It's wonderful to be back. I love this wonderful gathering. And you must be wondering, "What on earth? Have they put up the wrong slide?" No, no. Look at this magnificent beast, and ask the question: Who designed it?
Sjajno je vratiti se. Volim ova divna okupljanja. Mora da se pitate: „Šta je sad ovo? Postavili su pogrešan slajd?” Ne, ne. Pogledajte u ovu veličanstvenu zver i postavite pitanje – ko ju je osmislio?
This is TED; this is Technology, Entertainment, Design, and there's a dairy cow. It's a quite wonderfully designed animal. And I was thinking, how do I introduce this? And I thought, well, maybe that old doggerel by Joyce Kilmer, you know: "Poems are made by fools like me, but only God can make a tree." And you might say, "Well, God designed the cow."
Ovo je TED - tehnologija, zabava, dizajn - a evo krave muzare. To je prilično čudesno dizajnirana životinja i razmišljao sam - kako da započnem ovo? Pa, pomislio sam, možda sa onim starim stihom Džojsa Kilmera, znate: „Pesme pišu budale kao ja, ali samo Bog može da stvori drvo.” Mogli biste reći: „Pa, Bog je stvorio kravu”,
But, of course, God got a lot of help. This is the ancestor of cattle. This is the aurochs. And it was designed by natural selection, the process of natural selection, over many millions of years. And then it became domesticated, thousands of years ago. And human beings became its stewards, and, without even knowing what they were doing, they gradually redesigned it and redesigned it and redesigned it. And then more recently, they really began to do reverse engineering on this beast and figure out just what the parts were, how they worked and how they might be optimized -- how they might be made better.
ali, naravno, Bog je imao dosta pomoći. Ovo je predak goveda. Ovo je tur, a stvorila ga je prirodna selekcija, proces prirodne selekcije, tokom mnogo miliona godina. Zatim je pripitomljen pre nekoliko hiljada godina, a ljudska bića postala su njegovi upravnici i, čak ne znajući šta rade, postepeno su ga iznova i iznova stvarali. Zatim, u skorije vreme, počeli su da rade na obrnutom inženjeringu ove zveri i da shvataju od kojih delova se sastoji, kako oni funkcionišu i kako se mogu optimizirati - kako se mogu učiniti boljima.
Now, why am I talking about cows? Because I want to say that much the same thing is true of religions. Religions are natural phenomena -- they're just as natural as cows. They have evolved over millennia. They have a biological base, just like the aurochs. They have become domesticated, and human beings have been redesigning their religions for thousands of years. This is TED, and I want to talk about design. Because what I've been doing for the last four years -- really since the first time you saw me -- some of you saw me at TED when I was talking about religion -- and in the last four years, I've been working just about non-stop on this topic. And you might say it's about the reverse engineering of religions. Now that very idea, I think, strikes terror in many people, or anger, or anxiety of one sort or another. And that is the spell that I want to break.
E, sad, zašto pričam o kravama? Zato što želim da kažem da slična stvar važi i za religije. Religije su prirodne pojave - prirodne su kao i krave. Razvijale su se tokom milenijuma. Imaju biološku osnovu, kao i tur. Pripitomljene su, a ljudska bića su iznova stvarala svoje religije hiljadama godina. Ovo je TED i želim da pričam o dizajnu jer sam u protekle četiri godine - otkad ste me poslednji put videli, a neki od vas su me videli kada sam pričao o religiji - a protekle četiri godine neprestano sam radio na ovoj tematici. Mogli biste reći da je to o obrnutom inženjeringu religija. Sama ta ideja, mislim, pokreće strah, bes ili nekakav nemir kod mnogih ljudi, a to je začaranost koju želim da prekinem.
I want to say, no, religions are an important natural phenomenon. We should study them with the same intensity that we study all the other important natural phenomena, like global warming, as we heard so eloquently last night from Al Gore. Today's religions are brilliantly designed -- brilliantly designed. They are immensely powerful social institutions and many of their features can be traced back to earlier features that we can really make sense of by reverse engineering. And, as with the cow, there's a mixture of evolutionary design -- designed by natural selection itself -- and intelligent design -- more or less intelligent design -- and redesigned by human beings who are trying to redesign their religions.
Želim da kažem - ne, religije su važna prirodna pojava. Treba da ih proučavamo sa istim intenzitetom kojim proučavamo sve druge važne prirodne pojave, kao što je globalno zagrevanje, a što je elokventno sinoć predstavio Al Gor. Današnje religije su brilijantno osmišljene. To su društvene institucije koje imaju izuzetnu moć i mnoge njihove osobine mogu da se prate do prethodnih osobina od kojih se može stvoriti smislena celina uz pomoć obrnutog inženjeringa. Kao i sa kravom, postoji mešavina evolutivnog dizajna koji je stvorila sama prirodna selekcija i inteligentnog dizajna, manje ili više, i ponovnog stvaranja od strane ljudskih bića koja pokušavaju da iznova stvore svoje religije.
