Denne pragtfulde musik, velkomstmusikken: "Gloria all’Egitto" fra Aïda, er musikken, som jeg har valgt til min begravelse - (Latter) - og I kan forstå hvorfor. Den er triumferende. Jeg vil - jeg vil ikke føle noget, men hvis jeg kunne, ville jeg føle triumf over overhovedet at have levet, og over at have levet på denne pragtfulde planet, og over at have haft lejlighed til at forstå noget om, hvorfor jeg overhovedet var her, før jeg ikke var her mere.
That splendid music, the coming-in music, "The Elephant March" from "Aida," is the music I've chosen for my funeral. (Laughter) And you can see why. It's triumphal. I won't feel anything, but if I could, I would feel triumphal at having lived at all, and at having lived on this splendid planet, and having been given the opportunity to understand something about why I was here in the first place, before not being here.
Kan I forstå min mærkelige engelske accent?
Can you understand my quaint English accent?
I går blev jeg, ligesom alle andre, henrykt over dyreforelæsningerne. Robert Full og Frans Lanting og andre - skønheden i de ting de viste. Den eneste lille hage var, da Jeffrey Katzenberg kaldte mustangen, "Det mest pragtfulde væsen som Gud har sat på denne jord." Vi er naturligvis klar over, at han ikke virkelig mente det, men i USA, i øjeblikket, kan man ikke være for forsigtig. (Latter)
(Laughter) Like everybody else, I was entranced yesterday by the animal session. Robert Full and Frans Lanting and others; the beauty of the things that they showed. The only slight jarring note was when Jeffrey Katzenberg said of the mustang, "the most splendid creatures that God put on this earth." Now of course, we know that he didn't really mean that, but in this country at the moment, you can't be too careful. (Laughter)
Jeg er biolog, og den centrale læresætning i vores emne: teorien om design, Darwins teori om evolution ved naturlig selektion. I faglige kredse overalt er den, naturligvis, universelt accepteret. I ikke-faglige kredse udenfor USA, bliver den stort set ignoreret. Men i ikke-faglige kredse i USA vækker den så meget fjendtlighed, - (Latter) - at det er rimeligt at sige, at amerikanske biologer befinder sig i en krigstilstand. Krigen er så bekymrende i øjeblikket, med retssager der begynder i den ene stat efter den anden, at jeg følte, jeg måtte sige noget om det.
I'm a biologist, and the central theorem of our subject: the theory of design, Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. In professional circles everywhere, it's of course universally accepted. In non-professional circles outside America, it's largely ignored. But in non-professional circles within America, it arouses so much hostility -- (Laughter) it's fair to say that American biologists are in a state of war. The war is so worrying at present, with court cases coming up in one state after another, that I felt I had to say something about it.
Hvis I vil vide, hvad jeg har at sige om selve darwinismen, er jeg bange for, I er nødt til at læse mine bøger, som I ikke finder i boghandlen udenfor. (Latter) Nutidige retssager vedrører ofte en angiveligt ny form for kreationisme, der kaldes Intelligent Design eller ID. Lad jer ikke narre. Der er ikke noget nyt ved ID. Det er blot kreationisme under et andet navn. Gendøbt - jeg vælger ordet bevidst - (Latter) - af taktiske politiske årsager.
If you want to know what I have to say about Darwinism itself, I'm afraid you're going to have to look at my books, which you won't find in the bookstore outside. (Laughter) Contemporary court cases often concern an allegedly new version of creationism, called "Intelligent Design," or ID. Don't be fooled. There's nothing new about ID. It's just creationism under another name, rechristened -- I choose the word advisedly -- (Laughter) for tactical, political reasons.
De såkaldte ID-teoretikeres argumenter, er de samme gamle argumenter, som er blevet afvist igen og igen fra Darwin og frem til i dag. Der er en effektiv evolutions-lobby, som koordinerer kampen på vegne af videnskaben, og jeg prøver, at gøre alt hvad jeg kan for at hjælpe dem, men de bliver helt ophidsede, når folk, som jeg, vover at nævne, at vi tilfældigvis er ateister såvel som evolutionister. De synes, at vi skaber rørte vande, og I forstår nok hvorfor. Kreationister, som mangler et sammenhængende videnskabeligt argument for deres sag, falder tilbage på den populære fobi mod ateisme. Lær dine børn om evolution i biologi, og de vil snart gå over til narkotika, tyveri og seksuel pre-version. (Latter)
The arguments of so-called ID theorists are the same old arguments that had been refuted again and again, since Darwin down to the present day. There is an effective evolution lobby coordinating the fight on behalf of science, and I try to do all I can to help them, but they get quite upset when people like me dare to mention that we happen to be atheists as well as evolutionists. They see us as rocking the boat, and you can understand why. Creationists, lacking any coherent scientific argument for their case, fall back on the popular phobia against atheism: Teach your children evolution in biology class, and they'll soon move on to drugs, grand larceny and sexual "pre-version." (Laughter)
Faktisk støtter uddannede teologer, fra Paven og nedefter, naturligvis, evolutionen. Denne bog, "Finding Darwin's God" af Kenneth Miller, er et af de mest effektive angreb på Intelligent Design, som jeg kender, og den er så meget desto mere effektiv, fordi den er skrevet af en troende kristen. Folk som Kenneth Miller kunne kaldes en Guds gave til evolutions-lobbyen - (Latter) - fordi de afslører løgnen om, at evolutionisme, faktisk, er ensbetydende med ateisme. Folk som jeg, på den anden side, skaber rørte vande.
