One of the most common ways of dividing the world is into those who believe and those who don't -- into the religious and the atheists. And for the last decade or so, it's been quite clear what being an atheist means. There have been some very vocal atheists who've pointed out, not just that religion is wrong, but that it's ridiculous. These people, many of whom have lived in North Oxford, have argued -- they've argued that believing in God is akin to believing in fairies and essentially that the whole thing is a childish game.
Üks levinuim viis jagada maailm kaheks on eristada neid, kes usuvad ja neid, kes ei usu - jagades inimesed usklikeks ja ateistideks. Viimasel kümmekonnal aastal on olnud üsna selge arusaam, mida ateistiks olemine tähendab. Mõned väga häälekad ateistid, on avaldanud arvamust, et religioon pole mitte üksnes vale, vaid et see on lausa naeruväärne. Need inimesed - ja paljud neist on elanud Põhja-Oxfordis - on väitnud, nad on väitnud, et Jumalasse uskumine on nagu uskumine haldjatesse ja sisuliselt on kogu see värk lihtsalt lapsik mäng.
Now I think it's too easy. I think it's too easy to dismiss the whole of religion that way. And it's as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. And what I'd like to inaugurate today is a new way of being an atheist -- if you like, a new version of atheism we could call Atheism 2.0. Now what is Atheism 2.0? Well it starts from a very basic premise: of course, there's no God. Of course, there are no deities or supernatural spirits or angels, etc. Now let's move on; that's not the end of the story, that's the very, very beginning.
Minu arust on see liiga lihtne. Oleks liiga kerge kogu religioon sedasi kõrvale heita. See oleks nagu lati alt läbi jooksmine. Täna tahaksingi teile näidata, kuidas saaks olla ateist uut moodi ehk et esitleda ateismi uut versiooni, mille nimi võiks olla Ateism 2.0 Mida see Ateism 2.0 endast kujutab? Põhieeldus on siin väga lihtne: loomulikult ei ole Jumalat olemas. Loomulikult pole olemas ei jumalusi ega üleloomulikke jõude nagu pole ka ingleid jne Läheme aga edasi, see pole veel kõik. See on alles päris-päris algus.
I'm interested in the kind of constituency that thinks something along these lines: that thinks, "I can't believe in any of this stuff. I can't believe in the doctrines. I don't think these doctrines are right. But," a very important but, "I love Christmas carols. I really like the art of Mantegna. I really like looking at old churches. I really like turning the pages of the Old Testament." Whatever it may be, you know the kind of thing I'm talking about -- people who are attracted to the ritualistic side, the moralistic, communal side of religion, but can't bear the doctrine. Until now, these people have faced a rather unpleasant choice. It's almost as though either you accept the doctrine and then you can have all the nice stuff, or you reject the doctrine and you're living in some kind of spiritual wasteland under the guidance of CNN and Walmart.
Mulle pakuvad huvi sellised tegelased, kes mõtlevad umbes nii: "Ma ei suuda midagi sellist tõsiselt võtta. Ma ei saa uskuda mingeid doktriine. Ma ei arva, et need doktriinid peaksid paika. Aga siin on üks väga tähtis "aga" - , "mulle meeldivad jõululaulud. Mulle meeldib väga Mantegna looming. Mulle meeldib vanu kirikuid vaadata. Mulle meeldib sirvida Vana Testamenti." Mis iganes see ka poleks, te saate aru, kellest ma räägin - inimestest, keda köidavad religiooni rituaalid, väärtused ja kogukondlik aspekt, aga kes ei kannata doktriini. Siiani on need inimesed olnud üsna ebameeldiva valiku ees. Sa kas võtad omaks doktriini ja saad kõik need toredad asjad või sa ei tunnista doktriini ja elad mingil vaimsel tühermaal CNNi ja Walmarti meelevallas.
So that's a sort of tough choice. I don't think we have to make that choice. I think there is an alternative. I think there are ways -- and I'm being both very respectful and completely impious -- of stealing from religions. If you don't believe in a religion, there's nothing wrong with picking and mixing, with taking out the best sides of religion. And for me, atheism 2.0 is about both, as I say, a respectful and an impious way of going through religions and saying, "What here could we use?" The secular world is full of holes. We have secularized badly, I would argue. And a thorough study of religion could give us all sorts of insights into areas of life that are not going too well. And I'd like to run through a few of these today.
Nii et valik on üsna keeruline. Ma ei arva, et see on meie ainus valik. Minu arust on olemas alternatiiv. Olen seisukohal, et on võimalus - olen siin nüüd ühtaegu aupaklik ja teisalt täiesti ketserlik - varastada religioonidelt. Kuigi religiooni ei usuta, pole midagi halba, kui üht-teist üle võtame, sõeludes välja parima, mis religioonil pakkuda on. Minu jaoks on Ateism 2.0 võimalus ühtaegu lugupidamisega ja aukartuseta vaadata erinevaid religioone ja küsida: "Mida saaksime sellest kasutada?" Ilmalik maailm on täis lünkasid. Ütleksin, et oleme kehvasti ilmalikustunud. Ja põhjalik religioonide läbitöötamine võiks anda mitmeid ideid eluvaldkondades, kus praegu pole asjad just parimas korras. Võiksime täna heita pilgu mõnele neist.
