That splendid music, the coming-in music, "The Elephant March" from "Aida," is the music I've chosen for my funeral.
Ta divna glazba, uvodna glazba -- "Marš slonova" iz Aide je glazba koju sam odabrao za svoj sprovod.
(Laughter)
(smijeh)
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.
A možete vidjeti i zašto - trijumfalna je. Ja ću... Ja neću osjećati ništa, ali kada bih mogao, osjećao bih se trijumfalno što sam uopće živio. što sam živio na ovom predivnom planetu i što sam imao priliku razumjeti nešto o tome zašto sam uopće ovdje prije nego što me nije bilo.
Can you understand my quaint English accent?
Možete li razumjeti moj neobični engleski naglasak?
(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.
Poput svih, bio sam zadivljen jučerašnjom životinjskom sekcijom. Rovert Full i Frans Lanting i ostali -- ljepota stvari koju su prikazali. Samo mi je jedna sitnica parala uši kada je Jeffrey Katzenberg rekao za mustanga: "Najveličanstvenija bića koja je Bog stavio na Zemlju." Naravno, mi znamo da on to nije zapravo mislio, ali u u ovom trenutku u ovoj zemlji ne možeš biti pretjerano pažljiv.
(Laughter)
(smijeh)
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 --
Biolog sam i središnji predmet koji proučavamo jest teorija postanka, Darwinova teorija evolucije prirodnom selekcijom. U stručnim krugovima posvuda ona je, naravno, univerzalno prihvaćena. U nestručnim krugovima izvan Amerike, uglavnom se ignorira. Ali u nestručnim krugovima u Americi ona potiče toliko neprijateljstva --
(Laughter)
(smijeh)
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.
da se može reći kako su američki biolozi u ratu. Taj je rat je toliko zabrinjavajuć u ovom trenutku sa sudskim parnicama koje se podižu u sve više američkih država, da sam osjećao kako moram nešto reći o tome.
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.
Želite li znati što imam za reći o samom darvinizmu, bojim se da ćete morati pogledati moje knjige koje nećete moći pronaći u obližnjoj knjižari.
(Laughter)
(smijeh)
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 --
Današnje sudske parnice često se vode oko navodno nove verzije kreacionizma, koja se naziva inteligentno stvaranje ili IS. Ne dajte se zavarati. Ništa nije novo u vezi IS-a. To je samo kreacionizam s drugim nazivom. Prekršten - pažljivo biram riječ -
(Laughter)
(smijeh)
for tactical, political reasons.
- zbog taktičkih i političkih razloga.
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."
Argumenti takozvanih IS teoretičara su isti oni stari argumenti koji su pobijani ponovo i ponovo od Darwina pa do današnjeg dana. Postoji učinkovit evolucijski lobi koji se koordinirano bori na strani znanosti i ja pokušavam učiniti što mogu kako bih im pomogao, ali oni se prilično uzrujaju kada se ljudi poput mene usude spomenuti da smo mi i ateisti kao i evolucionisti. Oni nas vide kao provokatore, a možete razumjeti zašto. Kreacionisti, u nedostatku ikakvog suvislog znanstvenog argumenta, koriste popularnu fobiju od ateizma. Učite svoju djecu evoluciji na satovima biologije i uskoro će se drogirat, postat će kriminalci i seksualni pre-verznjaci.
(Laughter)
(smijeh)
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,
Zapravo, naravno, obrazovani teolozi od Pape na niže su čvrsti u svojoj potpori evoluciji. Ova knjiga, "Pronalazak Darwinova Boga" Kennetha Millera, jest jedan od najučinkovitijih napada na inteligentno stvaranje koje znam i još je učinkovitiji jer ju je napisao pobožni kršćanin.
(Laughter)
Ljude poput Kennetha Millera bismo mogli nazvati bogomdanima evolucijskome lobiju --
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.
(smijeh) jer otkrivaju laž da je evolucionizam, zapravo, istovjetan ateizmu. Ljude poput mene se, s druge strane, naziva provokatorima.
But here, I want to say something nice about creationists. It's not a thing I often do, so listen carefully.
