That splendid music, the coming-in music, "The Elephant March" from "Aida," is the music I've chosen for my funeral.
Ta čudovita glasba, glasba ob prihodu-- "Marš slonov" iz "Aide"-- je glasba, ki sem jo izbral za svoj pogreb--
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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.
--in lahko vidite, zakaj. Zmagoslavna je. Ničesar ne bom čutil, ampak če bi lahko, bi čutil zmagoslavje, da sem sploh lahko živel in da sem živel na tem prekrasnem planetu, in da mi je bilo dano razumeti nekaj o tem, zakaj sem sploh tu, in zakaj me prej ni bilo.
Can you understand my quaint English accent?
Lahko razumete moj staromoden angleški naglas?
(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.
Kot vse ostale, me je včeraj očarala predstavitev živali. Robert Full in Frans Lanting in ostali-- lepota stvari, ki sta jih prikazala. Edina neskladnost je bila, ko je Jeffrey Katzenberg rekel, da je mustang "najbolj čudovito bitje, kar jih je bog postavil na Zemljo." Seveda se zavedamo, da tega ni mislil dobesedno, a v tej državi trenutno ne moreš biti preveč previden.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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 --
Sem biolog in osrednji teorem našega predmeta: teorija razvoja, Darwinova teorija evolucije z naravno selekcijo. V strokovnih krogih širom sveta je seveda splošno priznana. In v nestrokovnih krogih zunaj Amerike je večinoma prezrta. Ampak v nestrokovnih krogih v Ameriki sproža toliko sovraštva--
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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 zdi prav reči, da so ameriški biologi v vojnem stanju. Ta vojna je tako zaskrbljujoča, s sodnimi primeri, ki se pojavljajo v eni zvezni državi za drugo, da sem čutil, da moram o tem nekaj povedati.
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.
Če vas zanima, kaj imam povedati o darvinizmu samem, se bojim, da boste morali pogledati v moje knjige, ki pa jih ne boste našli v knjigarni zunaj.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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 --
Sodobni sodni primeri se pogosto ukvarjajo z domnevno novo verzijo kreacionizma, imenovano "inteligentni načrt" oziroma ID. Naj vas ne zavedejo. V ID ni nič novega. To je samo kreacionizem z novim imenom, prekrščen-- uporabljam to besedo premišljeno--
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
for tactical, political reasons.
--zaradi taktičnih, političnih razlogov.
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 tako imenovanih ID teoretikov so isti stari argumenti, ki so bili ovrženi znova in znova, od Darwina pa do današnjega dne. Tu je učinkovit evolucijski lobi, ki vodi bitko v imenu znanosti, in jaz jim poskušam pomagati, kolikor le lahko, ampak precej se vznemirijo, ko si ljudje, kot sem jaz, drznejo omeniti, da smo tudi ateisti, ne samo evolucionisti. Vidijo nas kot tiste, ki delajo zgago, in lahko razumete zakaj. Kreacionisti, ki jim manjka kakršenkoli skladen znanstven argument, se rešujejo s priljubljenim strahom pred ateizmom. Učite otroke o evoluciji pri biologiji in kmalu bodo prešli na droge, krajo in seksualno sprevrženost.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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,
V resnici so izobraženi teologi od papeža navzdol trdni v svoji podpori evoluciji. Ta knjiga, "Iskanje Darwinovega boga" Kennetha Millerja je eden najučinkovitejših napadov na ID kar jih poznam, in je še toliko bolj učinkovit, ker ga je napisal predan kristjan.
(Laughter)
Za take ljudi lahko rečemo, da so "poslani od boga" evolucijskemu 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.
(Smeh) --ker razkrijejo laž, da je evolucionizem pravzaprav istoveten ateizmu. Ljudje kot sem jaz pa po drugi strani delamo zgago.
But here, I want to say something nice about creationists. It's not a thing I often do, so listen carefully.