I'd like to kick off by looking at education. Now education is a field the secular world really believes in. When we think about how we're going to make the world a better place, we think education; that's where we put a lot of money. Education is going to give us, not only commercial skills, industrial skills, it's also going to make us better people. You know the kind of thing a commencement address is, and graduation ceremonies, those lyrical claims that education, the process of education -- particularly higher education -- will make us into nobler and better human beings. That's a lovely idea. Interesting where it came from.
Alustaksin haridusest. Haridus on valdkond, millesse ilmalik maailm tõeliselt usub. Püüdes leida võimalusi maailma parandamiseks, mõtleme haridusele. Investeerime haridusse suuri summasid. Haridus ei anna meile mitte üksnes kaubandus- ja tootmisoskused, vaid teeb meist paremad inimesed. Teate ju küll neid aktusekõnesid, poeetilisi üleskutseid, mis rõhutavad, et haridus ja õppimine, eriti just kõrgharidus, teeb meid üllamateks ja paremateks inimesteks. Iseenesest armas mõte. Huvitav, kust see pärineb?
In the early 19th century, church attendance in Western Europe started sliding down very, very sharply, and people panicked. They asked themselves the following question. They said, where are people going to find the morality, where are they going to find guidance, and where are they going to find sources of consolation? And influential voices came up with one answer. They said culture. It's to culture that we should look for guidance, for consolation, for morality. Let's look to the plays of Shakespeare, the dialogues of Plato, the novels of Jane Austen. In there, we'll find a lot of the truths that we might previously have found in the Gospel of Saint John. Now I think that's a very beautiful idea and a very true idea. They wanted to replace scripture with culture. And that's a very plausible idea. It's also an idea that we have forgotten.
19. sajandi alguses hakkas Lääne-Euroopas kirikus käimine järsult vähenema ja inimesed sattusid paanikasse. Tekkis küsimus: mis on nüüd inimeste moraalne kompass? kust nüüd võib leida juhatust, ja kust saada lohutust? Ja mõjukad tegelased andsid ühese vastuse. Nad ütlesid - kultuurist. Kultuur on see, mis annab meile suuniseid, lohutust ja õigeid väärtusi. Vaadakem Shakespeare'i näidendeid, Platoni dialooge, Jane Austeni novelle. Sealt leiame hulgaliselt samu tõdesid, mida varasemalt võisime leida Johannese evangeeliumist. Minu arust on see üks igati ilus ja ka väga õige mõte. Nad tahtsid asendada pühakirja kultuuriga. See oli igati arvestatav idee. Samas on see idee, mille oleme unustanud.
If you went to a top university -- let's say you went to Harvard or Oxford or Cambridge -- and you said, "I've come here because I'm in search of morality, guidance and consolation; I want to know how to live," they would show you the way to the insane asylum. This is simply not what our grandest and best institutes of higher learning are in the business of. Why? They don't think we need it. They don't think we are in an urgent need of assistance. They see us as adults, rational adults. What we need is information. We need data, we don't need help.
Kui läheksite mõnda tippülikooli - näiteks Harvardisse või Oxfordi või Cambridge'i ja ütleksite: “Tulin leidma õigeid väärtusi, juhatust ja meelerahu, Öelge, kuidas peaksin elama!", siis suunaksid nad teid vaimuhaiglasse. See pole lihtsalt see, millega meie parimad ja suurimad ülikoolid tegelevad. Miks? Sest nad ei arva, et see on vajalik. Ei leita, et meil oleks hädasti abi vaja. Meid võetakse ratsionaalsete täiskasvanutena. Vajatakse hoopis teadmisi. Vajatakse andmeid, aga mitte abi.
Now religions start from a very different place indeed. All religions, all major religions, at various points call us children. And like children, they believe that we are in severe need of assistance. We're only just holding it together. Perhaps this is just me, maybe you. But anyway, we're only just holding it together. And we need help. Of course, we need help. And so we need guidance and we need didactic learning.
Religioon aga lähtub hoopis erinevatest alustest. Kõik religioonid, kõik peamised religioonid, nimetavad meid sageli lasteks. Ja nii nagu lapsedki, vajame me religiooni vaatenurgast tõsist abi. Saame vaid hädavaevu hakkama. Võib-olla käib see vaid minu või teie kohta. Aga igatahes, tuleme toime vaid hädavaevu. Ja me vajame abi. Loomulikult vajame me abi. Samuti on meil vaja suuniseid ja põhjalikku õpetust.