Ali sada želim reći nešto lijepo o kreacionistima. Ne radim to često pa pozorno slušajte.
(Laughter)
(smijeh)
I think they're right about one thing. I think they're right that evolution is fundamentally hostile to religion.
Mislim da su u pravu glede jedne stvari. Mislim da su u pravu da je evolucija u svojem temelju neprijateljska prema religiji.
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.
Već sam rekao kako su mnogi evolucionisti, poput Pape, također religiozni, ali smatram da se zavaravaju. Vjerujem kako pravo razumijevanje darvinizma duboko nagriza vjeru. Sada, može se činiti da počinjem propovijedati ateizam i želio bih vas razuvjeriti da to nije ono što ću učiniti. Publici tako profinjenoj kao što je ova to bi bilo poput propovijedanja religijskom zboru.
No, what I want to urge upon you --
Ne, ono što želim potaknuti kod vas --
(Laughter)
(smijeh)
Instead, what I want to urge upon you is militant atheism.
-- ono što zapravo želim potaknuti kod vas jest borbeni ateizam.
(Laughter)
(smijeh)
(Applause)
(aplauz)
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.
Ali to zvuči previše negativno. Da sam želio - da sam osoba kojoj je stalo do očuvanja vjere, jako bih se bojao pozitivne snage evolucijske znanosti i općenito svake znanosti, ali evolucije posebno, da nadahne i očara upravo zato jer jest ateistička.
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 --
Težak problem za svaku teoriju biološkog stvaranja jest objasniti vrlo veliku statističku nevjerojatnost živih stvari. Statistička nevjerojatnost u smjeru dobrog stvaranja -- kompleksnost je još jedna riječ za ovo. Standardni kreacionistički argument - zapravo postoji samo jedan i svi se svode na njega -- kreće od statističke nevjerojatnosti. Živa bića su previše kompleksna da bi nastala po slučaju pa stoga mora postojati stvoritelj. Ovaj argement, naravno, pobija sam sebe. Bilo koji stvoritelj sposoban da stvori nešto zaista kompleksno, morao bi sam biti još kompleksniji i to prije nego što uopće krenemo o svim ostalim stvarima koje se od njega očekuju kao što su opraštanje grijeha, blagoslov brakova, slušanje molitvi, -- naklonost našoj strani u ratu --
(Laughter)
(smijeh)
disapprove of our sex lives, and so on.
neodobravanje našeg spolnog života i tako dalje.
(Laughter)
(smijeh)
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.
Kompleksnost jest problem koji svaka teorija u biologiji mora razriješiti i nemoguće ga je riješiti postuliranjem uzroka koji je još kompleksniji čime problem postaje samo još složeniji. Darwinova prirodna selekcija je toliko zadivljujuće elegantna jer rješava problem objašnjavajući kompleksnost koristeći samo jednostavnost. U osnovi, to čini pružajući glatku kosinu stupnjevanog uspona korak po korak. Ali ovdje bih želio istaknuti poantu kako elegantnost Darvinizma nagriza religiju upravo jer je toliko elegantan, toliko parsimoničan, tako moćan, tako ekonomično moćan. Posjeduje snagu i žilavost prekrasnog visećeg mosta.
The God theory is not just a bad theory. It turns out to be -- in principle -- incapable of doing the job required of it.
Božja teorija nije samo loša teorija. Ona ispada u korijenu nesposobna činiti posao koji se od nje očekuje.
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.
Pa vrativši se sada na taktike i evolucijski lobi, smatram kako je provociranje prava stvar koju treba učiniti. Moj pristup napadanju kreacionizma nije jednak evolucijskom lobiju. Moj pristup napadanju kreacionizma jest napadanje religije u cijelosti. U ovom trenutku moram istaknuti značajan tabu prema govorenju loših stvari o religiji. To ću učiniti riječima Douglasa Adamsa, dragog prijatelja koji bi, ako još nije bio na TED-u, svakako trebao biti pozvan.
(Richard Saul Wurman: He was.)
(Richard Saul Wurman: Bio je pozvan.)
Richard Dawkins: He was. Good. I thought he must have been.
Bio je. Dobro. I mislio sam da je trebao biti.