In fact, of course, educated theologians from the Pope down are firm in their support of evolution. This book, "Finding Darwin's God," by Kenneth Miller, is one of the most effective attacks on Intelligent Design that I know and it's all the more effective because it's written by a devout Christian. People like Kenneth Miller could be called a "godsend" to the evolution lobby, (Laughter) because they expose the lie that evolutionism is, as a matter of fact, tantamount to atheism. People like me, on the other hand, rock the boat.
Men her vil jeg gerne sige noget pænt om kreationister. Det er ikke noget jeg ofte gør, så vær opmærksom. (Latter) Jeg tror, de har ret i én ting. Jeg tror, de har ret i, at evolution er fundamentalt fjendtlig over for religion.
But here, I want to say something nice about creationists. It's not a thing I often do, so listen carefully. (Laughter) I think they're right about one thing. I think they're right that evolution is fundamentally hostile to religion.
Jeg har allerede sagt, at mange individuelle evolutionister, som paven, er religiøse, men jeg tror, de narrer sig selv. Jeg tror, en ægte forståelse af darwinismen er stærkt skadelig for religiøs tro. Nu kan det lyde, som om jeg skal til at prædike ateisme, og jeg ønsker at forsikre jer om, at det ikke er, hvad jeg vil gøre. For et publikum så sofistikeret som denne - som dette - ville det være at prædike til de omvendte.
I've already said that many individual evolutionists, like the Pope, are also religious, but I think they're deluding themselves. I believe a true understanding of Darwinism is deeply corrosive to religious faith. Now, it may sound as though I'm about to preach atheism, and I want to reassure you that that's not what I'm going to do. In an audience as sophisticated as this one, that would be preaching to the choir.
Nej, hvad jeg vil opfordre jer til - (Latter) - hvad jeg i stedet vil opfordre jer til, er militant ateisme. (Latter) (Bifald) Men det er at udtrykke det for negativt. Hvis jeg ville - hvis jeg var en person, der var interesseret i at bevare religiøs tro, ville jeg være meget bange for den evolutionære videnskabs positive kraft, og videnskab generelt, men evolution i særdeleshed, til at inspirere og tryllebinde, netop fordi den er ateistisk.
No, what I want to urge upon you -- (Laughter) Instead, what I want to urge upon you is militant atheism. (Laughter) (Applause) But that's putting it too negatively. If I was a person who were interested in preserving religious faith, I would be very afraid of the positive power of evolutionary science, and indeed science generally, but evolution in particular, to inspire and enthrall, precisely because it is atheistic.
Det vanskelige problem for enhver teori om biologisk design er, at forklare den massive statistiske usandsynlighed for levende tings eksistens. Statistisk usandsynlighed i retning af godt design - kompleksitet er et andet ord for dette. Det kreationistiske standard-argument - der er kun ét, de reduceres alle til dette ene - tager udgangspunkt i en statistisk usandsynlighed. Levende væsener er for komplekse til at være opstået ved en tilfældighed, ergo må de have haft en designer. Dette argument skyder, naturligvis, sig selv i foden. Enhver designer, som er i stand til at konstruere noget virkelig komplekst, er nødt til selv at være endnu mere kompleks, og det er før vi overhovedet tænker på andre ting, som han forventes at gøre, f.eks. at tilgive synder, velsigne ægteskaber, lytte til bønner - - holde med os i en krig - (Latter) være uenig i vores seksuelle præferencer og så videre. (Latter)
Now, the difficult problem for any theory of biological design is to explain the massive statistical improbability of living things. Statistical improbability in the direction of good design -- "complexity" is another word for this. The standard creationist argument -- there is only one; they're all reduced to this one -- takes off from a statistical improbability. Living creatures are too complex to have come about by chance; therefore, they must have had a designer. This argument of course, shoots itself in the foot. Any designer capable of designing something really complex has to be even more complex himself, and that's before we even start on the other things he's expected to do, like forgive sins, bless marriages, listen to prayers -- favor our side in a war -- (Laughter) disapprove of our sex lives, and so on. (Laughter)
Kompleksitet er problemet, som enhver biologisk teori skal løse, og man kan ikke løse det ved at postulere en agent, som er endnu mere kompleks, hvorved problemet blot forværres. Darwins naturlige selektion er så betagende elegant, fordi den løser problemet med at forklare kompleksitet ved hjælp af den rene enkelhed. Essentielt set, gør den det ved at skabe en jævn rampe til gradvis trin-for-trin tilvækst. Men her vil jeg bare gøre opmærksom på, at darwinismens elegance er skadelig for religion, netop fordi den er så elegant, så påholdende, så kraftfuld, så økonomisk kraftfuld. Den deler en smuk hængebros enkle økonomiske fordele.
Complexity is the problem that any theory of biology has to solve, and you can't solve it by postulating an agent that is even more complex, thereby simply compounding the problem. Darwinian natural selection is so stunningly elegant because it solves the problem of explaining complexity in terms of nothing but simplicity. Essentially, it does it by providing a smooth ramp of gradual, step-by-step increment. But here, I only want to make the point that the elegance of Darwinism is corrosive to religion, precisely because it is so elegant, so parsimonious, so powerful, so economically powerful. It has the sinewy economy of a beautiful suspension bridge.
Teorien om Gud er ikke bare en dårlig teori. Den viser sig at være principielt ude af stand til at gøre det arbejde, der kræves af den.
The God theory is not just a bad theory. It turns out to be -- in principle -- incapable of doing the job required of it.