Ampak sedaj bi rad povedal nekaj lepega o kreacionistih. To ni nekaj, kar počnem pogosto, tako da dobro prisluhnite.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
I think they're right about one thing. I think they're right that evolution is fundamentally hostile to religion.
Mislim, da imajo prav v eni stvari. Mislim, da imajo prav, da je evolucija v svoji osnovi nevarna 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.
Nekateri posamezni evolucionisti, kot na primer papež, so prav tako religiozni, a jaz menim, da si lažejo. Verjamem, da je resnično razumevanje darvinizma globoko uničujoče do religiozne vere. Zdaj morda zveni, kot da vam bom pridigal o ateizmu, in rad bi vam zagotovil, da tega ne bom naredil. Pred tako prefinjenim občinstvom bi bilo, kot bi hotel prepričati že prepričane.
No, what I want to urge upon you --
Ne, k čemur bi vas rad pozval, je--
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
Instead, what I want to urge upon you is militant atheism.
--namesto tega bi vas rad pozval k militantnemu ateizmu.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
(Applause)
(Aplavz)
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.
Ampak to ima preveč negativen ton. Če bi bil oseba, ki bi jo skrbelo ohranjanje religiozne vere, bi se zelo bal pozitivne moči evolucijske znanosti in znanosti na splošno, a evolucije še posebej, da navdihne in očara, ravno zato, ker je ateistična.
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 --
Torej, velik problem katerekoli teorije biološkega načrta je pojasniti velikansko statistično neverjetnost živih stvari. Statistična neverjetnost v smeri dobrega načrta-- "kompleksnost" je še ena beseda za to. Običajni argument kreacionistov-- samo eden je; vsi se zreducirajo nanj-- izhaja iz statistične neverjetnosti. Živa bitja so preveč kompleksna, da bi nastala po naključju; torej morajo imeti načrtovalca. Ta argument seveda negira samega sebe. Vsak načrtovalec, sposoben načrtovati nekaj res kompleksnega, bi moral biti sam še bolj zapleten, in to še preden začnemo o drugih stvareh, ki naj bi jih bil sposoben, kot na primer odpuščanje grehov, blagoslov porok, poslušanje molitev-- bil na naši strani v vojni--
(Laughter)
(Smeh)--
disapprove of our sex lives, and so on.
--grajal naše spolno življenje in tako dalje.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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 je problem, ki ga mora rešiti vsaka biološka teorija, in ne da se ga rešiti s predvidevanjem obstoja nečesa še bolj kompleksnega in s tem še povečati problema. Darwinova naravna selekcija je tako neverjetno elegantna, ker reši težavo pojasnjevanja kompleksnosti z ničemer drugim kot preprostostjo. V bistvu to stori z gladkim prehodom postopnega naraščanja, korak za korakom. Ampak tukaj bi rad samo poudaril, da je eleganca darvinizma uničujoča za religijo ravno zato, ker je tako elegantna, tako varčna, tako učinkovita. tako ekonomsko učinkovita. Ima to žilavo učinkovitost lepega visečega mostu.
The God theory is not just a bad theory. It turns out to be -- in principle -- incapable of doing the job required of it.
Teorija o bogu ni samo slaba teorija. Izkaže se, da je v bistvu nezmožna storiti to, kar bi morala.
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.
Torej, da se vrnemo k taktikam in evolucijskemu lobiju, trdim, da je delanje zgage morda prava stvar. Moj pristop napadanja kreacionizma je drugačen od evolucijskega lobija. Moj pristop napadanja kreacionizma je napadanje religije kot celote in na tej točki moram spregovoriti o neverjetnem tabuju proti kritiziranju religije, in to bom storil z besedami pokojnega Douglasa Adamsa, dragega prijatelja, ki bi, če ni nikdar prišel na TED, vsekakor moral biti povabljen.
(Richard Saul Wurman: He was.)
(Richard Saul Wurman: Bil je.)