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.
On započinje ovaj govor, snimljen na Cambridgeu netom prije svoje smrti. On započinje ovaj govor, snimljen na Cambridgeu netom prije svoje smrti. Započinje ga objašnjavajući kako znanost djeluje testirajući hipoteze koje su osjetljive na pobijanje pa nastavlja --
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."
Citiram: "Čini se da religija ne djeluje na takav način. Ona sadrži određene središnje ideje koje smatramo svetima. A to znači -- ovo je jedna ideja ili pretpostavka o kojoj ne smijete reći ništa loše -- Jednostavno ne smijete. Zašto ne? Zato što ne.
(Laughter)
(smijeh)
"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." --
Zašto je posve legitimno podržavati republikance ili demokrate, ovaj ekonomski model ili onaj, Macintoch umjesto Windowsa, ali imati mišljenje o nastanku svemira, o tome tko je stvorio svemir -- ne, to je sveto. Tako smo navikli ne dovoditi u pitanje religijske ideje i postavke i vrlo je interesantno koliko strke Richard stvara kada ih dovodi u pitanje." Misli na mene, ne onog tamo.
He meant me, not that one.
"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."
"Svi se jako naljute zbog toga jer nam nije dopušteno govoriti takve stvare, a opet kada na to pogledamo razumski nema nikakvog razloga zašto te ideje ne bi trebale biti otvorene za raspravu kao i bilo koje druge, osim što se mi nekako nismo među sobom dogovorili da ne bi trebale biti" i to je kraj Douglasova citata.
And that's the end of the quote from Douglas.
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.
Prema mojem mišljenju, ne nagriza samo znanost religiju, nego i religija nagriza znanost. Ona uči ljude da se zadovolje trivijalnim, praznovjernim ne-objašnjenjima i zasljepljuje ih od predivnih stvarnih objašnjenja koja možemo dokučiti. Ona uči ljude da prihvaćaju autoritet, otkrivenje i vjeru umjesto stalnog inzistiranja na dokazima.
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."
Ovo je Douglas Adams, veličanstvena fotografija iz njegove knjige "Posljednja šansa da progledamo" (Last Chance to See) A ovo je tipični znanstveni časopis, Quarterly Review of Biology. I sastavit ću, kao gostujući urednik, posebni broj na pitanje "Je li asteriod ubio dinosaure?" Prvi članak je standardni znanstveni članak koji prezentira dokaze, "Iridijski omotač na K-T granici, kalij-argonski krater iz Yucatana ukazuje kako je asteroid ubio Dinosaure." Potpuno običan znanstveni članak. E sada, sljedeći, "Predsjedniku Kraljevskoga društva podareno je snažno unutarnje uvjerenje -- (smijeh) -- kako je asteroid ubio dinosaure." (smijeh)
(Laughter)
"It has been privately revealed to Professor Huxtane
"Profesoru Huxtaneu je privatno otkriveno
that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs."
kako je asteroid ubio dinosaure."
(Laughter)
(smijeh)
"Professor Hordley was brought up to have total and unquestioning faith" --
"Spominje se kako profesor Hordley ima potpunu i neupitnu vjeru --
(Laughter) --
(smijeh)
"that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs." "Professor Hawkins has promulgated an official dogma binding on all loyal Hawkinsians that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs."
... da je asteroid ubio dinosaure." "Profesor Hawkins je objavio službenu dogmu povezujući sve odane Hawkinsijance kako je asteroid ubio dinosaure."
(Laughter)
(smijeh)
That's inconceivable, of course.
To je, dakako, nezamislivo.
But suppose --
Ali zamislite --
[Supporters of the Asteroid Theory cannot be patriotic citizens]
(aplauz)
(Laughter)
(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."
-- 1987. godine jedan je reporter upitao Georgea Busha starijeg smatra li da su ateisti jednaki građani i patrioti kao i ostali Amerikanci? smatra li da su ateisti jednaki građani i patrioti kao i ostali Amerikanci? Odgovor gospodina Busha postao je ozloglašen: "Ne, ne mislim da bi ateisti trebali biti smatrani građanima, niti bi ih se trebalo smatrati patriotima. Ovo je jedna nacija pod Bogom."
