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.
Eden od najbolj običajnih načinov delitve sveta je na tiste, ki verjamejo in na tiste, ki ne -- na vernike in ateiste. In zadnje desetletje ali nekaj takega je bilo precej jasno, kaj pomeni biti ateist. Nekaj ateistov je bilo precej glasnih in izpostavili so, da religija ni samo napačna, ampak, da je celo smešna. Ti ljudje, mnogi med njimi so živeli v Severnem Oxfordu, so trdili -- trdili so, da je vera v boga podobno kot vera v vile in da je vsa zadeva v bistvu otroška igra.
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.
Meni pa se zdi, da je to prelahko. Mislim, da je prelahko vso religijo odkloniti na ta način. Je lahko kot lovljenje rib v sodu. Danes pa bi rad razkril nov način, kako biti ateist -- če želite, novo verzijo ateizma, ki mu bomo rekli Ateizem 2.0. Kaj je torej Ateizem 2.0? No, začne se s zelo osnovno premiso: seveda bog ne obstaja. Seveda ni nobenih božanstev in nadnaravnih duhov ali angelov, ipd. Sedaj pa se pomaknimo naprej; to ni konec zgodbe, to je šele čisti začetek.
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.
Zanima me takšna vrsta privržencev, ki misli nekako v tej smeri: mislijo: "Ne morem verjeti v te stvari. Ne morem verjeti v doktrine. Mislim, da te doktrine nimajo prav. Ampak," zelo pomemben 'ampak', "obožujem božične pesmi. Res so mi všeč Mantegnajeva umetniška dela. Rad si ogledujem stare cerkve. Zelo rad prebiram strani Stare zaveze." Karkoli že to je, veste, o čem govorim -- ljudje, ki jih privlači obredna stran, moralistična, skupnostna stran religije, vendar ne prenesejo doktrine. Do sedaj so bili ti ljudje soočeni s precej neprijetno izbiro. Nekako tako, da ali sprejmeš doktrino in potem lahko imaš vse dobre stvari, ali pa doktrino zavrneš in živiš v neke vrste duhovni puščavi pod vodstvom POP TV in Mercatorja.
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.
To je kar težka odločitev. Mislim, da ne potrebujemo takšne odločitve. Mislim, da obstaja alternativa. Mislim, da obstajajo načini -- in pri tem sem oboje, zelo spoštljiv in popolnoma brezbožen -- kako krasti od religije. Če ne verjamete v religijo, ni nič narobe z izbiranjem in mešanjem, z jemanjem najboljših strani religije. Zame je ateizem 2.0 oboje, kot sem rekel, spoštljiv in brezbožen način pregledovanja religij in spraševanjem: "Kaj od tega lahko uporabimo?" Posvetni svet je poln lukenj. Slabo smo se sekularizirali, se strinjam. In natančno preučevanje religije bi nam lahko dalo vsakovrstne vpoglede v področja življenja, kjer nam ne gre preveč dobro. Danes želim preleteti nekaj od teh.
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.
Začel bi rad s pregledom izobraževanja. Izobraževanje je področje, v katerega sekularen svet resnično verjame. Ko razmišljamo, kako bomo svet naredili boljši, pomislimo na izobraževanje; v to vlagamo ogromno denarja. Izobrazba nam ne bo dala samo trgovskih spretnosti, industrijskih spretnosti, iz nas bo naredila tudi boljše ljudi. Saj veste, promocije, slovesnosti ob podeljevanju diplom, te čustvene trditve, da bo izobrazba, proces izobraževanja -- še posebej visoka izobrazba -- iz nas naredila plemenitejša in boljša človeška bitja. To je ljubka ideja. Zanimivo, od kod izvira.
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.