Richard Dawkins: He was. Good. I thought he must have been.
Richard Dawkins: Bil je. Dobro. Se mi je zdelo, da je moral 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.
Začel je svoj govor, ki je bil posnet v Cambridgeu, malo preden je umrl. Začel je s pojasnilom, kako znanost deluje s testiranjem hipotez, ki so oblikovane tako, da se lahko ovržejo, in nadaljeval,
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: "Zdi se, da religija ne deluje tako. V njenem bistvu so določene ideje, ki jim pravimo "svete". Kaj to pomeni: tukaj je ideja ali pojem, o katerem ne smete reči ničesar slabega. Ne smete. Zakaj ne? Ker ne smete.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
"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." --
Zakaj je tako, da je povsem zakonito podpirati republikance ali demokrate, ta ekonomski model proti drugemu, Macintosh namesto Windowsov, ampak imeti mnenje o začetku vesolja in o tem, kdo ga je ustvaril --ne, to je sveto. Torej, navajeni smo, da se ne sprašujemo o religioznih idejah in zelo zanimivo je, kakšno ogorčenje povzroči Richard, ko to stori." Mislil je mene, ne njega.
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."
"Vsi so popolnoma iz sebe, ker o tem ne smeš govoriti, a če pogledate na to racionalno, ni nobenega razloga, zakaj te ideje ne bi smele biti odprte za razpravo kot vse ostale, razen da smo se nekako dogovorili, da naj ne bi bile." In to je konec Douglasovega 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.
Po mojem mnenju, ne samo da je znanost uničujoča za religijo; religija je uničujoča za znanost. Ljudi uči zadovoljstva s trivialnimi, nadnaravnimi ne-razlagami in jih slepi pred čudovitimi pravimi razlagami, ki so na dosegu. Uči jih sprejemati avtoriteto, razodetje in vero, namesto da bi vztrajali pri dokazih.
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."
Tu je D. Adams, veličastna slika iz njegove knjige "Last Chance to See". Tukaj je značilna znanstvena revija, The Quarterly Review of Biology. Kot gostujoči urednik bom sestavil posebno izdajo o vprašanju "Je asteroid ubil dinozavre?" in prva revija je standardna znanstvena revija, ki predstavlja dokaze, "Plast iridija na K-T meji, kalij-argon datiran krater v Yukatanu, nakazujeta, da je asteroid ubil dinozavre." Popolnoma obočajen znanstveni časopis. Naslednji, "Predsedniku Kraljevega združenja je bilo razodeto močno notranje prepričanje"--(Smeh)-- "...da je asteroid ubil dinozavre." (Smeh)
(Laughter)
"It has been privately revealed to Professor Huxtane
"Profesorju Huxtanu je bilo zasebno razodeto,
that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs."
da je asteroid ubil dinozavre."
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
"Professor Hordley was brought up to have total and unquestioning faith" --
Profesorja Hordleya so vzgajali v popolni in nedvomljivi veri-
(Laughter) --
(Smeh)--
"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 ubil dinozavre." "Profesor Hawkins je razširil uradno dogmo, ki zavezuje vse zveste hawkinsiance, da je asteroid ubil dinozavre."
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
That's inconceivable, of course.
To je seveda nepredstavljivo.
But suppose --
Ampak recimo--
[Supporters of the Asteroid Theory cannot be patriotic citizens]
(Aplavz)
(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."
--leta 1987 je novinar vprašal Georga Busha starejšega, ali priznava enakost državljanstva in patriotizma Američanom, ki so ateisti. Odgovor g. Busha je postal zloglasen. "Ne, mislim, da ateistov ne bi smeli priznavati kot državljane niti kot patriote. To je en narod pred 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?