You know, in the 18th century in the U.K., the greatest preacher, greatest religious preacher, was a man called John Wesley, who went up and down this country delivering sermons, advising people how they could live. He delivered sermons on the duties of parents to their children and children to their parents, the duties of the rich to the poor and the poor to the rich. He was trying to tell people how they should live through the medium of sermons, the classic medium of delivery of religions.
18. sajandi Suurbritannias oli tähtsaim jutlustaja, tuntuim usukuulutaja ja jutlustaja, mees nimega John Wesley, kes käis üle kogu maa jutlusi pidamas ja andis inimestele juhatust, kuidas oma elu elada. Ta jutlusi rääkisid vanemate kohustustest oma laste ees ja laste kohustustest oma vanemate ees rikaste kohustustest vaeste ees ja vaeste kohustustest rikaste ees. Ta püüdis inimesi õpetada, kuidas tuleks elada tema meediumiks oli jutlus, klassikaline religiooni edastamise vorm.
Now we've given up with the idea of sermons. If you said to a modern liberal individualist, "Hey, how about a sermon?" they'd go, "No, no. I don't need one of those. I'm an independent, individual person." What's the difference between a sermon and our modern, secular mode of delivery, the lecture? Well a sermon wants to change your life and a lecture wants to give you a bit of information. And I think we need to get back to that sermon tradition. The tradition of sermonizing is hugely valuable, because we are in need of guidance, morality and consolation -- and religions know that.
Tänaseks on jutlused oma tähtsuse minetanud. Kui öelda kaasaegsele liberaalsele individualistile: "Hei, kuidas oleks ühe jutlusega?" oleks vastus: "Ei, seda mul küll pole vaja. Ma olen sõltumatu indiviid." Aga mis vahe on jutlusel ja tänapäevasel ilmalikul infoedastusel, loengul? Jutluse eesmärk on muuta su elu aga loengu eesmärk on lihtsalt infot anda. Arvan, et peaksime pöörduma tagasi jutluste traditsiooni juurde. Jutlustamise tava on ülimalt väärtuslik, sest suunamist on meil ju vaja, on vaja väärtusi ja lohutust - ja religioonid teavad seda.
Another point about education: we tend to believe in the modern secular world that if you tell someone something once, they'll remember it. Sit them in a classroom, tell them about Plato at the age of 20, send them out for a career in management consultancy for 40 years, and that lesson will stick with them. Religions go, "Nonsense. You need to keep repeating the lesson 10 times a day. So get on your knees and repeat it." That's what all religions tell us: "Get on you knees and repeat it 10 or 20 or 15 times a day." Otherwise our minds are like sieves.
Veel midagi hariduse teemal: ilmalikus maailmas kaldume uskuma, et kui räägime asjast ühe korra, siis jääb see meelde. Eks pange 20-aastased koolipinki istuma ja rääkige neile Platonist saatke nad järgmiseks 40 aastaks tööle juhtimiskonsultandina ja neil püsib meeles, mida selles loengus räägiti. Religiooni seisukohast on see nonsenss. "Õppetundi tuleb korrutada 10 korda päevas. Nii et põlvita ja korda!" Nii ütlevad kõik religioonid: "Põlvita ja korda 10 või 20 või 15 korda päevas." Meie pea on samahästi kui sõel.
So religions are cultures of repetition. They circle the great truths again and again and again. We associate repetition with boredom. "Give us the new," we're always saying. "The new is better than the old." If I said to you, "Okay, we're not going to have new TED. We're just going to run through all the old ones and watch them five times because they're so true. We're going to watch Elizabeth Gilbert five times because what she says is so clever," you'd feel cheated. Not so if you're adopting a religious mindset.
Seega on religioon kordamise kultuur. Peamisi tõdesid käiatakse ikka uuesti ja uuesti. Meile seostub kordamine igavusega. "Andke meile midagi uut!", ütleme me alati. "Uus on parem kui vana". Kui ma ütleksin: "Me ei tee uut TEDi. Lihtsalt vaatame uuesti kõiki vanu loenguid ja vaatame neid viis korda, sest see jutt on sulatõsi. Vaatame Elizabeth Gilbertit viis korda, sest ta räägib nii õigeid asju," te ju tunneksite end petetuna? Aga mitte siis, kui vaataksite seda religiooni vaatenurgast.
The other things that religions do is to arrange time. All the major religions give us calendars. What is a calendar? A calendar is a way of making sure that across the year you will bump into certain very important ideas. In the Catholic chronology, Catholic calendar, at the end of March you will think about St. Jerome and his qualities of humility and goodness and his generosity to the poor. You won't do that by accident; you will do that because you are guided to do that. Now we don't think that way. In the secular world we think, "If an idea is important, I'll bump into it. I'll just come across it." Nonsense, says the religious world view. Religious view says we need calendars, we need to structure time, we need to synchronize encounters. This comes across also in the way in which religions set up rituals around important feelings.