V zgodnjem 19. stoletju je obisk v cerkvah v Zahodni Evropi pričel zelo, zelo hitro upadati in ljudi je zagrabila panika. Zastavili so si sledeče vprašanje. Rekli so, kje bodo ljudje našli moralnost, kje bodo našli smernice in v čem bodo našli tolažbo? In vplivni glasovi so našli odgovor. Rekli so, v kulturi. V kulturi moramo iskati smernice, tolažbo, moralnost. Poglejmo Shakespearjeve igre, Platonove dialoge, romane Jane Austen. V njih bomo našli ogromno resnic, ki smo jih prej mogoče našli v evangeliju svetega Janeza. Mislim, da je to lepa ideja in tudi zelo resnična ideja. Sveto pismo so želeli nadomestiti s kulturo. In to je zelo verjetna ideja. Je pa tudi ideja, ki smo jo pozabili.
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.
Če bi šli na vrhunsko univerzo -- recimo, da bi šli na Harvard ali v Oxford ali v Cambridge -- in bi rekli: "Sem sem prišel, ker iščem moralnost, smernice in tolažbo; želim vedeti, kako živeti," bi vam pokazali pot do norišnice. To preprosto ni to, s čimer se naše največje in najboljše ustanove visokega šolstva ukvarjajo. Zakaj? Mislijo, da tega ne potrebujemo. Ne zdi se jim, da nujno potrebujemo pomoč. Vidijo nas kod odrasle, razumne odrasle. Kar potrebujemo so informacije. Potrebujemo podatke, ne potrebujemo pomoči.
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.
Religije pa začenjajo z zares povsem druge točke. Vse religije, vse glavne religije nas na različnih točkah imenujejo za otroke. In verjamejo, da kot otroci zelo potrebujemo pomoč. Komaj se še držimo skupaj. Mogoče gre samo zame, mogoče zate. A kakorkoli, komaj se še držimo skupaj. In potrebujemo pomoč. Seveda potrebujemo pomoč. In potrebujemo tudi smernice in didaktično učenje.
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.
Veste, v 18. stoletju je v Združenem kraljestvu bil največji pridigar, največji verski pridigar, mož z imenom John Wesley, ki je potoval gor in dol po tej deželi in pridigal, s čimer je svetoval ljudem, kako bi lahko živeli. Pridigal je o dolžnostih staršev do svojih otrok in otrokov do svojih staršev, o dolžnostih bogatih do revnih in revnih do bogatih. Ljudem je poskušal dopovedati, kako naj živijo, s pomočjo pridig, klasičnega medija za predavanje religij.
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.
Ideji pridig smo se odrekli. Če bi modernemu liberalnemu posamezniku rekli: "Hej, si za pridigo?", bi vam rekli: "Ne, ne. Jaz je ne potrebujem. Sem samostojen posameznik." V čem je razlika med pridigo in sodobnim, sekularnim načinom predavanja? No, pridiga vam želi spremeniti življenje, predavanje pa vam želi dati nekaj informacij. In mislim, da bi se morali vrniti k tradiciji pridig. Tradicija pridiganja je zelo dragocena, ker potrebujemo smernice, moralnost in tolažbo -- in religije to vedo.
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.
Še ena stvar o izobraževanju: v sodobnem sekularnem svetu radi verjamemo, da če nekomu nekaj enkrat poveste, da si bo to zapomnil. Posedite jih v razred, povejte jim o Platonu, ko so stari 20, pošljite jih v kariero svetovanja v managementu za 40 let in ta lekcija se jih bo držala. Religije pa pravijo: "Nesmisel. Lekcijo morate ponavljati 10-krat na dan. Torej, pokleknite in jo ponavljajte." To nam govorijo vse religije: "Pokleknite in ponavljajte 10- ali 20- ali 15-krat na dan." Drugače so naše pameti kot rešeta.
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.