Bushev fanatizem ni bila osamljena napaka, izrečena v afektu in kasneje vzeta nazaj. Stal je za njo kljub več pozivom o pojasnitvi ali umaknitvi. Res je to mislil. Še pomembneje, vedel je, da ne ogroža njegove izvolitve, prav nasprotno. Tako demokrati kot republikanci razkazujejo svojo religioznost, če hočejo biti izvoljeni. Obe stranki se sklicujeta na "en narod pred bogom". Kaj bi rekel Thomas Jefferson?
[In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty]
Mimogrede, ponavadi nisem preveč ponosen, da sem Britanec,
Incidentally, I'm not usually very proud of being British, but you can't help making the comparison.
ampak ne gre brez primerjave.
(Applause)
(Aplavz)
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.
Kdo je v praksi ateist? Ateist je preprosto nekdo, ki čuti do Jahveja to, kar čuti vsak spodoben kristjan do Thora ali Baala ali zlatega teleta. Kot je bilo rečeno prej, vsi smo ateisti glede večine bogov, v katere je človeštvo kdajkoli verjelo. Nekateri gremo pač za enega boga dlje.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
(Applause)
(Aplavz)
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.
In kakorkoli definiramo ateizem, je to akademsko prepričanje, ki ga nekdo lahko ima, ne da bi ga obrekovali kot nepatriotskega nedržavljana, neprimernega za izvolitev. Pa vendar ne moremo zanikati, da če priznate, da ste ateist, je to enako, kot če bi se predstavili kot g. Hitler ali ga. Belcebub. In to vse izvira iz dojemanja ateistov kot nekakšne čudne, odbite manjšine.
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 precej žalosten članek v New Yorkerju, o osamljenosti, ki jo čuti kot ateist. Očitno se počuti kot del oblegane manjšine, ampak pravzaprav, koliko je ameriških ateistov? Najnovejša raziskava je presenetljivo vzpodbudno branje. Krščanstvo, seveda, zavzema levji delež populacije, skoraj 160 milijonov. Ampak katera bi rekli, da je druga največja skupina, ki prekaša Žide z 2.8 milijona, muslimane z 1.1 milijona in hindujce, budiste in vse ostale religije skupaj? Druga največja skupina, skoraj 30 milijonov, je opisana kot nereligiozna oziroma 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?
Sprašujem se, zakaj so politiki, ko nabirajo glasove, tako prevzeti zaradi moči, recimo, židovskega lobija. Za Izrael se zdi, da dolguje svoj obstoj glasovom ameriških Židov, medtem ko nereligiozni padejo v politično pozabo. Teh sekularnih nereligioznih glasov, če so prav aktivirani, je devetkrat več kot glasov Židov. Zakaj se ta veliko številčnejša manjšina ne premakne in ne razgiba svojih političnih mišic?
Well, so much for quantity. How about quality? Is there any correlation, positive or negative, between intelligence and tendency to be religious?
No, toliko o količini. Kaj pa kakovost? Obstaja korelacija, pozitivna ali negativna, med inteligenco in nagnjenostjo k veri?
[Them folks misunderestimated me]
(Smeh)
(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.
Študija, ki sem jo citiral, ARIS študija, ni delila podatkov glede na socio-ekonomski razred ali izobrazbo, IQ ali karkoli drugega. Ampak nedavni članek Paula G. Bella v reviji Mensa nam da nekaj otipljivih sledi. Mensa je mednarodna organizacija za ljudi z izredno visokim IQ. In iz metaanalize literature Bell zaključi da, citiram: "Od 43 študij, izvedenih od leta 1927, o povezanosti med verskimi prepričanji in inteligenco ali stopnjo izobrazbe, so vse razen štirih odkrile obratno povezavo. Višja ko je inteligenca ali raven izobrazbe, manj verjetno je, da bo ta oseba verna." No, nisem videl originalnih 42 študij in ne morem komentirati metaanalize, ampak rad bi videl več študij v tem stilu. In vem, da so, če lahko dodam, ljudje v tem občinstvu, ki bi zlahka financirali obsežno raziskavo, ki bi odgovorila na vprašanje, in to je moj predlog, če kaj šteje.