Teine asi, mida religioonid teevad, on aja korraldamine. Kõikidel peamistel religioonidel on oma kalender. Mis on kalender? Kalender tagab, et aasta jooksul satume kokku mitmete väga oluliste põhimõtetega. Katoliiklikus ajaarvamises, katoliku kalendris on märtsi lõpus aeg mõelda Püha Eusebiusele ja tema alandlikkusele ning headusele ja heldusele vaeste vastu. See ei ole juhuslik. Su mõtted lähevad neile teemadele, sest sind suunatakse. Meie päris nii ei mõtle. Ilmalikus maailmas mõtleme: "Kui mõni asi on oluline, küll ma siis komistan selle otsa. See lihtsalt satub mulle ette." Jama, ütleb religioosne maailmavaade. Religioosse lähenemise kohaselt on vaja kalendreid, aega tuleb struktureerida kokkusattumisi tuleb sünkroniseerida. Seda on selgelt näha ka viisis, kuidas religioon kujundab rituaale oluliste emotsioonide ümber.
Take the Moon. It's really important to look at the Moon. You know, when you look at the Moon, you think, "I'm really small. What are my problems?" It sets things into perspective, etc., etc. We should all look at the Moon a bit more often. We don't. Why don't we? Well there's nothing to tell us, "Look at the Moon." But if you're a Zen Buddhist in the middle of September, you will be ordered out of your home, made to stand on a canonical platform and made to celebrate the festival of Tsukimi, where you will be given poems to read in honor of the Moon and the passage of time and the frailty of life that it should remind us of. You'll be handed rice cakes. And the Moon and the reflection on the Moon will have a secure place in your heart. That's very good.
Võtame näiteks Kuu. Kuu vaatamine on väga tähtis. Kui vaadatakse Kuud, mõeldakse "Ma olen ju nii väike. Mis need minu probleemid ikka on." See paneb asju vaatama teise nurga alt. Peaksime ehk kõik Kuud sagedamini sagedamini. Ometi ei tee me seda Miks me seda ei tee? Sest miski ei tuleta meelde: "Vaata Kuud!" Aga kui sa oled zen budist, siis septembri keskel käsutatakse sind kodust välja, seisma kanoonilisele platvormile ja tähistama Tsukimi festivali, kus tuleb lugeda luuletusi austamaks Kuud ja aja möödumist ja elu haprust, mida see meile meenutama peaks. Sulle ulatatakse riisikooke. Ja Kuu ning mõtisklused Kuust saaksid kindla koha sinu südames. See on väga hea.
The other thing that religions are really aware of is: speak well -- I'm not doing a very good job of this here -- but oratory, oratory is absolutely key to religions. In the secular world, you can come through the university system and be a lousy speaker and still have a great career. But the religious world doesn't think that way. What you're saying needs to be backed up by a really convincing way of saying it.
Veel üks asi, mida religioonid hästi teadvustavad - kõnele hästi. Mul ei õnnestu see hetkel väga, aga kõnekunst on ülima tähtsusega religioonide jaoks. Ilmalikus maailmas võib läbida ülikooli väljudes sealt kehva kõnelejana ja ikkagi teha suurt karjääri. Aga religioosne maailm ei mõtle niimoodi. Seda, mida sa ütled, peab toetama väga veenev ütlemise viis.
So if you go to an African-American Pentecostalist church in the American South and you listen to how they talk, my goodness, they talk well. After every convincing point, people will go, "Amen, amen, amen." At the end of a really rousing paragraph, they'll all stand up, and they'll go, "Thank you Jesus, thank you Christ, thank you Savior." If we were doing it like they do it -- let's not do it, but if we were to do it -- I would tell you something like, "Culture should replace scripture." And you would go, "Amen, amen, amen." And at the end of my talk, you would all stand up and you would go, "Thank you Plato, thank you Shakespeare, thank you Jane Austen." And we'd know that we had a real rhythm going. All right, all right. We're getting there. We're getting there.
Kui minna arfo-ameerika nelipühilaste kirikusse Ameerika lõunaosariikides ja kuulata nende kõnet - taevake, nad kõnelevad hästi! Iga veenva väite peale öeldakse: "Aamen, aamen, aamen!" Ja peale tõsiselt erutavat lõiku tõusevad nad kõik püsti ja ütlevad:"Tänan Jeesus, tänan Kristus, tänan Lunastaja!" Kui me teeksime nii, nagu nemad - ärgem tehkem, aga kui me teeks - ma ütleks teile sedasi et, "Kultuur asendagu pühakirja!" Teie ütleksite: "Aamen, aamen, aamen" ja jutu lõpus tõuseksite kõik püsti ja ütleksite: "Tänan Platon, tänan Shakespeare, tänan Jane Austen!" Ja me teaksime, et meil on ühine rütm. Hea küll. Hakkab tulema.