You don't do book talks at TED, but I'm going to have just one slide about my book, because there is one message in it which I think this group really needs to hear. And I would be very interested to get your responses to this. It's the one policy proposal that I make in the book, at this time, when I claim not to know enough about religion to know what other policy proposals to make. And it's one that echoes remarks that you've heard already today.
Na TED-u se ne priča o knjigama, ali ću predstaviti jedan slajd o svojoj knjizi zato što postoji poruka u njoj za koju mislim da ova grupa treba da je čuje. Veoma bih bio zainteresovan da dobijem vaše odgovore na ovo pitanje. Radi se o predlogu vezanom za politiku koji dajem u ovoj knjizi, u ovo vreme, kada tvrdim da ne znam dovoljno o religiji da bih znao kakav predlog da dam, a u predlogu odzvanjaju napomene koje ste već čuli danas.
Here's my proposal, I'm going to just take a couple of minutes to explain it: Education on world religions for all of our children -- in primary school, in high school, in public schools, in private schools and in home schooling. So what I'm proposing is, just as we require reading, writing, arithmetic, American history, so we should have a curriculum on facts about all the religions of the world -- about their history, about their creeds, about their texts, their music, their symbolisms, their prohibitions, their requirements. And this should be presented factually, straightforwardly, with no particular spin, to all of the children in the country. And as long as you teach them that, you can teach them anything else you like. That, I think, is maximal tolerance for religious freedom. As long as you inform your children about other religions, then you may -- and as early as you like and whatever you like -- teach them whatever creed you want them to learn. But also let them know about other religions.
Evo mog predloga. Objasniću ga u par minuta. Obrazovanje o svetskim religijama za svu našu decu - u osnovnoj školi, u srednjoj školi, državnim, privatnim školama i u školama u privatnim domovima. Dakle, predlažem ovo - kao što stičemo znanje o čitanju, pisanju, aritmetici, američkoj istoriji, tako bi trebalo da imamo i nastavni plan o činjenicama svetskih religija - o njenim istorijama, verama, zapisima, muzici, simbolizmu, zabranama, zahtevima. Ovo bi trebalo da se predstavi kroz činjenice, otvoreno, bez posebnog spinovanja, svoj deci u zemlji. Dokle god im predajete o tome, možete im predavati o bilo čemu drugom što vam se sviđa. To je, mislim, maksimalna tolerancija za slobode veroispovesti. Dokle god informišete svoju decu o drugim religijama, možete - i u kojem god dobu i šta god da želite - da ih naučite i bilo kojoj veri o kojoj želite da imaju znanja, ali dopustite im i da znaju o drugim religijama.
Now, why do I say that? Because democracy depends on an informed citizenship. Informed consent is the very bedrock of our understanding of democracy. Misinformed consent is not worth it. It's like a coin flip; it doesn't count, really. Democracy depends on informed consent. This is the way we treat people as responsible adults. Now, children below the age of consent are a special case. Parents -- I'm going to use a word that Pastor Rick just used -- parents are stewards of their children. They don't own them. You can't own your children. You have a responsibility to the world, to the state, to them, to take care of them right. You may teach them whatever creed you think is most important, but I say you have a responsibility to let them be informed about all the other creeds in the world, too.
Zašto to kažem? Zato što demokratija zavisi od informisanog građanstva. Informisana saglasnost je sama osnova našeg razumevanja demokratije. Saglasnost uz pogrešne informacije nije vredna toga. To je kao okretanje novčića; ne računa se zaista. Demokratija zavisi od informisane saglasnosti. Ovo je način na koji tretiramo ljude kao odgovorne odrasle osobe. E, sad, deca koja imaju nedovoljno godina za saglasnost su poseban slučaj. Roditelji - a iskoristiću reč koju je sveštenik Rik upravo iskoristio - roditelji su upravitelji svoje dece. Ne poseduju ih. Ne možete posedovati svoju decu. Imate odgovornost prema svetu, državi, prema njima da se brinete o njima na odgovarajući način. Možete ih naučiti bilo kojoj veri za koju smatrate da je važna, ali kažem da imate odgovornost da im dozvolite da se informišu i o svim drugim verama na svetu.
The reason I've taken this time is I've been fascinated to hear some of the reactions to this. One reviewer for a Roman Catholic newspaper called it "totalitarian." It strikes me as practically libertarian. Is it totalitarian to require reading, writing and arithmetic? I don't think so. All I'm saying is -- and facts, facts only; no values, just facts -- about all the world's religions. Another reviewer called it "hilarious." Well, I'm really bothered by the fact that anybody would think that was hilarious. It seems to me to be such a plausible, natural extension of the democratic principles we already have that I'm shocked to think anybody would find that just ridiculous. I know many religions are so anxious about preserving the purity of their faith among their children that they are intent on keeping their children ignorant of other faiths. I don't think that's defensible. But I'd really be pleased to get your answers on that -- any reactions to that -- later.