Så med hensyn til taktikken og evolutions-lobbyen, vil jeg argumentere for, at det helt rigtige at gøre, kunne være at skabe rørte vande. Min tilgang til at angribe kreationismen er anderledes end evolutions-lobbyens. Min tilgang til at angribe kreationismen er at angribe religion som helhed, og på dette tidspunkt er jeg nødt til at erkende det bemærkelsesværdige tabu mod at tale dårligt om religion, og jeg har tænkt mig at gøre det med den afdøde Douglas Adams’ ord, en kær ven, som hvis han aldrig kom til TED, i hvert fald burde have været inviteret.
So, returning to tactics and the evolution lobby, I want to argue that rocking the boat may be just the right thing to do. My approach to attacking creationism is -- unlike the evolution lobby -- my approach to attacking creationism is to attack religion as a whole. And at this point I need to acknowledge the remarkable taboo against speaking ill of religion, and I'm going to do so in the words of the late Douglas Adams, a dear friend who, if he never came to TED, certainly should have been invited.
(Richard Saul Wurman: Det blev han.)
(Richard Saul Wurman: He was.)
Richard Dawkins: Det blev han. Godt. Det forestillede jeg mig også.
Richard Dawkins: He was. Good. I thought he must have been.
Han begynder denne tale, som blev optaget i Cambridge kort før hans død. Han begynder med at forklare, hvordan videnskaben fungerer gennem afprøvning af hypoteser, der er udformet til at være sårbare over for modbevis, og derfra fortsætter han. Jeg citerer: "Religion synes ikke at fungere på den måde. Den har visse ideer i kernen, som vi kalder hellige. Det betyder, at her er en idé eller et begreb, som du ikke må sige noget dårligt om. Det må du bare ikke. Hvorfor ikke? Fordi det må du ikke. (Latter) Hvorfor skal det være sådan, at det er helt legitimt at støtte republikanerne eller demokraterne, eller den ene økonomiske model frem for den anden, eller Macintosh i stedet for Windows, men at have en mening om hvordan universet begyndte, om hvem der skabte universet - nej det er helligt. Så vi er vant til ikke at kritisere religiøse ideer, og det er meget interessant, hvor meget furore Richard skaber, når han gør det.” Han mente mig, ikke Richard Wurman.
He begins this speech, which was tape recorded in Cambridge shortly before he died -- he begins by explaining how science works through the testing of hypotheses that are framed to be vulnerable to disproof, and then he goes on. I quote, "Religion doesn't seem to work like that. It has certain ideas at the heart of it, which we call 'sacred' or 'holy.' What it means is: here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about. You're just not. Why not? Because you're not." (Laughter) "Why should it be that it's perfectly legitimate to support the Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows, but to have an opinion about how the universe began, about who created the universe -- no, that's holy. So, we're used to not challenging religious ideas, and it's very interesting how much of a furor Richard creates when he does it." --
He meant me, not that one.
"Alle bliver helt ophidsede over det, fordi man ikke har lov til at sige disse ting, men når man ser rationelt på det, er der ingen grund til, at disse idéer ikke burde kunne debatteres bortset fra, at vi på en eller anden måde har aftalt mellem os, at de ikke burde," og det er slutningen på Douglas’ citat.
"Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it, because you're not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally, there's no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we've agreed somehow between us that they shouldn't be."
And that's the end of the quote from Douglas.
Efter min mening er videnskab ikke bare skadelig for religion, religion er skadelig for videnskab. Den lærer folk at være tilfredse med trivielle, overnaturlige ikke-forklaringer, og blænder dem overfor de vidunderlige virkelige forklaringer, som vi har inden for vores rækkevidde. Det lærer dem at acceptere autoritet, åbenbaringer og tro i stedet for altid at kræve beviser.
In my view, not only is science corrosive to religion; religion is corrosive to science. It teaches people to be satisfied with trivial, supernatural non-explanations, and blinds them to the wonderful, real explanations that we have within our grasp. It teaches them to accept authority, revelation and faith, instead of always insisting on evidence.
Her ser vi Douglas Adams på et pragtfuldt billede fra hans bog, "Last Chance to See." Her er et typisk videnskabeligt tidsskrift: Quarterly Review of Biology. Og som gæsteredaktør skal jeg lave et særnummer om spørgsmålet: "Dræbte en asteroide dinosaurerne?" Og den første artikel er en almindelig videnskabelig artikel, som fremlægger beviser: "Iridium-lag ved K/Pg-grænsen, kalium-argon dateret krater i Yucatan, viser, at en asteroide dræbte dinosaurerne." En ganske almindelig videnskabelig artikel. Den næste artikel: "Præsidenten for The Royal Society er blevet forundt en stærk indre overbevisning," - (Latter) - "... at en asteroide dræbte dinosaurerne." (Latter)
There's Douglas Adams, magnificent picture from his book, "Last Chance to See." Now, there's a typical scientific journal, The Quarterly Review of Biology. And I'm going to put together, as guest editor, a special issue on the question, "Did an asteroid kill the dinosaurs?" And the first paper is a standard scientific paper, presenting evidence, "Iridium layer at the K-T boundary, and potassium argon dated crater in Yucatan, indicate that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs." Perfectly ordinary scientific paper. Now, the next one. "The President of the Royal Society has been vouchsafed a strong inner conviction that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs."
"Det er blevet personligt åbenbaret for professor Huxtane, at en asteroide dræbte dinosaurerne." (Latter) "Professor Hordley blev opdraget til at have absolut og ukritisk tro på," - (Latter) "... at en asteroide dræbte dinosaurerne." "Professor Hawkins har udstedt et officielt dogme, bindende for alle loyale Hawkins-tilhængere, at en asteroide dræbte dinosaurerne." (Latter) Det er, selvfølgelig, utænkeligt.