(Applause)
Veel üks asi, mida religioon teab, on et me pole üksnes ajud,
The other thing that religions know is we're not just brains, we are also bodies. And when they teach us a lesson, they do it via the body. So for example, take the Jewish idea of forgiveness. Jews are very interested in forgiveness and how we should start anew and start afresh. They don't just deliver us sermons on this. They don't just give us books or words about this. They tell us to have a bath. So in Orthodox Jewish communities, every Friday you go to a Mikveh. You immerse yourself in the water, and a physical action backs up a philosophical idea. We don't tend to do that. Our ideas are in one area and our behavior with our bodies is in another. Religions are fascinating in the way they try and combine the two.
me oleme ka kehad. Ja kui nad annavad meile õppetunni, teevad nad seda keha kaudu. Võtame näiteks judaismi andestamise idee. Juudid huvituvad väga andestusest ja sellest, kuidas alustada uuesti ja värskelt. Nad ei pea sellest lihtsalt jutluseid. Nad ei anna meile raamatuid või õpetussõnu. Nad käsivad meil minna vanni. Seega ortodokssetes juudi kogukondades ootab sind igal reedel ees Mikveh. Sa kastad end vette ja füüsiline akt toetab filosoofilist ideed. Me ei kipu sedasi tegema. Meie ideed asuvad ühes kohas ja meie käitumine koos kehaga teises kohas. Religioonid on imetlusväärsed nende kahe ühendamisel.
Let's look at art now. Now art is something that in the secular world, we think very highly of. We think art is really, really important. A lot of our surplus wealth goes to museums, etc. We sometimes hear it said that museums are our new cathedrals, or our new churches. You've heard that saying. Now I think that the potential is there, but we've completely let ourselves down. And the reason we've let ourselves down is that we're not properly studying how religions handle art.
Vaatame nüüd kunsti. Kunst on midagi, millest ilmalikus maailmas peetakse väga lugu. Me arvame, et kunst on väga-väga tähtis. Suur osa meie jõukusest suunatakse muuseumitesse. Mõnikord öeldakse, et muuseumid on uued katedraalid, kirikud. Olete seda ütlust kuulnud. Ma usun, et potentsiaal on olemas, aga me oleme ennast täielikult alt vedanud. Ja põhjus miks me oleme end alt vedanud, on et me pole korralikult uurinud, kuidas religioonid käsitlevad kunsti.
The two really bad ideas that are hovering in the modern world that inhibit our capacity to draw strength from art: The first idea is that art should be for art's sake -- a ridiculous idea -- an idea that art should live in a hermetic bubble and should not try to do anything with this troubled world. I couldn't disagree more. The other thing that we believe is that art shouldn't explain itself, that artists shouldn't say what they're up to, because if they said it, it might destroy the spell and we might find it too easy. That's why a very common feeling when you're in a museum -- let's admit it -- is, "I don't know what this is about." But if we're serious people, we don't admit to that. But that feeling of puzzlement is structural to contemporary art.
On kaks tõeliselt halba ideed, mis ringlevad tänapäeva maailmas, mis pärsivad meie võimet saada kunstist jõudu. Esimene mõte on, et kunst peaks olema üksnes kunsti pärast - naeruväärne mõte - mõte, et kunst peaks elama hermeetilises mullis ega peaks püüdma midagi saavutada selles vaevatud maailmas. Ma ei nõustu sellega mingil juhul. Teine asi - me usume, et kunst ei peaks ennast seletama, et kunstnikud ei peaks ütlema, mis neil plaanis on, sest kui nad ütleks, võiks see röövida võlu ja meile võiks see tunduda liiga lihtne. Seetõttu on väga levinud tunne muuseumis olles - tunnistagem seda - ma ei tea, millest see räägib. Aga kui me oleme tõsised inimesed, siis me ei tunnista seda. Aga see hämmingu tunne on kaasaegse kunsti määrav joon.
Now religions have a much saner attitude to art. They have no trouble telling us what art is about. Art is about two things in all the major faiths. Firstly, it's trying to remind you of what there is to love. And secondly, it's trying to remind you of what there is to fear and to hate. And that's what art is. Art is a visceral encounter with the most important ideas of your faith. So as you walk around a church, or a mosque or a cathedral, what you're trying to imbibe, what you're imbibing is, through your eyes, through your senses, truths that have otherwise come to you through your mind.
Religioonidel on palju mõistlikum suhtumine kunsti. Neil pole probleemiks öelda, millest kunst räägib. Kunst räägib kahest peamisest asjast usu juures. Esiteks, püüab see meenutada, mis on armastusväärne. Ja teiseks püüab see meenutada, mis on põlastusväärne. Ja see ongi kunst. Kunst on intuitiivne kohtumine olulisemate ideedega usu juures. Niisiis jalutades kirikus või mošees või katedraalis, see, mis sa püüad imeda endasse oma silmade, meelte kaudu on tõed, mis muidu jõuavad sinuni mõistuse kaudu.