Razlog zbog kog sam odvojio ovo vreme je zato što sam bio fasciniran da čujem neke od reakcija na ovo. Jedan recenzent katoličkih novina nazvao ga je „totalitarističkim”. Po meni je praktično libertarijanski. Da li je totalitaristički zahtevati čitanje, pisanje i aritmetiku? Ne mislim da je tako. Sve što kažem je - činjenice i samo činjenice, bez vrednosti, samo činjenice o svim svetskim religijama. Još jedan recenzent nazvao ga je „urnebesnim". Zaista mi smeta činjenica da bi bilo ko mogao pomisliti da je to urnebesno. Meni deluje kao da je tako razumno, prirodno proširenje postojećih demokratskih principa da sam šokiran pomišlju da je ovo ikome jednostavno smešno. Znam da je mnogim religijama veoma stalo do toga da sačuvaju čistotu vere među svojom decom, pa su odlučne u nameri da svoju decu drže u neznanju o drugim religijama. Ne mislim da se to može opravdati. Međutim, stvarno bi mi bilo drago da dobijem vaše odgovore na to - bilo kakvu reakciju - kasnije,
But now I'm going to move on. Back to the cow. This picture, which I pulled off the web -- the fellow on the left is really an important part of this picture. That's the steward. Cows couldn't live without human stewards -- they're domesticated. They're a sort of ectosymbiont. They depend on us for their survival. And Pastor Rick was just talking about sheep. I'm going to talk about sheep, too. There's a lot of serendipitous convergence here. How clever it was of sheep to acquire shepherds!
ali sada ću nastaviti dalje. Natrag na kravu. Ova slika, koju sa „skinuo” sa neta - momak sa leve strane zaista je važan deo slike. To je upravitelj. Krave ne bi mogle da žive bez ljudskih upravitelja; pripitomljene su. One su vrsta ektosimbiotičkog organizma. Njihov opstanak zavisi od nas, a sveštenik Rik je upravo pričao o ovcama. I ja ću govoriti o ovcama. Ovde ima puno slučajnih zajedničkih tačaka. Koliko je ovca pametna jer je nabavila pastira!
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
Think of what this got them. They could outsource all their problems: protection from predators, food-finding ...
Razmislite o tome šta im je to donelo. Mogle su da prebace sve svoje probleme na nekog drugog: zaštitu od grabljivaca, pronalaženje hrane...
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
... health maintenance.
...brigu o zdravlju.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
The only cost in most flocks -- not even this -- a loss of free mating. What a deal! "How clever of sheep!" you might say. Except, of course, it wasn't the sheep's cleverness. We all know sheep are not exactly rocket scientists -- they're not very smart. It wasn't the cleverness of the sheep at all. They were clueless. But it was a very clever move. Whose clever move was it? It was the clever move of natural selection itself.
Jedina cena u većini stada - a čak ni to - gubitak slobodnog parenja. Kakav dogovor! „Kako je ovca mudra!”, mogli biste reći, iako, naravno, ovo nije ovčija mudrost. Svi znamo da ovce i nisu baš kvantni fizičari - nisu baš pametne. Uopšte se ne radi o ovčijoj mudrosti. One nemaju pojma, ali je ovo bio mudar potez. Čiji je to mudar potez bio? Bio je to mudar potez same prirodne selekcije.
Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA with Jim Watson, once joked about what he called Orgel's Second Rule. Leslie Orgel is a molecular biologist, brilliant guy, and Orgel's Second Rule is: Evolution is cleverer than you are. Now, that is not Intelligent Design -- not from Francis Crick. Evolution is cleverer than you are. If you understand Orgel's Second Rule, then you understand why the Intelligent Design movement is basically a hoax.
Frensis Krik, saradnik pri otkriću strukture DNK zajedno sa Džimom Votsonom, jednom prilikom šalio se sa onim što je nazivao Orglovo drugo pravilo. Lesli Orgl bio je molekularni biolog, sjajan momak, a Orglovo drugo pravilo je: evolucija je pametnija od vas. To nije inteligentni dizajn; ne od strane Frensisa Krika. Evolucija je pametnija od vas. Ako razumete Orglovo drugo pravilo, onda razumete zbog čega je pokret inteligentnog dizajna u osnovi obmana.