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.
Ampak naj vam pokažem nekaj podatkov, ki so bili objavljeni in so analizirali posebno skupino - vrhunske znanstvenike. Leta 1998 sta Larson in Witham anketirala smetano ameriških znanstvenikov, tiste, ki so bili izvoljeni v Narodno akademijo znanosti, in med to izbrano skupino se je vera v osebnega boga spustila na presunljivih sedem odstotkov. Približno 20 odstotkov je agnostikov, ostalim bi lahko rekli ateisti. Podobne številke so dobili za vero v osebno nesmrtnost. Med biologi so številke še nižje: samo 5.5 odstotka jih verjame v boga. Fiziki: 7.5 odstotka. Nisem videl številk za elitne znanstvenike na področjih, kot sta zgodovina ali filozofija, a presenetilo bi me, če bi bile drugačne.
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.
Prišli smo do res izjemne situacije, grotesknega neskladja med ameriškimi izobraženci in ameriškimi volivci. Filozofsko mnenje o naravi vesolja, ki ga ima večina vrhunskih ameriških znanstvenikov in najbrž večina izobražencev na splošno, je tako gnusna ameriškim volivcem, da si je noben kandidat za volitve ne upa potrditi v javnosti. Če imam prav, to pomeni, da je vodilni položaj v največji državi na svetu zaprt za tiste, ki so najbolj primerni za to - izobraženci- razen če so pripravljeni lagati o svojih prepričanjih. Odkrito rečeno, politične možnosti v Ameriki so zelo nastrojene proti tistim, ki so hkrati inteligentni in pošteni.
(Laughter)
(Aplavz)
(Applause)
Nisem ameriški državljan, zato upam da ni neprimerno,
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.
če predlagam, da je nekaj treba storiti.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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.
In namignil sem že, kaj. Mislim, da je to idealen kraj za začetek, glede na to, kaj sem videl na TEDu. Še enkrat, bojim se, da bo potreben denar. Potrebujemo ozaveščujočo kampanjo razkritja za ameriške ateiste.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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.
Lahko bi bilo podobno kampanji homoseksualcev pred nekaj leti, čeprav bog ne daj, da bi se zatekli k javnemu razkrivanju ljudi proti njihovi volji. V večini primerov bodo ljudje, ki se bodo razkrili, pomagali uničiti mit, da je z ateisti nekaj narobe.
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.
Ravno nasprotno, dokazali bodo, da so ateisti pogosto ljudje, ki so lahko vzorniki vašim otrokom, ljudje, ki bi jih lahko uporabili za oglaševanje izdelka, ljudje, kot sedijo tu, v tej sobi. Pojaviti bi se moral efekt snežne krogle, pozitiven odziv, tako da več imen bi imeli, več imen bi dobili. Bilo bi nelinearno, efekt praga. Ko je kritična masa dosežena, pride do nenadnega pospeška v novačenju. Še enkrat, potreben bo denar.
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.
Sumim, da beseda "ateist" vsebuje ali pa je sama po sebi kamen spotike, veliko pretiran, glede na to kaj pomeni, in kamen spotike za ljudi, ki bi se drugače z veseljem razkrili. Torej, katere druge besede bi uporabili, da zgladimo pot, naoljili kolesa, posladkali zdravilo? Darwin sam je imel raje izraz "agnostik"-- in ne samo zaradi zvestobe do prijatelja Huxleya, ki je skoval ta izraz.
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 dejal: "Nikoli nisem bil ateist v smislu zanikanja obstoja boga. Mislim, da bi bil "agnostik", na splošno, najboljši opis mojega stanja duha."
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.