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?
Busheva fanatična netrpeljivost nije izolorana pogreška izvaljena u afektu i kasnije povučena. Stajao je uz nju i nakon ponavljanih poziva za objašnjenjem i povlačenjem. Doista je to mislio. Dapače, znao je da ona ne predstavlja nikakvu prijetnju njegovim izborima, već upravo suprotno. Demokrati kao i republikanci paradiraju svojom religioznosti ako žele da ih se izabere. Obje strane se pozivaju na jednu naciju pod Bogom. Što bi Thomas Jefferson rekao?
[In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty]
Usput, nisam obično vrlo ponosan što sam Britanac,
Incidentally, I'm not usually very proud of being British, but you can't help making the comparison.
ali ne možete si pomoći da ne napravite usporedbu.
(Applause)
(aplauz)
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.
Što je zapravo ateist? Ateist je netko tko prema Jahveu osjeća ono što svaki pristojni kršćanin osjeća prema Toru, Baalu ili zlatnom teletu. Kao što je ranije rečeno, svi smo mi ateisti za većinu bogova u koje je čovječanstvo ikada vjerovalo. Neki od nas idu samo još jednog boga dalje.
(Laughter)
(smijeh)
(Applause)
(aplauz)
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.
I kako god definirali ateizam, on je zasigurno oblik akademskog uvjerenja na koji osoba ima pravo, a da ju se pritom ne omalovažava kao nepatriota i negrađana. Bilo kako bilo, nepobitna činjenica je da se bivanje ateistom svodi na predstavljanje sebe kao gospodin Hitler ili gospođa Belzebub. I sve to proizlazi iz percepcije da su ateisti neka čudna, zastranjela manjina.
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.
Natalie Angier je napisala prilično žalostan članak u New Yorkeru u kojem govori kako je usamljena kao ateistica. Pojašnjava kako se osjeća u toj opkoljenoj manjini a koliko je zapravo ateista u Americi? Posljednje istraživanje ukazuje na ohrabrujuće podatke. Kršanstvo, naravno, zauzime lavovski dio populacije s gotovo 160 milijuna. Ali što biste rekli da je sljedeća najveća skupina, uvjerljivo nadbrojivši Židove s 2.8 milijuna, Muslimane s 1.1 milijun i Hinduse i Budiste i sve ostale religije zajedno? Druga najveća skupina, s gotovo 30 milijuna jest ona koja se opisuje kao nereligiozna ili sekularna.
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?
Ne možete se prestati pitati zašto su glasova žedni političari toliko prepuni strahopoštovanja prema, recimo, židovskome lobiju. Država Izrael duguje svoje postojanje glasu američkih židova, dok u isto vrijeme šalje nereligiozne ljude u politički zaborav. To sekulatno nereligiozno glasačko tijelo, ako se na primjeren način mobilizira, jest devet puta brojnije od židovskog glasačkog tijela. Zašto ta daleko značajnija manjina ne učini korak kako bi upotrijebila svoj politički mišić?
Well, so much for quantity. How about quality? Is there any correlation, positive or negative, between intelligence and tendency to be religious?
No dobro, toliko o kvantiteti. A što je kvalitetom? Postoji li korelacija, pozitivna ili negativna, između inteligencije i tendecije prema religioznosti?
[Them folks misunderestimated me]
(smijeh)
(Laughter)
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.
Istraživanje koje sam citirao, ARIS istraživanje, nije razdvajalo podatke prema socio-ekonomskim klasama ili obrazovanju, prema kvocijentu inteligencije (KI) ili bilo čemu drugome. No, nedavni članak Paula G. Bella u Mensinom magazinu pruža određene putokaze. Mensa, kao što znate, je međunarodna organizacija za ljude koji imaju vrlo visok KI. I prema meta-analizi literature, Bell zaključuje kako, citiram, "Od 43 studije provedene od 1927. godine koji ma se proučava veza religioznosti i pojedinčeve inteligencije ili stupnja obrazovanja, sve osim četiri pokazuju negativnu vezu. To znači, što je viša pojedinčeva inteligencija ili stupanj obrazovanja, manja je vjerojatnost da će biti religiozan." Doduše, nisam vidio u originalu ta 42 istraživanja i ne mogu komentirati meta-analizu ali volio bih vidjeti više istraživanja napravljenih na ovu temu. I znam da postoje, ako mogu malo potaknuti, ljudi u ovoj publici koji bi lako mogli financirati golemo istraživanje koje bi odgovorilo na pitanje i ovime vam predlažem da to i učinite.