(Laughter) "It has been privately revealed to Professor Huxtane that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs." (Laughter) "Professor Hordley was brought up to have total and unquestioning faith" -- (Laughter) -- "that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs." "Professor Hawkins has promulgated an official dogma binding on all loyal Hawkinsians that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs." (Laughter) That's inconceivable, of course.
Men sæt - (Bifald)
But suppose -- [Supporters of the Asteroid Theory cannot be patriotic citizens]
(Laughter)
- i 1987 spurgte en journalist George Bush Sr., om han anerkendte amerikanske ateisters ligeret til medborgerskab og patriotisme. Mr. Bush’ svar er berygtet. "Nej jeg synes ikke, at ateister bør betragtes som borgere, ej bør de heller betragtes som patrioter. Dette er én nation under Gud."
(Applause) In 1987, a reporter asked George Bush, Sr. whether he recognized the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists. Mr. Bush's reply has become infamous. "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
Bush’ snæversynethed var ikke en enkeltstående fejl, som røg ud i farten og senere tilbagetrukket. Han stod ved det på trods af gentagne opfordringer til afklaring eller tilbagetrækning. Han mente det virkelig. For at sige det klart: Han vidste, det ikke udgjorde nogen trussel mod valget af ham, tværtimod. Demokrater, såvel som republikanere, skilter med deres religiøsitet, hvis de ønsker at blive valgt. Begge partier påberåber sig ”én nation under Gud”. Hvad ville Thomas Jefferson have sagt? For øvrigt er jeg normalt ikke meget stolt af at være britisk,
Bush's bigotry was not an isolated mistake, blurted out in the heat of the moment and later retracted. He stood by it in the face of repeated calls for clarification or withdrawal. He really meant it. More to the point, he knew it posed no threat to his election -- quite the contrary. Democrats as well as Republicans parade their religiousness if they want to get elected. Both parties invoke "one nation under God." What would Thomas Jefferson have said? [In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty]
men man kan ikke lade være at sammenligne. (Bifald)
Incidentally, I'm not usually very proud of being British, but you can't help making the comparison. (Applause)
Hvad er en ateist egentlig? En ateist er bare én, som har samme holdning til Jahve, som enhver ordentlig kristen har til Thor eller Baal eller guldkalven. Som det er blevet sagt før: Vi er alle ateister mht. de fleste af de guder, som menneskeheden nogensinde har troet på. Nogle af os tror bare på én gud mindre. (Latter) (Bifald)
In practice, what is an atheist? An atheist is just somebody who feels about Yahweh the way any decent Christian feels about Thor or Baal or the golden calf. As has been said before, we are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. (Laughter) (Applause)
Og hvordan vi end definerer ateisme, er det vel den slags akademiske overbevisning, som en person er berettiget til at have, uden at blive hængt ud som en upatriotisk, uvalgbar ikke-borger. Ikke desto mindre er det en ubestridelig kendsgerning, at hvis man indrømmer sin ateisme, betragtes man som hr. Hitler eller frk. Beelzebub. Og dette stammer fra opfattelsen om, at ateister er en slags underligt, outreret mindretal.
And however we define atheism, it's surely the kind of academic belief that a person is entitled to hold without being vilified as an unpatriotic, unelectable non-citizen. Nevertheless, it's an undeniable fact that to own up to being an atheist is tantamount to introducing yourself as Mr. Hitler or Miss Beelzebub. And that all stems from the perception of atheists as some kind of weird, way-out minority.
Natalie Angier skrev en temmelig trist artikel i The New Yorker, som beskrev, hvor ensom hun følte sig som ateist. Hun føler sig tydeligvis som del af et betrængt mindretal, men hvor mange amerikanske ateister er der egentlig? Den seneste undersøgelse er overraskende opmuntrende læsning. Kristendommen har, selvfølgelig, broderparten af befolkningens støtte med næsten 160 millioner mennesker. Men hvad ville I sige, den næststørste gruppe var, som er overbevisende større end jødedommen med 2,8 millioner, islam med 1,1 millioner og hinduisme, buddhisme og alle andre religioner tilsammen? Den næststørste gruppe, med næsten 30 millioner, er den, der beskrives som ikke-religiøs eller verdslig.
Natalie Angier wrote a rather sad piece in the New Yorker, saying how lonely she felt as an atheist. She clearly feels in a beleaguered minority. But actually, how do American atheists stack up numerically? The latest survey makes surprisingly encouraging reading. Christianity, of course, takes a massive lion's share of the population, with nearly 160 million. But what would you think was the second largest group, convincingly outnumbering Jews with 2.8 million, Muslims at 1.1 million, Hindus, Buddhists and all other religions put together? The second largest group, with nearly 30 million, is the one described as non-religious or secular.
Man forundres over, at stemmesøgende politikere er så utroligt imponerede af f.eks. den jødiske lobbys magt. Staten Israel synes at skylde sin blotte eksistens til de amerikanske jøders stemmekraft, mens de ikke-religiøse ikke tillægges megen politisk betydning. Denne sekulære ikke-religiøse stemmekraft, hvis den mobiliseres rigtigt, er ni gange så stor som den jødiske stemmekraft. Hvorfor udnytter dette langt større mindretal ikke sine politiske muskler?