Postal je celo neznačilno razdražljiv do Edwarda Avelinga. Aveling je bil militantni ateist, ki ni prepričal Darwina, da bi sprejel posvetilo v njegovi knjigi o ateizmu-- kar je dalo krila fascinantnemu mitu, da je Karl Marx hotel posvetiti "Das Kapital" Darwinu, kar ni. V resnici je bil to Edward Aveling. Kar se je zgodilo, je, da je bila Avelingova ljubica Marxova hči, in ko sta bila Darwin in Marx oba mrtva, so se Marxovi papirji pomešali z Avelingovimi in Darwinovo pismo z besedami: "Moj dragi gospod, najlepša hvala ampak nočem, da mi posvetite knjigo," naj bi bilo zmotno namenjeno Marxu in je začelo ta mit, ki ste ga najbrž že slišali. Je neke vrste urbani mit, da je Marx poskušal 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.
No, to je bil Aveling in ko ga je srečal, je Darwin izzval Avelinga: "Zakaj si pravite ateisti?" "Agnostik", je odvrnil Aveling, "je samo spoštljiv izraz za 'ateista' in 'ateist' je preprosto agresiven izraz za 'agnostika'." Darwin se je pritoževal: "Ampak zakaj bi morali biti agresivni?" Darwin je menil, da je ateizem že v redu za izobražence, ampak navadni ljudje niso bili, citiram, "zreli za to." Kar je seveda dobro znan argument "ne delaj zgage". Ni zabeleženo, ali mu je Aveling rekel, naj ne bo tako vzvišen.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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.
Ampak kakorkoli, to je bilo pred več kot sto leti. Mislil bi si, da smo od takrat že odrasli. Moj prijatelj, inteligenten in neprakticirajoč Žid, ki po naključju praznuje Sabbath zaradi kulturne solidarnosti, se opisuje kot "agnostičen glede zobne vile". Ne bo si rekel ateist, ker je načeloma nemogoče dokazati neobstoj, ampak izraz agnostičen lahko nakazuje, da je obstoj boga na enaki ravni kot možnost njegovega neobstoja.
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.
Moj prijatelj je striktno agnostičen glede zobne vile, ampak preveč verjetna pa ni? Kot bog. Zato torej fraza "agnostičen glede zobne vile." Bertrand Russell je dokazal isto z uporabo hipotetičnega čajnika v orbiti okrog Marsa. Moral bi biti strogo agnostičen glede obstoja čajnika v orbiti okrog Marsa, ampak to ne pomeni, da obravnavaš verjetnost njegovega obstoja kot enako njegovemu neobstoju.
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.
Sezman stvari, glede katerih naj bi bili striktno agnostični, se ne ustavi pri zobnih vilah in čajnikih. Neskončen je. Če hočeš verjeti v eno izmed njih-- v samoroge ali zobne vile ali čajnike ali Jahveja-- moraš znati povedati, zakaj. Ni odgovornost ostalih, da rečemo, zakaj ne. Ateisti smo tudi a-vilinisti in a-čajnikarji.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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."
Ampak tega ne poudarjamo in zato moj prijatelj uporablja "agnostičen glede zobne vile" kot oznako za nekaj, čemur bi večina rekla ateist. A vseeno, če hočemo pritegniti globoko skrite ateiste, da se javno razkrijejo, bomo morali najti nekaj boljšega za naš slogan kot "agnostičen glede zobne vile ali čajnika."
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.
Kaj pa"humanist"? Ima prednost svetovne mreže dobro organiziranih združenj in revij in obstoječih zadev. Moj edini problem je samo njegov očitni antropocentrizem. Ena izmed stvari, ki nas jih je naučil Darwin, je, da je človeška vrsta samo ena izmed milijonov bratrancev, nekateri so si bolj blizu, drugi manj.
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".
So še druge možnosti, kot na primer "naturalist", ampak tudi tu lahko pride do zmede, ker bi Darwin mislil, da je naturalist-- "naturalist" je seveda mišljen kot nasprotje "supernaturalista"-- in se včasih uporablja-- Darwina bi zmedel drug pomen besede "naturalist", kar je bil, seveda, in najbrž bi bili tudi drugi, ki bi ga zamenjali z nudizmom.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
Such people might be those belonging to the British lynch mob, which last year attacked a pediatrician in mistake for a pedophile.