The designs discovered by the process of natural selection are brilliant, unbelievably brilliant. Again and again biologists are fascinated with the brilliance of what's discovered. But the process itself is without purpose, without foresight, without design. When I was here four years ago, I told the story about an ant climbing a blade of grass. And why the ant was doing it was because its brain had been infected with a lancet fluke that was needed to get into the belly of a sheep or a cow in order to reproduce. So it was sort of a spooky story.
Dizajni otkriveni kroz proces prirodne selekcije su brilijantni, neverovatno brilijantni. Biolozi su iznova i iznova fascinirani brilijantnošću onoga što je otkriveno, ali sam proces je bez svrhe, bez dalekovidosti, bez dizajna. Kada sam bio ovde pre četiri godine, ispričao sam priču o mravu koji se penje uz vlat trave, a razlog zbog kog je mrav to radio je zbog toga što je njegov mozak inficiran malim metiljem koji treba da uđe u stomak ovce ili krave da bi se razmnožavao. Dakle, ovo je nekakva mračna priča
And I think some people may have misunderstood. Lancet flukes aren't smart. I submit that the intelligence of a lancet fluke is down there, somewhere between petunia and carrot. They're not really bright. They don't have to be. The lesson we learn from this is: you don't have to have a mind to be a beneficiary. The design is there in nature, but it's not in anybody's head. It doesn't have to be. That's the way evolution works. Question: Was domestication good for sheep? It was great for their genetic fitness.
i mislim da su je neki ljudi možda pogrešno shvatili. Mali metilji nisu pametni. Tvdim da je inteligencija malog metilja na dnu lestvice, negde između petunije i šargarepe. Nisu nešto bistri. Ne moraju da budu. Lekcija koju smo naučili iz ovoga je: ne morate imati mozak da biste bili korisnik. Dizajn postoji u prirodi, ali ne i u svačijoj glavi. Ne mora da bude. To je način na koji evolucija funkcioniše. Pitanje - da li je pripitomljavanje bilo dobro za ovce? Bilo je odlično za njihovu genetičku spremnost.
And here I want to remind you of a wonderful point that Paul MacCready made at TED three years ago. Here's what he said: "Ten thousand years ago, at the dawn of agriculture, human population, plus livestock and pets, was approximately a tenth of one percent of the terrestrial vertebrate landmass." That was just 10,000 years ago. Yesterday, in biological terms. What is it today? Does anybody remember what he told us? 98 percent. That is what we have done on this planet.
Ovde želim da vas podsetim na sjajnu primedbu Pola Mekridija na TED-u pre tri godine. Evo šta je rekao: „Pre deset hiljada godina, na samom početku poljoprivrede, ljudska populacija, uz stoku i ljubimce, bila je otprilike desetina jednog procenta kopnenih kičmenjaka na Zemlji.” To je bilo samo pre 10 000 godina; juče u biološkom smislu. Kakvo je stanje danas? Da li se iko seća šta nam je rekao? Devedeset osam procenata. To smo uradili na ovoj planeti.
Now, I talked to Paul afterwards -- I wanted to check to find out how he'd calculated this, and get the sources and so forth -- and he also gave me a paper that he had written on this. And there was a passage in it which he did not present here and I think it is so good, I'm going to read it to you: "Over billions of years on a unique sphere, chance has painted a thin covering of life: complex, improbable, wonderful and fragile. Suddenly, we humans -- a recently arrived species no longer subject to the checks and balances inherent in nature -- have grown in population, technology and intelligence to a position of terrible power. We now wield the paintbrush." We heard about the atmosphere as a thin layer of varnish. Life itself is just a thin coat of paint on this planet. And we're the ones that hold the paintbrush. And how can we do that?
Pričao sam sa Polom posle toga - želeo sam proverim, otkrijem kako je ovo izračunao, dobijem izvore i tako dalje - a on mi je dao i rad koji je napisao na ovu temu. U njemu postoji pasus koji nije predstavio ovde, a ja mislim da je toliko dobar da ću vam ga pročitati: „Preko milijardu godina, na jedinstvenoj sferi, slučajnost je naslikala tanušnu koricu života - složenu, malo verovatnu, čudesnu i krhku. Odjednom, mi, ljudi - vrsta koja je nedavno stigla, a koja više ne podleže proverama i ravnotežama svojstvenim prirodi - nadogradili smo populaciju, tehnologiju i inteligenciju zauzimajući mesto užasne moći. Mi sada rukujemo kičicom.” Čuli smo da je atmosfera tanak sloj zaštitnog laka. Sam život je samo tanak sloj farbe na ovoj planeti, a mi smo oni koji drže četkicu. Kako to možemo da radimo?
The key to our domination of the planet is culture. And the key to culture is religion. Suppose Martian scientists came to Earth. They would be puzzled by many things. Anybody know what this is? I'll tell you what it is. This is a million people gathering on the banks of the Ganges in 2001, perhaps the largest single gathering of human beings ever, as seen from satellite photograph. Here's a big crowd. Here's another crowd in Mecca. Martians would be amazed by this. They'd want to know how it originated, what it was for and how it perpetuates itself.
