice!
If you are looking for a belief that pampers the ego,
the Christian religion is the top, since nothing can be
compared to the sacrifice of God.
The ironic thing is that Christians consider themselves
humble and accuse the atheists of arrogance ... in
short, I accept that I am only an evolved animal that
will do the same end of the ants, for the Christians I
would be arrogant, while they, who they claim to have
been created by God and to be so loved as to justify his
"sacrifice", they would be the humble ones ...

In the essay "The Miracle" she claims that, in reality,

no miracle will be granted, despite our vain requests.
What do you think, then, of all those people who
managed to save themselves "miraculously" from
incurable illness, from irreversible cases or from fatal
accidents? How would you argue your views on these
"miracles"?

If I recovered from cancer overnight, I could explain it

by so-called "spontaneous regression", a phenomenon
not yet fully explained by science.
Or, I could not explain the event, accepting our
current ignorance about many things, including
diseases. If, instead, it was a Catholic to recover from
the same evil, he would thank Jesus or Padre Pio,
attributing healing to these characters just as, in
ancient Greece, there were those who attributed them
to Pallas Athena.
Just because science is not yet able to explain a certain
phenomenon, does not mean that there is divine
intervention, not to mention that, considering the fact
that many people die, it also seems a lack of respect
towards them speak of "miracle" for those who are
saved and of "natural death by illness" for others, as if
there were people more worthy than others to receive
help.
Moreover, if you allow, it does not seem right to me
even to the doctors: they should be thanked, not the
imaginary characters depending on the dominant
religion of the place; even in India there are those who
speak of "miracles", but do not put Jesus in the
middle, but the imaginary character of the local
religion, as has been done always and everywhere.

Edoardo Albinati won the Strega Prize thanks to the

beautiful "The Catholic school" in which, analyzing a
private institute of the Roman bourgeoisie, it
highlights its strengths and weaknesses, shady areas
and old-style teachings.
What do you think of these institutions created to
facilitate the upper middle class of the country?

I start with a provocation: would it seem normal to

have "astrological schools", with astrologers to do the
teachers and walls covered with zodiacal symbols? I
do not think so; the only idea would seem ridiculous
to you, right?
Here: without the religious indoctrination of which I
spoke before, the concept of "Catholic school" would
seem very similar to that of "astrological school".
In schools, even public ones, the Catholic religion
should not be there, if anything, there should be the
study of religions in general, perhaps within other
subjects, such as History or, better still, Anthropology.
"How come man has created myriad beliefs and
religions?"
"How has the belief called" God "conditioned human
behavior over the millennia?"
These are the questions that should circulate; the
school should give objective tools to young people to
encourage critical thinking, not to continue
indoctrination that begins a few months of life with
baptism.

Do you really think that it is a simple coincidence to be

born into a Christian family / society and to have
chosen, coincidentally, to be a Christian?
If I had been born in India, I would have remained
atheist anyway, since one is atheist towards all the
divinities, while the average believer considers only
the divinity with which he has been "fed" since he was
a child; if the average Italian Christian was born in
India, he would most likely become Hindu and believe
in Krishna with the same conviction, the fruit of
indoctrination, with which he believes in Jesus today.

The school should be as impartial as possible, not to

reiterate to young people that they are Catholics,
especially when the reality is that they are only born
by chance in a Catholic family / society, so we talk
about a religion that happened by chance, not after a
choice made in adulthood and following an impartial
path, where "Catholicism" should be a possibility on a
par with "Hinduism" or "Shintoism"; where there is
indoctrination, there is no impartiality and,
consequently, there is no free choice.
I would like to have his opinion (if he saw it) on the
television series directed by Paolo Sorrentino "The
Young Pope". In it the author of "The Great Beauty"
brings up to the pontificate a Pope from an ancient
testament, cruel, enigmatic and vindictive, hostile to
any change of customs and promoter of an
obscurantist crusade.
In short, the exact opposite of the current pontiff.
What do you think would happen if a similar figure
really went up to the papal throne?

"Humble Pope I", as I call it on social media, does

nothing but adapt the Church to the current society so
as not to lose the faithful who, at least in 70% of cases,
are Catholics only in name, considering they consider
normal to have premarital sex (to give an example),
something that a coherent Catholic would not do.
Now, as the secularity of Italy is raped by the
interference of the Church, I would be very happy
about the possible rise to power of a Pope like that of
the series, indeed, I would be even more obscurantist
and moralist.
Why? Simple: as long as the Church adapts to the
whims of the average Catholic, she will be able to
continue rape secularism by justifying herself with the
fact that "in Italy they are almost all Catholics", but if
she became the obscurantist and moralist Church of
the past, perhaps threatening to to excommunicate the
average Catholic who wants to have sex in freedom
long before getting married, then he would lose the
majority of the faithful and, consequently, his power.
Today it is easy to be Catholics: just say "we are all
sinners" and confess once or twice a year and
everything is fine, but if the Church wanted
consistency and respect for its retrograde values, the
average Italian would stop being Catholic, limiting
himself to being an areligious Christian, in the sense
that he would believe in God and would see Jesus as a
point of reference, but without following a religion
with dogmas to be respected.

In short, a Young Pope is welcome to make the

average Italian understand that being Catholic and
libertine is a bit like being a vegetarian and eating
chicken every day; religion is not synonymous with
freedom of choice; on the contrary, it means taboos
and limitations; it is not the Church that has to
become more elastic, but it is the believer who must
understand if he wants to continue to follow a religion
that has been imposed to him for a few months, or if
he wants to be free to choose with his own mind what
is legitimate to do and what can not be.