Essentially it's propaganda. Rembrandt is a propagandist in the Christian view. Now the word "propaganda" sets off alarm bells. We think of Hitler, we think of Stalin. Don't, necessarily. Propaganda is a manner of being didactic in honor of something. And if that thing is good, there's no problem with it at all.
Sisuliselt on see propaganda. Rembrandt on propagandist kristlikust vaatepunktist. Sõna "propaganda" tekitab meis umbusku. Meile meenub Hitler, Stalin. Mitte ilmtingimata. Propaganda on didaktiline moodus millegi ülistamisel. Ja kui see asi on hea, siis pole mingit probleemi.
My view is that museums should take a leaf out of the book of religions. And they should make sure that when you walk into a museum -- if I was a museum curator, I would make a room for love, a room for generosity. All works of art are talking to us about things. And if we were able to arrange spaces where we could come across works where we would be told, use these works of art to cement these ideas in your mind, we would get a lot more out of art. Art would pick up the duty that it used to have and that we've neglected because of certain mis-founded ideas. Art should be one of the tools by which we improve our society. Art should be didactic.
Ma leian, et muuseumid peaksid võtma eeskuju religioonidest. Nad peaksid kindlustama, et muuseumisse astudes - kui ma oleksin muuseumi kuraator, teeksin ma ühe ruumi armastuse, teise helduse jaoks. Kõik kunstiteosed räägivad meile midagi maailmast. Ja kui me saaks korralda ruumid selliselt, et me kohtume teostega nii, et meile öeldakse: "Kasutage neid teoseid, et kinnistada neid ideid oma meeltesse", me saaksime kunstist palju enam. Kunst võtaks rolli, mis sel kunagi oli ja mille me hülgasime teatud väärarvamuste tõttu. Kunst peaks olema üks vahenditest, mille kaudu me saame ühiskonda parandada. Kunst peaks olema didaktiline.
Let's think of something else. The people in the modern world, in the secular world, who are interested in matters of the spirit, in matters of the mind, in higher soul-like concerns, tend to be isolated individuals. They're poets, they're philosophers, they're photographers, they're filmmakers. And they tend to be on their own. They're our cottage industries. They are vulnerable, single people. And they get depressed and they get sad on their own. And they don't really change much.
Vaatleme nüüd midagi muud. Inimesed kaasaegses ilmalikus maailmas, kes huvituvad vaimu küsimustest, meele, kõrgema hingelisuse küsimustest kipuvad olema isoleeritud indiviidid. Nad on poeedid, filosoofid, fotograafid, filmikunstnikud. Ja nad on valdavalt omaette. Nad on väikeetevõtjad. Nad on haavatavad, üksikud inimesed. Ja nad satuvad depressiooni ja muutuvad kurvaks omaette. Ja nad ei muuda eriti midagi.
Now think about religions, think about organized religions. What do organized religions do? They group together, they form institutions. And that has all sorts of advantages. First of all, scale, might. The Catholic Church pulled in 97 billion dollars last year according to the Wall Street Journal. These are massive machines. They're collaborative, they're branded, they're multinational, and they're highly disciplined.
Mõelgem nüüd religioonidele, organiseeritud religioonidele. Mida nad teevad? Nad koguvad inimesed kokku, nad moodustavad institutsioone. Ja sellel on palju eeliseid. Esiteks - mastaap, jõud. Katoliku kirik kogus eelmisel aastal 97 miljardit dollarit Wall Street Journali andmetel. Need on tohutud masinavärgid. Nad on koostööpõhised, bränditud, rahvusvahelised ja nad on äärmiselt distsiplineeritud.
These are all very good qualities. We recognize them in relation to corporations. And corporations are very like religions in many ways, except they're right down at the bottom of the pyramid of needs. They're selling us shoes and cars. Whereas the people who are selling us the higher stuff -- the therapists, the poets -- are on their own and they have no power, they have no might. So religions are the foremost example of an institution that is fighting for the things of the mind. Now we may not agree with what religions are trying to teach us, but we can admire the institutional way in which they're doing it.
Need on kõik väga head omadused. Me seostame neid korporatsioonidega. Ja korporatsioonid on mitmeti väga sarnased religioonidega, ehkki nad on vajaduste püramiidi alumiseimas osas - nad müüvad meile kingi ja autosid. Samas kui inimesed, kes müüvad meile kõrgemat kraami - terapeudid, luuletajad - on omaette ja neil pole mõjuvõimu, neil pole jõudu. Seega religioon on parim näide institutsioonist, mis võitleb vaimsete asjade eest. Me ei pruugi nõustuda selles, mida religioon püüab meile õpetada, aga me peame imetlema institutsionaalset viisi, millega nad seda teevad.
Books alone, books written by lone individuals, are not going to change anything. We need to group together. If you want to change the world, you have to group together, you have to be collaborative. And that's what religions do. They are multinational, as I say, they are branded, they have a clear identity, so they don't get lost in a busy world. That's something we can learn from.