Ključ naše dominacije na planeti je kultura, a ključ za kulturu je religija. Pretpostavimo da naučnici sa Marsa dođu na Zemlju. Zbunilo bi ih mnogo stvari. Da li iko zna šta je ovo? Reći ću vam šta je. Ovo je skup od milion ljudi na obali Ganga 2001. godine, možda najveće okupljanje ljudi ikada organizovano, prikazano na satelitskoj fotografiji. Evo velike mase ljudi. Evo još jedne u Meki. Marsovce bi ovo zapanjilo. Želeli bi da znaju kako je nastalo, koja mu je svrha i kako se održava.
Actually, I'm going to pass over this. The ant isn't alone. There's all sorts of wonderful cases of species which -- in that case -- A parasite gets into a mouse and needs to get into the belly of a cat. And it turns the mouse into Mighty Mouse, makes it fearless, so it runs out in the open, where it'll be eaten by a cat. True story. In other words, we have these hijackers -- you've seen this slide before, from four years ago -- a parasite that infects the brain and induces even suicidal behavior, on behalf of a cause other than one's own genetic fitness.
Zapravo, nastaviću dalje. Mrav nije sam. Postoje različiti čudesni slučajevi vrsta koje - u tom slučaju - parazit uđe u miša i treba da uđe u stomak mačke i pretvara miša u Svemoćnog miša, čini ga neustrašivim, pa on istrčava u otvoren prostor i mačka ga pojede. Istinita priča. Drugim rečima, postoje otmičari - videli ste ovaj slajd pre četiri godine - parazit koji inficira mozak i navodi čak i na suicidalno ponašanje, u ime razloga koji se razlikuje od genetske spremnosti.
Does that ever happen to us? Yes, it does -- quite wonderfully. The Arabic word "Islam" means "submission." It means "surrender of self-interest to the will of Allah." But I'm not just talking about Islam. I'm talking also about Christianity. This is a parchment music page that I found in a Paris bookstall 50 years ago. And on it, it says, in Latin: "Semen est verbum Dei. Sator autem Christus." The word of God is the seed and the sower of the seed is Christ. Same idea. Well, not quite. But in fact, Christians, too ... glory in the fact that they have surrendered to God. I'll give you a few quotes. "The heart of worship is surrender. Surrendered people obey God's words, even if it doesn't make sense." Those words are by Rick Warren. Those are from "The Purpose Driven Life."
Da li se nama to ikada dešava? Da, dešava se - prilično neverovatno. Arapska reč „islam” znači „pokoravanje”. Ona znači „predaju sopstvenih interesa volji Alaha”. Međutim, ne pričam samo o islamu; pričam i o hrišćanstvu. Ovo je pergamentni list partiture koji sam našao na pariskoj polici za knjige pre 50 godina. Na njemu piše na latinskom: „Semen est verbum Dei. Sator autem Christus." „Reč Božija je seme, a sejač semena je Hrist.” Ista ideja. Pa, i ne baš. U stvari, hrišćani takođe slave činjenicu da su se predali bogu. Navešću vam par citata. „Predaja je u srcu obožavanja. Ljudi koji su se predali povinuju se Božijim rečima, čak i ako to nema smisla.” Ovo su reči Rika Vorena. One su iz „Svrsishodnog života”.
And I want to turn now, briefly, to talk about that book, which I've read. You've all got a copy, and you've just heard the man. And what I want to do now is say a bit about this book from the design standpoint, because I think it's actually a brilliant book. First of all, the goal -- and you heard just now what the goal is -- it's to bring purpose to the lives of millions, and he has succeeded. Is it a good goal? In itself, I'm sure we all agree, it is a wonderful goal. He's absolutely right. There are lots of people out there who don't have purpose in their life, and bringing purpose to their life is a wonderful goal. I give him an A+ on this.
Želeo bih da se sada nakratko okrenem razgovoru o toj knjizi koju sam pročitao. Svi imate primerak i upravo ste čuli čoveka. Sada želim da ponešto kažem o ovoj knjizi sa stanovišta dizajna jer zapravo mislim da je ovo sjajna knjiga. Pre svega, cilj - a upravo ste čuli šta je cilj - je donošenje svrhe u živote miliona, a on je uspeo. Da li je to dobar cilj? Sam po sebi, siguran sam da ćemo se složiti, je divan. On je potpuno u pravu. Postoji mnogo ljudi koji nemaju svrhu u svom životu, a donošenje svrhe u njihov život je sjajan cilj. Dajem mu 5+ za ovo.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
Is the goal achieved? Yes. Thirty million copies of this book. Al Gore, eat your heart out.