Religije so torej kulture ponavljanja. Z velikimi resnicami krožijo zopet in znova in spet. Ponavljanje pa povezujemo z dolgčasom. "Dajte nam novo," vedno govorimo. "Novo je boljše od starega." Če bi vam rekel: "Ok, ne bomo imeli nove TED konference. Enostavno bomo ponavljali vse stare in jih gledali petkrat, ker so tako resnične. Elizabeth Gilbert bomo gledali petkrat, ker je to, kar govori, tako pametno", bi se počutili ogoljufano. Če pa privzamete religijsko miselnost, pa ne.
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.
Religije pa urejajo tudi čas. Vse glavne religije nam dajo koledarje. Kaj je koledar? Koledar je način, kako zagotoviti, da boste skozi leto naleteli na določene zelo pomembne ideje. V katoliški kronologiji, katoliškem koledarju, boste ob koncu marca pomislili na svetega Jeremijo, na njegove lastnosti kot so ponižnost in dobrota in njegova velikodušnost do revnih. Tega ne boste naredili po pomoti; to boste naredili, ker vas bodo do tega vodili. Mi pa ne mislimo na ta način. V sekularnem svetu mislimo: "Če je ideja pomembna, bom nanjo naletel. Kar srečal jo bom." Nesmisel, pravi religiozni pogled na svet. Religiozni pogled pravi, da potrebujemo koledarje, čas moramo strukturirati, svoja srečanja moramo sinhronizirati. To se pozna tudi v načinu, kako religije pripravijo obrede okoli pomembnih občutij.
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.
Vzemimo Luno. Zelo pomembno je gledati Luno. Veste, ko pogledate Luno, si mislite: "Res sem majhen. Kaj so moje težave?" Stvari postavi v perspektivo, itd., itd. Vsi bi morali bolj pogosto gledati v Luno. Pa ne. Zakaj ne? Ker nimamo ničesar, kar bi nam govorilo: "Poglej v Luno." Če pa ste zen budist sredi septembra, vam bodo ukazali, da greste od doma, vas postavili na predpisano ploščad, kjer boste morali proslavljati praznik Tsukimi, kjer vam bodo dali pesmi, da jih berete v čast Lune in minevanja časa in krhkosti življenja, na katero bi nas naj spominjalo. Dali vam bodo riževo pecivo. In Luna in razmišljanje o Luni bosta imela varno mesto v vašem srcu. To je zelo dobro.
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.
Druga stvar, ki se je religije zelo zavedajo, je: dobro govori -- jaz tega tu ne počnem prav dobro -- a govorništvo, govorništvo je absolutno ključno v religijah. V sekularnem svetu lahko pridete skozi univerzitetni sistem kot zanič govorec, a še vedno lahko imate imenitno kariero. Religiozen svet pa ne razmišlja na ta način. Kar govorite, mora biti podprto z resnično prepričljivim načinom govora.
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.
Če greste v afriško ameriško pentekostalistično cerkev na jugu Amerike in poslušate, kako govorijo, moj bog, kako dobro govorijo. Po vsaki prepričljivi točki, ljudje govorijo: "Amen, amen, amen." Ob koncu zares vzpodbudnega odstavka, bodo vsi vstali in govorili: "Hvaljen Jezus, hvaljen Kristus, hvaljen Odrešitelj." Če bi to počeli kot oni -- raje ne, ampak če bi -- bi vam povedal nekako tako: "Kultura mora nadomestiti Sveto pismo." In vi bi pritegnili: "Amen, amen, amen." Ob koncu mojega govora pa bi vsi vstali in govorili: "Hvaljen Platon, hvaljen Shakespeare, hvaljena Jane Austen." In vedeli bi, da imamo pravi ritem. Prav, prav. Prihajamo tja. Prihajamo tja.
(Applause)
(Aplavz)
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.