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.
No dopustite mi da vam prikažem podatke koji su propisno objavljeni i analizirani na jednoj posebnoj skupini, a to su vrhunski znanstvenici. Godine 1998. Larson i Witham ispitali su samu kremu američkih znanstvenika, one koji su bili izabranu u Nacionalnu akademiju znanosti, i unutar odabrane skupine vjera u osobnoga boga opala je na lomljivih sedam posto. Otprilike 20 posto su agnostici, a ostali bi se lako mogli nazvati ateistima. Slične su brojke dobivene i za vjerovanje u osobnu besmrtnost. Među biolozima, brojke su još niže samo 5.5 posto vjeruje u boga. Fizičari - 7.5 posto. Nisam vidio ove brojke za elitne znanstvenike u ostalim poljima poput povijesti i filozofije ali bio bih iznenađen da su drugačiji.
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.
Tako smo došli do zaista zadivljujućeg stanja groteskne razlike između američkih intelektualaca i američkog biračkog tijela. Filozofsko mišljenje o prirodi nastanka svemira, koje drži velika većina vrhunskih američkih znanstvenika i vjerojatno većina intelektualaca uopće, toliko je nespojivo s američkim biračkim tijelom da ga se niti jedan politički kandidat ne usuđuje javno zauzeti. Ukoliko sam u pravo, to znači da je visoka politika u najvećoj državi na svijetu nedostupna onima koji na najkvalificiraniji voditi ju - intelektualcima, osim ako nisu spremni lagati o svojim uvjerenjima. Da to kažem otvoreno, američki politički oportunisti su izrazito snažno protiv onih koji su istodobno inteligentni i iskreni.
(Laughter)
(aplauz)
(Applause)
Nisam državljanin ove zemlje pa se nadam da neću biti neuljudan
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.
ako predložim da se nešto treba učiniti.
(Laughter)
(smijeh)
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.
A već sam i natuknuo što to nešto jest. Koliko sam vidio TED, mislim da je ovo isealno mjesto za početak. No, bojim se da će koštati. Potrebno nam je podizanje svijesti kampanja izlaska iz ormara za američke ateiste.
(Laughter)
(smijeh)
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.
To bi moglo biti slično kampanji koju su organizirali homoseksualci prije nekoliko godina Iako, bože sačuvaj da bismo se trebali pognuti pred javnim istupom ljudi protiv njihove volje. U većini slučajeva, ljudi koji istupe će pomoći razbiti mit da s ateistima nešto ne valja.
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.
Upravo suprotno oni će pokazati da su ateisti često oni ljudi koji mogu poslužiti kao pristojni uzor za vašu djecu, oni ljudi koje bi prodajni agent iskoristio za reklamu prizvoda, oni ljudi koji sjete u ovoj sobi. Trebala bi nastati lavina, pozitivna povratna informacija poput što više imena imamo, više dobivamo. Mogli bi postojati nelinearni efekti praga. Jednom kada se postigne kritična masa, počinje strmo ubrzanje u novačenju. I ponovo, bit će potreban novac.
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.
Pretpostavljam da sama riječ "ateist" sadrži kamen spoticanja znatno većeg razmjera od njena samog značenja i taj kamen spoticanja za ljude koji bi inače bili sretni da istupe. Pa koje bismo onda riječi mogli upotrijebiti da izgladimo put, nauljimo kotačiće, zasladimo gorčinu? Darwin je preferirao izraz agnostici -- i ne samo iz odanost svojem prijatelju Huxleyu, koji je izmislio taj termin.
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."
Darwin je rekao: "Nisam nikada bio ateist u smislu poriacanja postojanja Boga. Držim kako bi agnostik bio točan opis mojeg stanja uma."