Da li je cilj postignut? Da. Trideset miliona primeraka ove knjige. Ale Gore, pojedi se od muke.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
Just exactly what Al is trying to do, Rick is doing. This is a fantastic achievement. And the means -- how does he do it?
Upravo ono što Al pokušava da uradi, Rik radi. Ovo je fantastično dostignuće, a sredstva - kako on to radi?
It's a brilliant redesign of traditional religious themes -- updating them, quietly dropping obsolete features, putting new interpretations on other features. This is the evolution of religion that's been going on for thousands of years, and he's just the latest brilliant practitioner of it. I don't have to tell you this; you just heard the man. Excellent insights into human psychology, wise advice on every page. Moreover, he invites us to look under the hood. I really appreciated that. For instance, he has an appendix where he explains his choice of translations of different Bible verses. The book is clear, vivid, accessible, beautifully formatted. Just enough repetition. That's really important. Every time you read it or say it, you make another copy in your brain. Every time you read it or say it, you make another copy in your brain.
To je brilijantno ponovno stvaranje tradicionalnih religijskih tema - njihovo ažuriranje, tiho odbacivanje zastarelih osobina, uspostavljanje novih tumačenja za ove osobine. Ovo je evolucija religije koja se dešavala hiljadama godina, a on je samo njen skorašnji brilijantni praktičar. Ne moram ovo da vam kažem; čuli ste čoveka. Odličan uvid u ljudsku psihologiju, mudar savet na svakoj strani. Šta više, on poziva da dublje ispitamo suštinu. Zaista sam mu zahvalan zbog toga. Na primer, ima apendiks u kom objašnjava svoj izbor prevoda različitih biblijskih stihova. Knjiga je jasna, živopisna, pristupačna, lepo formatirana. Ponavljanja taman koliko treba. To je zaista važno. Svaki put kad je pročitate ili izgovorite, napravite još jednu kopiju u svom mozgu. Svaki put kad je pročitate ili izgovorite,
(Laughter)
napravite još jednu kopiju u svom mozgu. (Smeh)
With me, everybody --
Svi zajedno sa mnom -
(Audience and Dan Dennett) Every time you read it or say it, you make another copy in your brain.
(Publika i Den Denet) Svaki put kada je pročitate ili izgovorite, napravite još jednu kopiju u svom mozgu.
Thank you.
Hvala vam.
And now we come to my problem. Because I'm absolutely sincere in my appreciation of all that I said about this book. But I wish it were better. I have some problems with the book. And it would just be insincere of me not to address those problems. I wish he could do this with a revision, a Mark 2 version of his book. "The truth will set you free." That's what it says in the Bible, and it's something that I want to live by, too.
Sada stižemo do mog problema jer potpuno iskreno poštujem sve što sam naveo u vezi ove knjige, ali bih voleo da je bolja. Imam neke probleme sa ovom knjigom, a bilo bi neiskreno sa moje strane da se ne bavim ovim problemima. Voleo bih da uradi ovo sa revizijom, kao drugu verziju knjige. „Istina će vas osloboditi.” To kaže Biblija i to je nešto čime želim da se rukovodim u životu.
My problem is, some of the bits in it I don't think are true. Now some of this is a difference of opinion. And that's not my main complaint, that's worth mentioning. Here's a passage -- it's very much what he said, anyway: "If there was no God we would all be accidents, the result of astronomical random chance in the Universe. You could stop reading this book because life would have no purpose or meaning or significance. There would be no right or wrong and no hope beyond your brief years on Earth." Now, I just do not believe that. By the way, I find -- Homer Groening's film presented a beautiful alternative to that very claim. Yes, there is meaning and a reason for right or wrong. We don't need a belief in God to be good or to have meaning in us. But that, as I said, is just a difference of opinion. That's not what I'm really worried about.
Moj problem je - ne mislim da su neki od delova toga tačni. Nešto od ovoga je razilaženje mišljenja, a to nije moj glavni prigovor kog vredi pomenuti. Evo pasusa - prilično odgovara onome što je rekao, u svakom slučaju: „Da nema Boga, svi bismo bili slučajni događaji, rezultati astronomske nasumične slučajnosti u svemiru. Mogli biste prestati da čitate ovu knjigu jer život ne bi imao svrhu, značenje ili važnost. Ne bi bilo dobrog ili lošeg, niti nade van vaših kratkih godina na Zemlji.” Ja jednostavno ne verujem u to. Usput, nalazim da - film Homera Grejninga predstavio je lepu alternativu upravo ovoj tvrdnji. Da, postoji značenje i razlog za ispravno i neispravno. Ne treba nam vera u boga da bismo bili dobri ili sadržali smisao, ali to je, kao što rekoh, samo razlika u mišljenju. Nisam zbog toga zabrinut.