Še nekaj, kar religije vedo, je, da nismo samo možgani, da smo tudi telesa. In ko nas nekaj učijo, to počnejo prek telesa. Vzemimo za primer judovsko idejo odpuščanja. Jude zelo zanima odpuščanje in kako začeti znova in od začetka. Ampak oni o tem ne le pridigajo. Ne dajo nam samo knjig in besed o tem. Rečejo nam, naj se skopamo. Tako v skupnostih ortodoksnih Judov greste vsak petek v obredno kopališče Mikveh. Potopite se v vodo in fizično dejanje podkrepi filozofsko idejo. Mi nismo nagnjeni k temu. Naše ideje so na enem območju, naše obnašanje z našimi telesi pa na drugem. Očarljivo je, kako religije poskušajo to dvoje skombinirati.
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.
Zdaj pa poglejmo umetnost. Umetnost je nekaj, o čemer imamo v sekularnem svetu zelo visoko mnenje. Mislimo, da je umetnost zelo zelo pomembna. Veliko presežnega premoženja gre v muzeje, itd. Včasih slišimo, da kdo reče, da so muzeji naše nove katedrale, naše nove cerkve. Slišali ste, da to govorijo. Jaz mislim, da je potencial tu, a smo sami sebe popolnoma razočarali. Razlog, da smo se razočarali, pa je, da ne študiramo na pravi način, kako religije rokujejo z umetnostjo.
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.
Dve resnično slabi ideji, ki lebdita v sodobnem svetu in ki ovirata našo sposobnost črpanja moči iz umetnosti: Prva ideja je, da je umetnost namenjena sama sebi -- to je nesmisel -- zamisel, da bi umetnost morala živeti v hermetičnem mehurčku in ne bi smela poskušati narediti karkoli s tem razburkanim svetom. Ne bi se mogel bolj ne strinjati. Druga stvar, ki jo verjamemo, pa je, da se umetnost ne bi smela razlagati, da umetniki ne bi smeli povedati, kaj nameravajo, ker če bi to povedali, bi lahko uničili urok in bi se nam zdelo prelahko. Zato imamo v muzeju zelo pogosto učinek -- priznajmo -- "Ne vem, kaj bi to naj predstavljalo." Ampak, če smo resni ljudje, si tega ne priznamo. A ta občutek zbeganosti je sestavni del sodobne umetnosti.
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.
Religije pa imajo veliko razumnejši odnos do umetnosti. Nobenih težav nimajo s tem, da nam povedo, kaj umetnost predstavlja. Umetnost se v vseh glavnih verstvih vrti okoli dveh stvari. Najprej nas poskušajo spomniti, kaj naj ljubimo. Kot drugo pa nas poskušajo spomniti, česa se moramo bati in kaj sovražiti. In to je umetnost. Umetnost je čutno srečanje z najpomembnejšimi idejami vaše vere. Ko hodite po cerkvi, ali mošeji ali katedrali, kar poskušate vsrkati, kar vsrkavate skoz svoje oči, skozi svoje čute, so resnice, ki ste jih sicer spoznali s svojim umom.
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.
V bistvu je propaganda. Rembrandt je propagandist z vidika kristjanov. A beseda "propaganda" sproži alarm. Pomislimo na Hitlerja, na Stalina. A to ni nujno. Propaganda je način, kako poučevati v čast nečemu. In če je ta stvar dobra, potem s tem ni nobenega problema.
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.
Po mojem bi muzeji morali posnemati religije. In morali bi poskrbeti za to, da ko vstopite v muzej -- če bi bil jaz upravitelj muzeja, naredil bi sobo za ljubezen, sobo za velikodušnost. Vse umetnine nam o nečem govorijo. In če bi lahko prostore uredili tako, da bi nam ob ogledovanju umetniških del povedali, te in te umetnine uporabite za utrditev teh in teh idej v vašem umu, bi od umetnosti veliko več odnesli. Umetnost bi ponovno zasedla mesto, ki ga je že imela in ki smo ga zanemarili zaradi določenih napačno utemeljenih idej. Umetnost bi morala biti eno od orodij, s katerimi izboljšujemo našo družbo. Umetnost bi morala biti poučna.
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.