You can't help wondering why vote-seeking politicians are so proverbially overawed by the power of, for example, the Jewish lobby -- the state of Israel seems to owe its very existence to the American Jewish vote -- while at the same time, consigning the non-religious to political oblivion. This secular non-religious vote, if properly mobilized, is nine times as numerous as the Jewish vote. Why does this far more substantial minority not make a move to exercise its political muscle?
Nå, men så meget for kvantitet. Hvad med kvalitet? Er der nogen sammenhæng, positiv eller negativ, mellem intelligens og tendensen til at være religiøs? (Latter)
Well, so much for quantity. How about quality? Is there any correlation, positive or negative, between intelligence and tendency to be religious? [Them folks misunderestimated me]
(Laughter)
Undersøgelsen, som jeg citerede, der er ARIS undersøgelsen, opdelte ikke sine data ud fra socioøkonomisk klasse, uddannelse, IK eller noget andet. Men en nylig artikel af Paul G. Bell i Mensa-bladet giver en rettesnor. Mensa er, som bekendt, en international organisation for folk med meget høj IK. Og ud fra en meta-analyse af litteraturen konkluderer Bell, at, og jeg citerer, "af 43 undersøgelser udført siden 1927, om forholdet mellem religiøs tro og ens intelligens eller uddannelsesniveau, fandt alle, på nær fire, en omvendt sammenhæng. Dvs., at jo højere intelligens eller uddannelsesniveau man har, desto mindre er sandsynligheden for at være religiøs.” Jeg har ikke set de oprindelige 42 undersøgelser, og jeg kan ikke kommentere på meta-analysen, men jeg vil gerne se flere undersøgelser af den slags udført. Og jeg ved, hvis jeg må gøre lidt reklame, at der er folk blandt publikum, som let kan finansiere en massiv forsknings-undersøgelse, som kan afklare spørgsmålet, og jeg stiller forslaget – Hvad det end måtte nytte.
The survey that I quoted, which is the ARIS survey, didn't break down its data by socio-economic class or education, IQ or anything else. But a recent article by Paul G. Bell in the Mensa magazine provides some straws in the wind. Mensa, as you know, is an international organization for people with very high IQ. And from a meta-analysis of the literature, Bell concludes that, I quote -- "Of 43 studies carried out since 1927 on the relationship between religious belief, and one's intelligence or educational level, all but four found an inverse connection. That is, the higher one's intelligence or educational level, the less one is likely to be religious." Well, I haven't seen the original 42 studies, and I can't comment on that meta-analysis, but I would like to see more studies done along those lines. And I know that there are -- if I could put a little plug here -- there are people in this audience easily capable of financing a massive research survey to settle the question, and I put the suggestion up, for what it's worth.
Men lad mig vise jer nogle data, der er blevet forskriftsmæssigt offentliggjort og analyseret om en speciel gruppe, nemlig topforskere. I 1998 adspurgte Larson og Witham de bedste amerikanske forskere, som var blevet hædret ved at blive valgt til National Academy of Sciences. Og blandt denne udvalgte gruppe var troen på en personlig Gud faldet til rystende 7 procent. Omkring 20 procent er agnostikere, og resten kunne med rette kaldes ateister. Tilsvarende tal fik man for troen på personlig udødelighed. Blandt biologer er tallene endnu lavere, kun 5,5 procent tror på Gud. For fysikere er det 7,5 procent. Jeg har ikke set tilsvarende tal for elite-forskere på andre områder, såsom historie og filosofi, men jeg ville blive overrasket, hvis de var anderledes.
But let me know show you some data that have been properly published and analyzed, on one special group -- namely, top scientists. In 1998, Larson and Witham polled the cream of American scientists, those who'd been honored by election to the National Academy of Sciences, and among this select group, belief in a personal God dropped to a shattering seven percent. About 20 percent are agnostic; the rest could fairly be called atheists. Similar figures obtained for belief in personal immortality. Among biological scientists, the figure is even lower: 5.5 percent, only, believe in God. Physical scientists, it's 7.5 percent. I've not seen corresponding figures for elite scholars in other fields, such as history or philosophy, but I'd be surprised if they were different.
Så vi har nået en virkelig bemærkelsesværdig situation, et grotesk misforhold mellem den amerikanske intelligentsia og de amerikanske vælgere. En filosofisk holdning om universets tilstand, som det store flertal af amerikanske top-videnskabsfolk og formentlig hovedparten af intelligentsiaen er i besiddelse af, er så afskyelig for de amerikanske vælgere, at ingen kandidat til folkelige valg tør bekræfte det offentligt. Hvis jeg har ret, betyder det, at høje politiske stillinger i det bedste land i verden er lukket land for netop de mennesker, som er bedst kvalificerede, intelligentsiaen, medmindre de er beredte på at lyve om deres tro. For at sige det rent ud, politiske muligheder i USA er stærkt imod dem, som på samme tid er intelligente og ærlige. (Bifald)
So, we've reached a truly remarkable situation, a grotesque mismatch between the American intelligentsia and the American electorate. A philosophical opinion about the nature of the universe, which is held by the vast majority of top American scientists and probably the majority of the intelligentsia generally, is so abhorrent to the American electorate that no candidate for popular election dare affirm it in public. If I'm right, this means that high office in the greatest country in the world is barred to the very people best qualified to hold it -- the intelligentsia -- unless they are prepared to lie about their beliefs. To put it bluntly: American political opportunities are heavily loaded against those who are simultaneously intelligent and honest. (Laughter)
Jeg er ikke borger i USA, så jeg håber ikke, det vil være upassende,
(Applause)
hvis jeg foreslår, at noget må gøres. (Latter) Og jeg har allerede antydet, hvad det noget er. Ud fra hvad jeg har set af TED, tror jeg, det kan være det ideelle sted at begynde det. Igen, jeg er bange for, at det vil koste penge. Vi har brug for en bevidstgørende ud-af-skabet-kampagne for amerikanske ateister. (Latter) Det kunne svare til den kampagne, som blev arrangeret af homoseksuelle for få år siden, men Gud forbyde, at vi skulle nedlade os til offentligt at skubbe mennesker ud af skabet mod deres vilje. I de fleste tilfælde vil folk, som springer ud, medvirke til at ødelægge myten om, at der er noget galt med ateister.