How about this: "God designed this planet's environment just so we could live in it." I'm afraid that a lot of people take that sentiment to mean that we don't have to do the sorts of things that Al Gore is trying so hard to get us to do. I am not happy with that sentiment at all. And then I find this: "All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality have their meaning and explanation in this central fact." Well, that's Michael Denton. He's a creationist. And here, I think, "Wait a minute." I read this again. I read it three or four times and I think, "Is he really endorsing Intelligent Design? Is he endorsing creationism here?" And you can't tell. So I'm sort of thinking, "Well, I don't know, I don't know if I want to get upset with this yet."
Kako vam se ovo čini: „Bog je stvorio životnu sredinu na ovoj planeti samo da bismo mogli živeti u njoj.” Bojim se da puno ljudi misli da takav stav znači da ne moramo da radimo stvari koje Al Gor tako uporno pokušava da nas natera da radimo. Uopšte mi se ne sviđa takvo razmišljanje. Zatim nađem ovo: „Svi dokazi dostupni u biološkim naukama podržavaju suštinsku svrhu da je kosmos specijalno dizajnirana celina sa životom i čovečanstvom kao osnovnim ciljem i svrhom, celina u kojoj svi aspekti stvarnosti imaju svoje značenje i objašnjenje u ovoj centralnoj činjenici.” Pa, to je Majkl Denton. On je kreacionista. Na ovom mestu mislim: „Stani malo.” Ponovo isčitavam ovo. Čitam tri ili četiri puta i mislim: „Da li on stvarno odobrava inteligentni dizajn? Da li on to ovde odobrava kreacionizam?” Ne možete sa sigurnošću reći, te razmišljam: „Pa, ne znam, nisam siguran da želim da me ovo sada iznervira.”
But then I read on, and I read this: "First, Noah had never seen rain, because prior to the Flood, God irrigated the earth from the ground up." I wish that sentence weren't in there, because I think it is false. And I think that thinking this way about the history of the planet, after we've just been hearing about the history of the planet over millions of years, discourages people from scientific understanding. Now, Rick Warren uses scientific terms and scientific factoids and information in a very interesting way.
Nastavljam da čitam dalje i pročitam ovo: „Kao prvo, Noje nikada nije video kišu jer je pre poplave Bog navodnjavao Zemlju iz zemljišta.” Voleo bih da ova rečenica nije ovde jer mislim da je neistinita. Mislim i da ovakvo razmišljanje o istoriji naše planete, neposredno po slušanju o istoriji planete tokom nekoliko miliona godina odvraća ljude od naučnog razumevanja. Rik Voren koristi naučne termine, polu-činjenice i informacije na veoma interesantan način.
Here's one: "God deliberately shaped and formed you to serve him in a way that makes your ministry unique. He carefully mixed the DNA cocktail that created you." I think that's false. Now, maybe we want to treat it as metaphorical. Here's another one: "For instance, your brain can store 100 trillion facts. Your mind can handle 15,000 decisions a second." Well, it would be interesting to find the interpretation where I would accept that. There might be some way of treating that as true. "Anthropologists have noted that worship is a universal urge, hardwired by God into the very fiber of our being -- an inbuilt need to connect with God." Well, the sense of which I agree with him, except I think it has an evolutionary explanation.
Evo jednog načina: „Bog vas je sa namerom oblikovao i formirao da biste mu služili na način koji vašu službu čini unikatnom. Pažljivo je pomešao DNK koktel koji vas je stvorio.” Mislim da to nije tačno. Možda želimo da se prema ovome ophodimo kao prema metafori. Evo još jedne: „Na primer, vaš mozak može da uskladišti 100 triliona činjenica. Vaš um se može nositi sa 15 000 odluka u sekundi.” Pa, bilo bi interesantno naći tumačenje kroz koje bih ovo prihvatio. Može biti da postoji način kroz koji bismo ovo doživeli kao tačno. „Antropolozi su primetili da je obožavanje univerzalni poriv, utkan Božijom rukom u same niti našeg bića - ugrađena potreba da se povežemo sa Bogom.” Pa, shvatanje u kom se slažem s njim, osim što mislim da postoji evoluciono objašnjenje.
And what I find deeply troubling in this book is that he seems to be arguing that if you want to be moral, if you want to have meaning in your life, you have to be an Intelligent Designer, you have to deny the theory of evolution by natural selection. And I think, on the contrary, that it is very important to solving the world's problems that we take evolutionary biology seriously. Whose truth are we going to listen to? Well, this is from "The Purpose Driven Life": "The Bible must become the authoritative standard for my life: the compass I rely on for direction, the counsel I listen to for making wise decisions, and the benchmark I use for evaluating everything." Well maybe, OK, but what's going to follow from this?