Pomislimo na nekaj drugega. Ljudje v sodobnem svetu, v sekularnem svetu, ki jih zanimajo stvari o duhu, stvari o razumu, višje zadeve o nečem podobnem duši, so pogosto osamljeni posamezniki. So poeti, filozofi, fotografi, režiserji. In ponavadi so sami. So naši obrtniki. So ranljivi, samski ljudje. Depresivni in žalostni postanejo sami. In ne spreminjajo se kaj dosti.
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.
Sedaj pa pomisliti na religije, na organizirane religije. Kaj organizirane religije počnejo? Zberejo se skupaj, oblikujejo inštitucije. In to ima vrsto prednosti. V prvi vrsti obseg, moč. Katoliška cerkev je lani zbrala 97 milijard dolarjev, je pisal Wall Street Journal. To so ogromni mehanizmi. So sodelovalni, imajo ime, so multinacionalni in so zelo disciplinirani.
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.
Vse to so zelo dobre lastnosti. Prepoznamo jih v povezavi s korporacijami. Korporacije pa so v več pogledih zelo podobne religijam, le da so na dnu piramide potreb. Prodajajo nam čevlje in avtomobile. Ljudje, ki nam prodajajo višje stvari -- terapevti, pesniki -- pa so sami in nimajo moči, nimajo oblasti. Religije so torej najodličnejši primer inštitucije, ki se bori za duhovne stvari. Morda se ne strinjamo s stvarmi, ki jih religije poskušajo učiti, vendar lahko občudujemo način, kako to počnejo.
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.
Knjige same, knjige, ki so jih napisali osamljeni posamezniki ne bodo spremenile ničesar. Moramo se zbrati skupaj. Če želite spremeniti svet, se morate zbirati, morate sodelovati. In to počnejo religije. So multinacionalne, kot sem rekel, imajo svoje ime, imajo jasno identiteto, tako da se ne izgubijo v zaposlenem svetu. To je nekaj, od česar se lahko učimo.
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.
Rad bi zaključil. Kar bi v resnici rad povedal, je, da se lahko mnogi od vas, ki delujete na različnih področjih, od religij nekaj naučite -- tudi, če ničesar od tega ne verjamete. Če sodelujete pri čemerkoli, kar je skupno, kar vključuje mnogo ljudi, ki se zbirajo, boste v religiji našli nekaj zase. Če ste na kakršenkoli način povezani s potovanji, poglejte romanje. Zelo dobro si poglejte romanje. Glede potovanj nismo še niti površine spraskali, ker nismo pogledali, kako se religije lotevajo potovanj. Če ste v svetu umetnosti, poglejte, kaj religije počnejo z umetnostjo. In če ste na kakršenkoli način učitelj, ponovno, poglejte, kako religije širijo ideje. Ni se vam treba strinjati z idejami, vendar so zelo učinkovit mehanizem za to.
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.
Moj sklep je torej, da se vam ni treba strinjati z religijo, vendar so na koncu religije tako subtilne, tako zapletene, na mnogo načinov tako inteligentne, da jih ne moremo prepustiti samo vernikom; za vse nas so.
Thank you very much.
Najlepša hvala.
(Applause)
(Aplavz)
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.
Chris Anderson: To je dejansko pogumen govor, ker se na nek način izpostavljaš, da se bodo v določenih krogih norčevali iz tebe.
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.
AB: Ustrelijo te lahko z obeh strani. Lahko te ustrelijo trdoglavi ateisti in lahko te ustrelijo tisti, ki popolnoma verjamejo.
CA: Incoming missiles from North Oxford at any moment.
CA: Vsak čas bodo priletele rakete iz Severnega Oxforda.
AB: Indeed.
AB: Res je.
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?
CA: A izpustil si en vidik religije, za katerega bi mnogi lahko rekli, da bi si tvoja agenda lahko kaj izposodila od njega, in sicer v tem smislu -- to je pravzaprav verjetno najpomembnejša stvar vsakemu verniku -- duhovne izkušnje, neke vrste povezanosti z nečim, kar je več od nas. Je prostor za takšno izkustvo v Ateizmu 2.0?