I'm not a citizen of this country, so I hope it won't be thought unbecoming if I suggest that something needs to be done. (Laughter) And I've already hinted what that something is. From what I've seen of TED, I think this may be the ideal place to launch it. Again, I fear it will cost money. We need a consciousness-raising, coming-out campaign for American atheists. (Laughter) This could be similar to the campaign organized by homosexuals a few years ago, although heaven forbid that we should stoop to public outing of people against their will. In most cases, people who out themselves will help to destroy the myth that there is something wrong with atheists.
Tværtimod vil de vise, at ateister ofte er den slags mennesker, der kunne tjene som gode rollemodeller for jeres børn. Den slags mennesker som en reklame-agent kunne bruge til at anbefale et produkt. Den slags mennesker, der sidder her i salen. Der burde være en sneboldeffekt, en positiv tilbagemelding, sådan, at jo flere navne vi har, desto flere får vi. Der kunne være uregelmæssigheder, tærskel-effekter. Når en kritisk masse er opnået, er der en brat stigning i rekrutteringen. Og igen, der vil være brug for penge.
On the contrary, they'll demonstrate that atheists are often the kinds of people who could serve as decent role models for your children, the kinds of people an advertising agent could use to recommend a product, the kinds of people who are sitting in this room. There should be a snowball effect, a positive feedback, such that the more names we have, the more we get. There could be non-linearities, threshold effects. When a critical mass has been obtained, there's an abrupt acceleration in recruitment. And again, it will need money.
Jeg formoder, at ordet "ateist" i sig selv indeholder, eller fortsat er en forhindring langt ude af proportioner med, hvad det egentlig betyder, og en forhindring for folk, der ellers med glæde ville komme ud af skabet. Så, hvilke andre ord kunne blive brugt til at bane vejen, smøre hjulene, sødne medicinen? Darwin selv foretrak agnostiker - og ikke kun af loyalitet overfor sin ven Huxley, som fandt på begrebet.
I suspect that the word "atheist" itself contains or remains a stumbling block far out of proportion to what it actually means, and a stumbling block to people who otherwise might be happy to out themselves. So, what other words might be used to smooth the path, oil the wheels, sugar the pill? Darwin himself preferred "agnostic" -- and not only out of loyalty to his friend Huxley, who coined the term.
Darwin sagde, "Jeg har aldrig været en ateist i forstanden at benægte Guds eksistens. Jeg tror, at agnostiker, generelt ville være den mest korrekte beskrivelse af mit sindelag."
Darwin said, "I have never been an atheist in the same sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally an 'agnostic' would be the most correct description of my state of mind."
Han blev endda ukarakteristisk irriteret på Edward Aveling. Aveling var en militant ateist, der ikke kunne overtale Darwin til at acceptere dedikationen af sin bog om ateisme - hvilket i øvrigt gav anledning til en fascinerende myte, om at Karl Marx forsøgte at dedikere "Das Kapital" til Darwin, hvilket han ikke gjorde. Det var faktisk Edward Aveling. Hvad der skete, var, at Avelings elskerinde var Marx' datter, og da både Darwin og Marx var døde, blev Marx' papirer rodet sammen med Avelings, og et brev fra Darwin, hvori der stod: "Min kære Herre, mange tak, men jeg ønsker ikke, at De dedikerer Deres bog til mig" blev fejlagtigt antaget, som rettet til Marx, og det gav anledning til hele denne myte, som I sikkert kender. Det er en slags vandrehistorie, at Marx forsøgte at dedikere ”Das Kapital” til Darwin.
He even became uncharacteristically tetchy with Edward Aveling. Aveling was a militant atheist who failed to persuade Darwin to accept the dedication of his book on atheism -- incidentally, giving rise to a fascinating myth that Karl Marx tried to dedicate "Das Kapital" to Darwin, which he didn't, it was actually Edward Aveling. What happened was that Aveling's mistress was Marx's daughter, and when both Darwin and Marx were dead, Marx's papers became muddled up with Aveling's papers, and a letter from Darwin saying, "My dear sir, thank you very much but I don't want you to dedicate your book to me," was mistakenly supposed to be addressed to Marx, and that gave rise to this whole myth, which you've probably heard. It's a sort of urban myth, that Marx tried to dedicate "Kapital" to Darwin.