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.
Čak je postao i neuobičajeno razdražljiv na Edwarda Avelinga. Aveling je bio ratoborni ateist koji nije uspio uvjeriti Darwina da prihvati posvetu svoje knjige o ateizmu -- slučajno započevši fascinantan mit kako je Karl Marx želio posvetiti "Kapital" Darwinu. No to nije istina. Zapravo je to bio Edward Aveling. Ono što se dogodilo jest da je Avelingova ljubavnica bila Marxova kći i nakon što su Darwin i Marx umrli Marxovi papiri su se pomiješali s Avelingovim i za pismo od Darwina u kojem piše: "Moj dragi gospodine, zahvaljujem Vam, ali ne želim da mi posvetite knjigu" se greškom pretpostavlja da je adresirano na Marxa i to je izvor cijelog ovog mita za koji ste vjerojatno čuli. Neka vrsta urbanog mita je to da je Marx pokušao posvetiti Kapital Darwinu.
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.
U svakom slučaju, bio je to Aveling i kada su se susreli, Darwin ga je izazvao "Zašto se nazivate ateistima?" "Agnostik", uzvratio je Aveling, "je zapravo ateist rečen pristojno, a ateist je zapravo agnostik rečen agresivno." Darwin se požalio: "Ali zašto biste željeli biti tako agresivni?" Darwin je smatrao kako je ateizam dobar za intelektualce, ali obični ljudi nisu baš "zreli za njega" Što je, dakako, naš dobri stari prijatelj nemoj-provocirati argument. Nije zabilježeno je li Aveling rekao Darwinu da siđe sa svoje visoke pete.
(Laughter)
(smijeh)
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.
U svakom slučaju, to je bilo prije više od 100 godina. Pomislili bismo da smo mogli sazrijeti od onda. Jedan prijatelj, inteligentni posrnuli židov koji je začudo poštovao Subotu (Sabbath) zbog kulturalne solidarnosti opisao se kao "zubić vila agnostik." Ne želi se nazvati ateistom jer je, u principu, nemoguće dokazati nepostojanje, pa agnostici smatraju kako je božje postojanje u terminima vjerjatnosti jednako kao i nepostojanje.
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.
Pa tako je moj prijatelj striktni agnostik po pitanju zubić vile, ali ona nije baš tako vjerojatno, jel tako? Kao i Bog. I otuda izraz "zubić vila agnostik" ali Bertrand Rusell je pokazao istu poantu koristeći zamišljeni čajnik u Marsovoj orbiti. Morali biste biti strogi agnostici po pitanju postojanja čajnika u Marsovoj orbiti ali to ne znači da vjerojatnost njegova postojanja smatrate jednakom kao i vjerojatnost njegova nepostojanja.
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.
Popis stvari za koje možemo biti isključivi agnostici je prestaje kod zubić vila i čajnika. On je beskonačan. Ako želite vjerovati u pojedini od njih, jednorozi, zubić vile, čajnici ili Jahve, breme je na vama da kažete zašto. Breme nije na nama ostalima da kažemo zašto ne. Mi koji smo ateisti, smo također a-zubićvilci i a-čajnici.
(Laughter)
(smijeh)
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."
Ali to se ne sramimo reći i zato moj prijatelj koristi izraz zubić vila agnostik kao etiketu za nešto što bi većina ljudi nazvala ateistom. Ipak, želimo li privući ljude koji su ateisti duboko u sebi da istupe van javno morat ćemo pronaći nešto bolje što možemo staviti na svoju zastavu od zubić vile ili agnostika.
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.
Pa što kažete na The Humanist? On ima prednost da je svjetska mreža dobro organiziranih asocijacija i časopisa i stvari na svojem mjestu. Moj jedini problem s njim jest njegov očit antropocentrizam. Jedna od stvari koje smo naučili od Darwina jest da je ljudska vrsta samo jedna od miliona rođaka - nekih bližih, nekih daljih.
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".