Ono što me duboko zabrinjava u ovoj knjizi je da se čini da tvrdi da, ako želite da budete moralni, ako želite da imate smisao života, morate da budete inteligentni dizajner, morate da poreknete teoriju evolucije kroz prirodnu selekciju. Nasuprot tome, mislim da je za rešavanje svetskih problema veoma važno da evolucionu biologiju shvatimo ozbiljno. Čiju ćemo istinu poslušati? Ovo je iz „Svrsishodnog života”: „Biblija mora da postane merodavan standard za moj život: kompas na koji se oslanjam za pravac, savetodavac kojeg slušam da bih donosio mudre odluke i odrednica koju koristim za procenu svega.” Pa, možda, dobro, ali šta će propratiti ovo?
And here's one that does concern me. Remember I quoted him before with this line: "Surrendered people obey God's word, even if it doesn't make sense." And that's a problem.
Evo još jednog koji me brine. Setite se da sam ga citirao i pre sa ovom izjavom: „Ljudi koji su se predali povinuju se Božijim rečima, čak i ako to nema smisla”, a to je problem.
(Sighs)
(Uzdiše)
"Don't ever argue with the Devil. He's better at arguing than you are, having had thousands of years to practice." Now, Rick Warren didn't invent this clever move. It's an old move. It's a very clever adaptation of religions. It's a wild card for disarming any reasonable criticism. "You don't like my interpretation? You've got a reasonable objection to it? Don't listen, don't listen! That's the Devil speaking." This discourages the sort of reasoning citizenship it seems to me that we want to have.
„Nikada se nemojte svađati sa Đavolom. On je bolji u tome od vas jer je imao hiljade godina za praksu.” Rik Voren nije izmislio ovaj pametan potez. To je stari potez. To je veoma mudra adaptacija religija. To je džoker pri razoružavanju bilo kakve razumne kritike. „Ne sviđa ti se moje tumačenje? Imaš razumnu primedbu na njega? Ne slušaj! Ne slušaj! To sam Đavo priča.” Ovo obeshrabruje ono razumno građanstvo koje mi se čini da želimo da imamo.
I've got one more problem, then I'm through. And I'd really like to get a response if Rick is able to do it. "In the Great Commission, Jesus said, 'Go to all people of all nations and make them my disciples. Baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and teach them to do everything I've told you.'" The Bible says Jesus is the only one who can save the world. We've seen many wonderful maps of the world in the last day or so. Here's one, not as beautiful as the others; it simply shows the religions of the world. Here's one that shows the sort of current breakdown of the different religions.
Imam još jedan problem i onda završavam, a stvarno bih voleo da dobijem odgovor ako Rik može da ga da. „U obraćanju apostolima, Hristos je rekao: 'Idite i učinite sve narode učenicima mojim. Krstite ih u ime Oca i Sina i Svetoga Duha i učite ih da vrše sve što sam zapovedio.'” Biblija kaže da je Isus jedini koji može da spasi svet. Videli smo mnoge divne mape sveta u poslednjih nekoliko dana. Evo jedne, ne tako lepe kao druge; jednostavno pokazuje religije sveta. Evo jedne koja prikazuje trenutni pregled različitih religija.
Do we really want to commit ourselves to engulfing all the other religions, when their holy books are telling them, "Don't listen to the other side, that's just Satan talking!"? It seems to me that that's a very problematic ship to get on for the future. I found this sign as I was driving to Maine recently, in front of a church: "Good without God becomes zero." Sort of cute. A very clever little meme. I don't believe it and I think this idea, popular as it is -- not in this guise, but in general -- is itself one of the main problems that we face.
Da li stvarno želimo da se posvetimo obuhvatanju svih drugih religija kada im njihove svete knjige govore: „Ne slušajte drugu stranu. To samo Satana govori.” Čini mi se da je to problematični brod za ukrcavanje u budućnosti. Naišao sam na ovaj znak dok sam se nedavno vozio prema Mejnu ispred crkve: „Dobro bez Boga postaje ništavno.” Pomalo simpatično. Veoma mudar mali mem. Ne verujem mu i mislim da je ova ideja - popularna kao što jeste, ne u ovom ruhu, nego uopšte - sama po sebi glavni problem sa kojim se susrećemo.
If you are like me, you know many wonderful, committed, engaged atheists, agnostics, who are being very good without God. And you also know many religious people who hide behind their sanctity instead of doing good works. So, I wish we could drop this meme. I wish this meme would go extinct.
Ako ste kao ja, poznajete mnogo divnih, posvećenih, angažovanih ateista, agnostika, koji su veoma dobri i bez boga, a znate i mnogo religioznih ljudi koji se kriju iza svoje pobožnosti umesto da čine dobra dela. Tako, voleo bih da odbacimo ovaj mem. Voleo bih da se istrebi.
Thanks very much for your attention.
Hvala vam na pažnji.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)