Hvorom alting er, var det til Aveling, og da de mødtes, udfordrede Darwin Aveling: "Hvorfor kalder I jer selv ateister?" "Agnostiker," svarede Aveling, "var bare et respektabelt ord for ateist, og ateist var bare et aggressivt ord for agnostiker." Darwin beklagede sig, "Men hvorfor er I så aggressive?" Darwin mente, at ateisme kunne være godt nok for intelligentsiaen, men, at almindelige mennesker ikke var, citat: "modne til det." Dette er naturligvis vores gamle ven "Skab ikke rørte vande"-argumentet. Det er ikke dokumenteret, hvorvidt Aveling sagde til Darwin, at han skulle stoppe med at spille klog. (Latter)
Anyway, it was Aveling, and when they met, Darwin challenged Aveling. "Why do you call yourselves atheists?" "'Agnostic, '" retorted Aveling, "was simply 'atheist' writ respectable, and 'atheist' was simply 'agnostic' writ aggressive." Darwin complained, "But why should you be so aggressive?" Darwin thought that atheism might be well and good for the intelligentsia, but that ordinary people were not, quote, "ripe for it." Which is, of course, our old friend, the "don't rock the boat" argument. It's not recorded whether Aveling told Darwin to come down off his high horse. (Laughter)
Men, alligevel, det var mere end 100 år siden. Man skulle tro, at vi er blevet mere voksne siden. En af mine venner, en intelligent bortfaldet jøde, som i øvrigt holdt Sabbatten hellig på grund af kulturel solidaritet, beskriver sig selv som en "tandfe-agnostiker". Han vil ikke kalde sig selv ateist, fordi det i princippet er umuligt at føre negativ bevisførelse, men agnostiker alene kunne antyde, at Guds eksistens derfor var på lige fod med sandsynligheden for hans ikke-eksistens.
But in any case, that was more than 100 years ago. You'd think we might have grown up since then. Now, a friend, an intelligent lapsed Jew, who, incidentally, observes the Sabbath for reasons of cultural solidarity, describes himself as a "tooth-fairy agnostic." He won't call himself an atheist because it's, in principle, impossible to prove a negative, but "agnostic" on its own might suggest that God's existence was therefore on equal terms of likelihood as his non-existence.
Så min ven er strengt agnostisk om tandfeen, men den er ikke særlig sandsynlig, vel? Ligesom Gud. Derfor udtrykket "tandfe-agnostiker", men Bertrand Russell fastslog det samme ved hjælp af en hypotetisk tepotte i kredsløb omkring Mars. Man ville være strengt agnostisk om, hvorvidt der er en tepotte i kredsløb om Mars, men det betyder ikke, at man behandler sandsynligheden for dens eksistens på lige fod med dens ikke-eksistens.
So, my friend is strictly agnostic about the tooth fairy, but it isn't very likely, is it? Like God. Hence the phrase, "tooth-fairy agnostic." Bertrand Russell made the same point using a hypothetical teapot in orbit about Mars. You would strictly have to be agnostic about whether there is a teapot in orbit about Mars, but that doesn't mean you treat the likelihood of its existence as on all fours with its non-existence.
Listen over ting, som vi må være strengt agnostiske om, slutter ikke ved tandfeer og tepotter. Den er uendelig. Hvis I ønsker at tro på en særlig en af dem, enhjørninger eller tandfeer eller tepotter eller Jahve, er det op til jer at sige hvorfor. Det påhviler ikke resten af os at sige, hvorfor I ikke skal gøre det. Vi, der er ateister, er også ikke-tandfeister og ikke-tepotteister. (Latter)
The list of things which we strictly have to be agnostic about doesn't stop at tooth fairies and teapots; it's infinite. If you want to believe one particular one of them -- unicorns or tooth fairies or teapots or Yahweh -- the onus is on you to say why. The onus is not on the rest of us to say why not. We, who are atheists, are also a-fairyists and a-teapotists. (Laughter)
Men vi gider ikke sige det, og det er derfor, min ven bruger tandfe-agnostiker, som en betegnelse for hvad de fleste mennesker ville kalde ateist. Men hvis vi ønsker at tiltrække de, som er ateister på bunden til at komme ud af skabet offentligt, er vi nødt til at finde noget bedre at skrive på vort banner end tandfe- eller tepotte-agnostiker.
But we don't bother to say so. And this is why my friend uses "tooth-fairy agnostic" as a label for what most people would call atheist. Nonetheless, if we want to attract deep-down atheists to come out publicly, we're going to have find something better to stick on our banner than "tooth-fairy" or "teapot agnostic."
Hvad så med humanist? Det har fordelen af et verdensomspændende netværk af velorganiserede foreninger og tidsskrifter, hvor tingene allerede er på plads. Mit problem med det er kun dets tilsyneladende fokus på mennesker. En af de ting, vi har lært fra Darwin, er, at den menneskelige race kun er én blandt millioner af fætre og kusiner, nogle nære, andre langt ude.
So, how about "humanist"? This has the advantage of a worldwide network of well-organized associations and journals and things already in place. My problem with it is only its apparent anthropocentrism. One of the things we've learned from Darwin is that the human species is only one among millions of cousins, some close, some distant.