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.
AB: Absolutno. Kot mnogi od vas, srečujem ljudi, ki govorijo: "Ampak, a ne obstaja nekaj več od nas, nekaj drugega?" In jaz odgovarjam: "Seveda." In potem rečejo: "A nisi torej na nek način religiozen?" In odgovorim: "Ne." Zakaj bi moral ta občutek skrivnosti, ta občutek vrtoglavega obsega vesolja spremljati občutek nečesa mističnega? Znanost in samo opazovanje nam dajeta ta občutek brez mistike, zato ne čutim potrebe. Vesolje je ogromno, mi pa smo majčkeni, brez potrebe po nadaljnji religiozni nadgradnji. Tako lahko ima nekdo t. i. duhovne trenutke brez vere v duha.
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?
CA: Pravzaprav, naj nekaj vprašam. Koliko ljudi tukaj bi reklo, da jim je religija pomembna? A je kak enakovreden proces, s pomočjo katerega obstaja most med tem, o čemer govoriš in tem, kar bi povedal njim?
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.
AB: Rekel bi, da je v sekularnem življenju veliko veliko lukenj, ki se jih da zamašiti. Ni tako, kot želim pokazati, ni tako, da ali imaš religijo in moraš zato sprejeti celo vrsto stvari, ali pa nimaš religije in si zato prikrajšan za vse te zelo dobre stvari. Žalostno je, da nenehno govorimo: "Ne verjamem, zato ne morem imeti skupnosti, zato sem odrezan od moralnosti, zato ne morem iti na romanje." Nekdo bo rekel: "Nesmisel. Zakaj ne?" In to je resnični smisel mojega govora. Toliko vsega lahko vsrkamo. Ateizem se ne bi smel odrezati od bogatih virov religije.
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?
CA: Zdi se mi, da je v skupnosti TED veliko ljudi, ki so ateisti. Vendar verjetno večina v tej skupnosti zagotovo ne misli, da bo religija v bližnji prihodnosti izginila, in želijo najti jezik za konstruktivni dialog in občutek, da se lahko resnično pogovarjamo med sabo in delimo vsaj nekaj skupnih stvari. Smo nespametni, če smo optimistični glede možnosti sveta, kjer bi namesto, da je religija mogočen zborovalen krik delitve in vojne, lahko bilo premoščanje?
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.
AB: Ne, o razlikah moramo biti vljudni. Vljudnost je preveč spregledana vrlina. Vidimo jo kot hinavščino. A moramo priti do stopnje, kjer ste ateist in nekdo reče: "Veš, zadnjič sem molil," in vi to vljudno ignorirate. Greste naprej. Zato, ker ste se strinjali o 90 odstotkih stvari, zato ker ste delili poglede o tolikih stvareh in se vljudno ne strinjate. In mislim, da so to nedavne religiozne vojne ignorirale. Ignorirale so možnost složnega nesoglasja.
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?
CA: In na koncu, ali ta nova stvar, ki jo predlagaš, ki ni religija, ampak nekaj drugega, ali potrebuje vodjo in ali se javljaš za papeža?
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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.
AB: No, nekaj, do česar smo vsi zelo sumničavi, so posamezni vodje. Ne potrebuje ga. Poskusil sem postaviti ogrodje in upam, da ga bodo ljudje lahko sami zapolnili. Skiciral sem neke vrste široko ogrodje. A kjerkoli ste, kot sem rekel, če se ukvarjate s potovanji, naredite del o potovanjih. Če delate s skupnostmi, poglejte religijo in naredite del o skupnostih. Torej je wiki projekt.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
CA: Alain, thank you for sparking many conversations later.
CA: Alain, hvala da si podžgal številne pogovore, ki bodo sledili.
(Applause)
(Aplavz)