Raamatud üksi, raamatud, mille kirjutanud üksikud indiviidid, ei muuda midagi. Me peame grupeeruma. Kui tahta maailma muuta, tuleb koguneda kokku, teha koostööd. Ja seda religioonid teevad. Nad on rahvusvahelised, nagu ma ütlesin, bränditud, neil on selge identiteet, seega nad ei kao ära kirevas maailmas. Sellest me võiksime õppida.
I want to conclude. Really what I want to say is for many of you who are operating in a range of different fields, there is something to learn from the example of religion -- even if you don't believe any of it. If you're involved in anything that's communal, that involves lots of people getting together, there are things for you in religion. If you're involved, say, in a travel industry in any way, look at pilgrimage. Look very closely at pilgrimage. We haven't begun to scratch the surface of what travel could be because we haven't looked at what religions do with travel. If you're in the art world, look at the example of what religions are doing with art. And if you're an educator in any way, again, look at how religions are spreading ideas. You may not agree with the ideas, but my goodness, they're highly effective mechanisms for doing so.
Ma tahaksin kokku võtta. Mis ma tõepoolest tahan öelda teile, kes te toimetate erinevates valdkondades, et on võimalik õppida religiooni eeskujust - isegi, kui sa sellest midagi ei usu. Kui oled seotud millegi kogukondlikuga, mis hõlmab paljusid inimesi, on asju, mida relgioonist sulle vaja. Kui oled seotud näiteks turismitööstusega, vaata palverändusid. Vaata hoolega palverändusid. Me pole veel ligilähedalegi jõudnud sellele, mis reisimine võiks olla, sest me pole vaadanud, mida religioonid teevad reisimisega. Kui tegutsed kunstivaldkonnas, vaata mida religioonid teevad kunstiga. Ja kui sa oled haridusega seotud mingil viisil, jällegi, vaata, kuidas religioonid levitavad ideid. Sa ei pruugi nende ideedega nõustuda, aga taeva päralt, nad on äärmiselt efektiivsed oma tegudes.
So really my concluding point is you may not agree with religion, but at the end of the day, religions are so subtle, so complicated, so intelligent in many ways that they're not fit to be abandoned to the religious alone; they're for all of us.
Seega minu kokkuvõte on, et sa ei pruugi religiooniga nõustuda, aga õigupoolest on religioonid nii peened, nii keerulised, nii intelligentsed mitmel moel, et neid ei peaks jätma üksnes usklikele. Need on meile kõigile.
Thank you very much.
Tänan väga.
(Applause)
Chris Anderson: Now this is actually a courageous talk, because you're kind of setting up yourself in some ways to be ridiculed in some quarters.
See on tegelikult üsna uljas kõne, sest sa mõnesmõttes sead ennast naerualuseks mõnes seltskonnas.
AB: You can get shot by both sides. You can get shot by the hard-headed atheists, and you can get shot by those who fully believe.
- Võib jääda kahe tule vahele. Võib jääda põikpäisete ateistide kui ka andunud usklike tule alla.
CA: Incoming missiles from North Oxford at any moment.
- Põhja-Oxfordist on raketid teel.
AB: Indeed.
- Tõepoolest.
CA: But you left out one aspect of religion that a lot of people might say your agenda could borrow from, which is this sense -- that's actually probably the most important thing to anyone who's religious -- of spiritual experience, of some kind of connection with something that's bigger than you are. Is there any room for that experience in Atheism 2.0?
- Aga sa jätsid välja religiooni ühe aspekti, mille paljude inimeste arvates võiks su plaan laenata - see on see tunne, mis on tõenäoliselt usklike jaoks kõige tähtsam - spirituaalne kogemus teatud seotusest millegi suuremaga, kui sa ise.
AB: Absolutely. I, like many of you, meet people who say things like, "But isn't there something bigger than us, something else?" And I say, "Of course." And they say, "So aren't you sort of religious?" And I go, "No." Why does that sense of mystery, that sense of the dizzying scale of the universe, need to be accompanied by a mystical feeling? Science and just observation gives us that feeling without it, so I don't feel the need. The universe is large and we are tiny, without the need for further religious superstructure. So one can have so-called spiritual moments without belief in the spirit.
Kas sellise kogemuse jaoks on Ateism 2.0-s ruumi? - Absoluutselt. Mina, nagu paljud teist, kohtume inimestega, kes ütlevad: "Aga kas pole midagi meist suuremat, midagi muud?" Ja ma ütlen: "Muidugi!" Ja nad ütlevad: "Sa oled siis omamoodi usklik?" Ja ma ütlen: "Ei." Miks peaks see müstika tajumine, see universumi peadpööritav suurus, käima koos müstilise elutunnetusega? Teadus ja paljas vaatlus annavad meile sellise tunde ilma selletagi. Seega ma ei näe vajadust. Universum on suur ja meie oleme väikesed ilma vajaduseta edasise religioosse struktuuri järgi. Seega - võib kogeda niiöelda vaimseid hetki ilma vaime uskumata.