Taki ljudje so najbrž pripadali britanskim huliganom, ki so lani napadli pediatra, ki so ga zamešali s pedofilom.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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 najboljša izmed alternativ za "ateist" preprosto "ne-teist". Manjka mu močna konotacija, da definitivno ni boga in bi jo zato zlahka sprejeli "agnostiki glede čajnika ali zobne vile". Popolnoma je združljiva z bogom fizikov. Ko ateisti kot Stephen Hawking in Albert Einstein uporabljajo besedo "bog", jo seveda uporabljajo kot metaforično okrajšavo za tisti globoki, skrivnostni del fizike, ki ga še ne razumemo. "Ne-teist" bo zato dovolj, ampak za razliko od "ateist" ne povzroči istega fobičega, histeričnega odziva. Ampak jaz mislim, pravzaprav, da je alternativa ujeti bistvo besede "ateizem" same ravno zato, ker je tabu beseda, ki nosi s seboj vznemirjenje histerične fobije. Kritično maso bi morda težje dosegli z uporabo besede "ateist" kot z besedo "ne-teist" ali katero drugo nekonfliktno besedo. Ampak če bi jo dosegli s strah vzbujajočo besedo "ateist"-- bi bil politični učinek še večji.
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."
Rekel sem, da če bi bil veren, bi se zelo bal evolucije. Še dlje bom šel. Bal bi se znanosti na splošno, če jo prav razumemo. In to zato, ker je znanstveni pogled na svet toliko bolj vznemirljiv, toliko bolj poetičen, bolj poln čudes kot karkoli v obubožanem naboru verske domišljije. Kot je dejal Carl Sagan, še en pred kratkim preminuli heroj: "Zakaj ni skoraj nobena večja religija pogledala znanosti in zaključila: 'To je bolje, kot smo si mislili! Vesolje je veliko večje, kot je dejal naš prerok, bolj veličastno, bolj elegantno?' Namesto tega rečejo, 'Ne, ne, ne! Moj bog je majhen bog in hočem, da tak tudi ostane.' Religija, stara ali nova, ki bi poudarjala mogočnost vesolja, kot jo razkriva moderna znanost, bi morda lahko na plan ponesla zaloge spoštovanja in občudovanja, ki se jih tradicionalne vere komajda dotaknejo."
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.
To je elitno občinstvo, zato bi torej pričakoval, da je približno 10 odstotkov vernih. Mnogi ste najbrž del našega vljudnega spoštovanja religije, ampak prav tako sumim, da vas med temi kar veliko skrivoma prezira religijo tako kot jaz.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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.
Če ste eden izmed njih, in seveda mnogi izmed vas mogoče niste, ampak če ste eden izmed njih, vas prosim, da nehate biti vljudni, to priznate in poveste, in če ste slučajno bogati, premislite, kako bi lahko naredili razliko. Religiozni lobi v tej državi je izdatno financiran prek fundacij-- da ne omenjamo davčnih olajšav-- prek fundacij, kot sta na primer Fundacija Templeton in Discovery inštitut. Potrebujemo anti-Templetona, da stopi naprej. Če bi se moje knjige prodajale tako dobro kot knjige Stephena Hawkinga, namesto samo tako dobro kot Richarda Dawkinsa, bi to storil sam.
People are always going on about, "How did September the 11th change you?"
Ljudje kar naprej sprašujejo: "Kako te je 11. september spremenil?"
Well, here's how it changed me.
No, mene je spremenil takole.
Let's all stop being so damned respectful.
Nehajmo biti tako prekleto spoštljivi.
Thank you very much.
Najlepša hvala.
(Applause)
(Aplavz)