Og der er andre muligheder, som naturalist. Men her er der også forvirring, fordi Darwin ville have tænkt naturalist - naturalist betyder, naturligvis, det modsatte af supernaturalist. Og det bruges nogle gange. Darwin ville være blevet forvirret af den anden betydning af naturalist, som han var, naturligvis, og jeg formoder, der kunne være andre, der ville forveksle det med nudisme. (Latter) Sådanne mennesker kunne være dem, der tilhører den gruppe af britiske selvtægtere, der sidste år fejlagtigt angreb en børnelæge, i stedet for en pædofil. (Latter)
And there are other possibilities, like "naturalist," but that also has problems of confusion, because Darwin would have thought naturalist -- "Naturalist" means, of course, as opposed to "supernaturalist" -- and it is used sometimes -- Darwin would have been confused by the other sense of "naturalist," which he was, of course, and I suppose there might be others who would confuse it with "nudism". (Laughter) Such people might be those belonging to the British lynch mob, which last year attacked a pediatrician in mistake for a pedophile. (Laughter)
Jeg tror det bedste af de tilgængelige alternativer til ateist, simpelthen er ikke-teist. Det mangler den stærke betydning, at Gud absolut ikke findes, og det kan derfor let blive taget til eje af tepotte- eller tandfe-agnostikere. Det er helt foreneligt med fysikernes Gud. Når folk som - når ateister, som Stephen Hawking og Albert Einstein, bruger ordet "Gud", bruger de det, naturligvis, som metaforisk stenografi for den dybe mystiske del af fysikken, som vi endnu ikke forstår. Ikke-teist er godt nok til det, men i modsætning til ateist får det ikke de samme fobiske, hysteriske reaktioner. Men jeg mener faktisk, at alternativet er, at gribe fast om roden på ordet ateisme selv, netop fordi det er et tabuord, som bærer det kolde gys af hysterisk fobi. Kritisk masse kan være sværere at nå med ordet ateist, end med ordet ikke-teist, eller et andet ikke-konfronterende ord. Men hvis vi nåede det med skræmmeordet ateist, ville den politiske slagkraft være endnu større.
I think the best of the available alternatives for "atheist" is simply "non-theist." It lacks the strong connotation that there's definitely no God, and it could therefore easily be embraced by teapot or tooth-fairy agnostics. It's completely compatible with the God of the physicists. When atheists like Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein use the word "God," they use it of course as a metaphorical shorthand for that deep, mysterious part of physics which we don't yet understand. "Non-theist" will do for all that, yet unlike "atheist," it doesn't have the same phobic, hysterical responses. But I think, actually, the alternative is to grasp the nettle of the word "atheism" itself, precisely because it is a taboo word, carrying frissons of hysterical phobia. Critical mass may be harder to achieve with the word "atheist" than with the word "non-theist," or some other non-confrontational word. But if we did achieve it with that dread word "atheist" itself, the political impact would be even greater.
Jeg sagde før, at hvis jeg var religiøs, ville jeg være meget bange for evolution. Jeg vil gå endnu længere. Jeg ville frygte videnskab generelt, hvis den blev opfattet rigtigt. Og det er fordi, det videnskabelige verdenssyn er meget mere spændende, mere poetisk, mere fyldt med ren undren end noget i den religiøse fantasis fattige arsenaler. Som Carl Sagan, en anden helt, som døde for nylig, udtrykte det: "Hvordan kan det være, at næppe nogen større religion har set på videnskaben, og konkluderet: "Det er bedre end vi troede! Universet er langt større, end vores profet sagde, større, mere spidsfindigt, mere elegant"? I stedet siger de: "Nej, nej, nej! Min gud er en lille gud, og sådan skal han forblive." En religion, gammel eller ny, der ville understrege universets pragt, som fremstillet af den moderne videnskab, kunne være i stand til at trække reserver af ærbødighed og ærefrygt frem, som næppe er udnyttet af konventionelle trosretninger."
Now, I said that if I were religious, I'd be very afraid of evolution -- I'd go further: I would fear science in general, if properly understood. And this is because the scientific worldview is so much more exciting, more poetic, more filled with sheer wonder than anything in the poverty-stricken arsenals of the religious imagination. As Carl Sagan, another recently dead hero, put it, "How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The universe is much bigger than our prophet said, grander, more subtle, more elegant'? Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.' A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths."
Dette er et elite-publikum, og jeg ville derfor forvente, at omkring 10 procent af jer er religiøse. Mange af jer er sikkert tilhængere af vores høflige kulturelle overbevisning om, at vi skal respektere religionen, men jeg har også mistanke om, at en hel del af disse mennesker hemmeligt foragter religion ligeså meget, som jeg gør. (Latter) Hvis du er en af dem, og det er der, selvfølgelig, nok mange af jer, der ikke er, men hvis du er en af dem, beder jeg dig om at holde op med at være høflig, kom ud og sig det, og hvis du tilfældigvis er rig, så tænk på måder hvorpå du kan gøre en forskel. Den religiøse lobby i USA er massivt finansieret af fonde, for ikke at nævne alle de skattemæssige fordele, af fonde såsom Templeton Foundation og Discovery Institute. Vi har brug for, at et anti-Templeton træder frem. Hvis mine bøger solgte ligeså godt som Stephen Hawkings bøger, i stedet for kun som Richard Dawkins' bøger, ville jeg gøre det selv.
Now, this is an elite audience, and I would therefore expect about 10 percent of you to be religious. Many of you probably subscribe to our polite cultural belief that we should respect religion. But I also suspect that a fair number of those secretly despise religion as much as I do. (Laughter) If you're one of them, and of course many of you may not be, but if you are one of them, I'm asking you to stop being polite, come out, and say so. And if you happen to be rich, give some thought to ways in which you might make a difference. The religious lobby in this country is massively financed by foundations -- to say nothing of all the tax benefits -- by foundations, such as the Templeton Foundation and the Discovery Institute. We need an anti-Templeton to step forward. If my books sold as well as Stephen Hawking's books, instead of only as well as Richard Dawkins' books, I'd do it myself.
Folk spørger altid, "Hvordan forandrede den 11. september dig?" Nuvel, her er hvordan det forandrede mig: Lad os alle stoppe med at være så forbandet respektfulde.
People are always going on about, "How did September the 11th change you?" Well, here's how it changed me. Let's all stop being so damned respectful.
Mange tak. (Bifald)
Thank you very much. (Applause)