CA: Actually, let me just ask a question. How many people here would say that religion is important to them? Is there an equivalent process by which there's a sort of bridge between what you're talking about and what you would say to them?
- Tegelikult, luba mul küsida: Kui palju inimesi siin ütleksid, et religioon on neile tähtis? Kas on olemas mingi protsess, mis looks silla selle vahel, millest sa räägid ja mida sa ütleksid neile?
AB: I would say that there are many, many gaps in secular life and these can be plugged. It's not as though, as I try to suggest, it's not as though either you have religion and then you have to accept all sorts of things, or you don't have religion and then you're cut off from all these very good things. It's so sad that we constantly say, "I don't believe so I can't have community, so I'm cut off from morality, so I can't go on a pilgrimage." One wants to say, "Nonsense. Why not?" And that's really the spirit of my talk. There's so much we can absorb. Atheism shouldn't cut itself off from the rich sources of religion.
- Ma ütleksin, et ilmalikus elus on palju lünki ja need on võimalik täita. Ei ole nii, nagu ma ütlesin, et sul kas on religioon ja siis sa pead leppima kõiksugu asjdega või sul pole religiooni ja siis sa oled ära lõigatud kõigist neist headest asjadest. Kahju, et me pidevalt ütleme: "Ma ei ole usklik, seega mul ei saa olla kogudust, ma olen ära lõigatud moraalist, ma ei saa minna palverännule." Tahaks öelda: "Jama! Miks mitte?" Ja see on mu jutu iva. On palju, mis me võime omaks võtta. Ateism ei peaks ennast ära lõikama religiooni rikastest allikatest.
CA: It seems to me that there's plenty of people in the TED community who are atheists. But probably most people in the community certainly don't think that religion is going away any time soon and want to find the language to have a constructive dialogue and to feel like we can actually talk to each other and at least share some things in common. Are we foolish to be optimistic about the possibility of a world where, instead of religion being the great rallying cry of divide and war, that there could be bridging?
- Mulle tundub, et TEDi kogukonnas on palju inimesi, kes on ateistid. Aga ilmselt enamik kogukonnast ei arva, et religioonid kaoks kuhugi lähitulevikus ja tahavad leida keelt, millega pidada konstruktiivset dialoogi ja tunda, et me tõesti räägime üksteisega ja vähemalt jagada mõningaid asju. Kas meist on rumal olla optimistlik maailma suhtes, kus selle asemel, et religioon õhutab lõhestumisele ja sõjale, võib leida sildu?
AB: No, we need to be polite about differences. Politeness is a much-overlooked virtue. It's seen as hypocrisy. But we need to get to a stage when you're an atheist and someone says, "Well you know, I did pray the other day," you politely ignore it. You move on. Because you've agreed on 90 percent of things, because you have a shared view on so many things, and you politely differ. And I think that's what the religious wars of late have ignored. They've ignored the possibility of harmonious disagreement.
- Ei, me peame olema viisakad erinevuste suhtes. Viisakus on seni vähetähtsustatud voorus. Seda peetakse silmakirjalikkuseks. Aga me peame jõudma selleni, et olles ateist ja kuuldes kedagi ütlemas: "Tead, ma palvetasin ükspäev," sa viisakalt ignoreerid seda. Sa lähed edasi. Sest nõustute 90% asjadest, jagate vaateid nii paljudes asjades, ja sa jääd viisakalt eriarvamusele. Ja ma arvan, et seda on viimase aja religioonisõjad ignoreerinud. Nad on ignoreerinud harmoonilise eriarvamuse võimalust.
CA: And finally, does this new thing that you're proposing that's not a religion but something else, does it need a leader, and are you volunteering to be the pope?
- Ja lõpuks, kas see uus asi, mida sa välja pakud - mis pole religioon, aga midagi muud - kas see vajab juhti ja kas sa pakud end vabatahtlikult paavstiks?
(Laughter)
Üks asi, mille suhtes me kõik väga umbusklikud oleme,
AB: Well, one thing that we're all very suspicious of is individual leaders. It doesn't need it. What I've tried to lay out is a framework and I'm hoping that people can just fill it in. I've sketched a sort of broad framework. But wherever you are, as I say, if you're in the travel industry, do that travel bit. If you're in the communal industry, look at religion and do the communal bit. So it's a wiki project.
on üksikisikust juhid. See ei vaja seda. Mida ma olen üritanud teha, on ehitada välja raamistik ja ma loodan, et inimesed täidavad selle ise. Ma visandasin umbkaudse raamistiku. Aga kusiganes sa ka poleks - kui oled reisiäris, tee see reisimise osa. Kui sa oled kogukonnaga seotud, vaata religiooni ja tee kogukonna osa. See on wikiprojekt.
(Laughter)
CA: Alain, thank you for sparking many conversations later.
Alain, tänan sind ärgitamast arutelule.
(Applause)