I postoje druge opcije poput prirodoslovnog. No i one imaju problem zbunjenosti jer bi Darwin razmišljao prirodoslovno pri čemu prirodoslovno, dakako, znači suprotno od nadnaravnog. I koristi se ponekad. Dawrin bi bio zbunjen drugim značenjem prirodoslovca (naturalista) koji je on bio, a vjerujem da postoje i drugi koji bi prirodoslovca (naturalista) zamijenili s nudistom.
(Laughter)
(smijeh)
Such people might be those belonging to the British lynch mob, which last year attacked a pediatrician in mistake for a pedophile.
Ti bi ljudi mogli biti pripadnici britanske mase koja je prošle godine linčevala pedijatra jer ga je zamijenila s pedofilom.
(Laughter)
(smijeh)
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.
Mislim da je najbolja alternativa za izraz ateist jednostavno ne-teist. Nedostaje joj snažne konotacije da definitivno nema Boga i mogla bi lako obuhvatiti čajničke i zubić vila agnostike. Potpuno je kompatibilna s Bogom fizičara. Kada ljudi poput -- kadal ateisti poput Stephena Hawkinga i Alberta Einsteina koriste riječ "Bog" kotiste ju kao metaforu za onaj duboki misteriozni dio fizike koji još uvijek ne razumijemo. Ne-teisti obuhvaća sve to, i za razliku od ateista, nema izaziva one iste fobične, histerične reakcije. No ja zapravo smatram da je alternativa nastaviti razdraživati riječju ateist upravo zato što ta riječ jest tabu koji izaziva reakcije histerične fobije. Možda ćemo se do kritične mase teže probiti rječju ateist nego rječju ne-teist ili nekom drugom ne-suprotstavljajućom riječju. Ali ako bismo to uspjeli postići s tom užasnom rječju ateist politički udar bio bi još veći.
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."
Već sam rekao da da kada bih bio religiozan, jako bih se bojao evolucije. Išao bih i dalje bojao bih se znanosti općenito. A to je zato što je znanstveni pogled na svijet toliko uzbudljiviji, poetičniji, ispunjeniji finim čudima od ičega u osiromašenim arsenalima religiozne mašte. Kao što je Carl Sagan, još jedan nedavno preminuli heroj, rekao "Kako to da gotovo nijedna velika religija nije pogledala znanost i rekla "Ovo je bolje nego što smo mi mislili! Svemir je znatno veći nego što je naš prorok rekao, veličanstveniji, finiji, elegantniji"? Umjesto toga oni kažu "Ne, ne, ne! Moj boh je malen bog i želim da ostane takav" Religija, stara ili nova, koje je istaknula veličanstvenost svemira kao što ju otkriva moderna znanost bila bi u mogućnosti istaknuti zalihe poštovanja i strahopoštovanja netaknute od strane konvencionalnih vjera.
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.
Ovo je elitna publika i očekivao bih da vas je otpilike 10 posto religioznih. Mnogi od vas se vjerojatno slažu s našim pristojnim kulturnim vjerovanjem kako bismo trebali poštovati religiju, ali isto tako sumnjam da je solidan broj onih koji potajno preziru religiju onoliko koliko i ja.
(Laughter)
(smijeh)
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.
Ako ste jedan od njih, i dakako mnogi od vas ne moraju biti, ali ako ste jedan od njih, tražim od vas da prestanete biti pristojni, da istupite i kažete to, a ako ste uz to i bogati razmislite malo o načinima na koje možete učiniti razliku. Religijski lobi u ovoj zemlji masivno financiraju fondacije, a da ne kažem ništa o poreznim odbicima, fondacije kao što je Templeton Foundation i Discovery Institute. Potreban nam je anti-Templeton kako bismo napravili korak naprijed. Kada bi se moje knjige prodavale dobro kao i Stephen Hawkingove knjige, umjesto jedva kao i Richard Dawkinsove knjige, učinio bih to sam.
People are always going on about, "How did September the 11th change you?"
Ljudi stalno pričaju o tome "Kako te 11. rujan promijenio?"
Well, here's how it changed me.
E pa, evo kako je promijenio mene.
Let's all stop being so damned respectful.
Hajdemo svi skupa prestati biti tako prokleto uljudni.
Thank you very much.
Hvala vam lijepo.
(Applause)
(aplauz)