That splendid music, the coming-in music, "The Elephant March" from "Aida," is the music I've chosen for my funeral.
Ta divna muzika, uvodna muzika... "Marš slonova" iz Aide - to je muzika koju sam odabrao za svoju sahranu.
(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.
Možete da vidite i zašto. Trijumfalna je. Ja ću... Ja neću osećati ništa, ali kada bih mogao, osećao bih se trijumfalno zato što sam uopšte živeo, što sam živeo na ovoj predivnoj planeti, i što sam imao priliku da razumem nešto o tome zašto sam uopšte i bio ovde, pre nego što nisam bio ovde.
Can you understand my quaint English accent?
Da li razumete moj čudni 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.
Kao i svi, bio sam zadivljen jučerašnjom sekcijom o životinjama, Rovertom Fulom i Fransom Lentingom i ostalima, i lepotom stvari koje su prikazali. Jedina stvar koja mi je parala uši bila je kada je Džefri Kacenberg rekao za mustanga: "Najveličanstvenija bića koja je Bog stavio na Zemlji." Naravno, svi mi znamo da on to nije zapravo mislio, ali danas u ovoj zemlji ne možeš biti suviše pažljiv.
(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 --
Ja sam biolog, i centralna teorema moje struke: teorija postanja, Darvinova teorija evolucije putem prirodne selekcije. U svim stručnim krugovima ona je potpuno prihvaćena. U nestručnim krugovima izvan Amerike ona se uglavnom ignoriše. Ali, u nestručnim krugovima u Americi, ona izaziva toliko neprijateljskih reakcija...
(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 je potpuno ispravno reći da su američki biolozi u ratnom stanju. Taj rat toliko zabrinjava trenutno, sa sudskim parnicama koje se pokreću u sve većem broju država, da sam morao da kažem nešto 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.
Ako vas zanima šta imam da kažem o darvinizmu kao takvom, to možete da saznate u mojim knjigama, koje nećete naći u knjžari prekoputa.
(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 --
Savremeni sudski procesi se često tiču navodne nove verzije kreacionizma, koja se naziva "inteligentni dizajn", ili samo ID. Ne dajte se prevariti. Ništa nije novo u vezi sa ID-om. To je čist kreacionizam sa drugačijim imenom. Prekršten, pažljivo biram tu reč,
(Laughter)
(smeh)
for tactical, political reasons.
iz 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 teoretičara inteligentnog dizajna su oni isti stari argumenti koji su oboreni mnogo puta, ponovo i ponovo, od vremena Darvina pa do danas. Postoji i efikasan evolucionistički lobi koji koordinira borbom u ime nauke, i ja se trudim da uradim sve što mogu kako bih mu pomogao, dok se oni poprilično uzrujaju kada se ljudi poput mene usude da istaknu da smo mi i ateisti i evolucionisti. Oni nas doživljavaju kao provokatore, a sigurno razumete zašto. Kreacionisti, u nedostatku bilo kakvog suvislog naučnog argumenta koriste popularnu fobiju od ateizma. Izvolite predavati deci evoluciju na časovima biologije, i ona će uskoro da se drogiraju, postaće kriminalci i perverznjaci.
(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,
Zapravo, obrazovani teolozi od Pape na niže čvrsto podržavaju evoluciju. Ova knjiga Keneta Milera, "Pronalazak Darvinovog boga", jedan je od najefikasnijih napada na inteligentni dizajn koje sam video, a još je efikasniji zato što ju je napisao pobožni hrišćanin.
(Laughter)
Ljude poput Keneta Milera možemo nazvati Bogom danim za evolucionistički lobi
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) zato što otkrivaju laž da je evolucionizam zapravo isto što i ateizam. Sa druge strane, ljudi poput mene su provokatori.
But here, I want to say something nice about creationists. It's not a thing I often do, so listen carefully.
Ali sada želim da kažem i nešto lepo o kreacionistima. Slušajte pažljivo, jer ovo ne radim često.
(Laughter)
(smeh)
I think they're right about one thing. I think they're right that evolution is fundamentally hostile to religion.
Mislim da su u jednoj stvari u pravu. Mislim da su upravu kada kažu da je evolucija u osnovi neprijatelj 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 da su mnogi evolucionisti, poput Pape, religiozni, ali smatram da se zavaravaju. Verujem da pravo razumevanje darvinizma duboko nagriza religioznu veru. Može se učiniti da sam počeo da propovedam ateizam, ali želim da vas uverim da to nije ono što ću učiniti. To bi za tako prefinjenu publiku kao što je ova bilo isto što i propovedanje crkvenom horu.
No, what I want to urge upon you --
Ne, ono što želim da vam ispropovedim
(Laughter)
(smeh)
Instead, what I want to urge upon you is militant atheism.
ono što zapravo želim da propovedam jeste militantni ateizam.
(Laughter)
(smeh)
(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 sad zvuči previše negativno. Da sam želeo, da samo osoba koja želi da očuva veru, bio bih jako uplašen snage nauke o evoluciji, kao i svake druge nauke, ali ove posebno... snage da inspiriše i očara, upravo zato što je ona 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 --
E sad, veliki problem za svaku teoriju biološkog dizajna jeste objašnjenje statistički enormno malih verovatnoća za živa bića, statističke neverovatnoće u pravcu pravilnog dizajna -- Kompleksnost je prava reč za ovo. Standarni argument kreacionista - postoji samo jedan, a svi ostali se svode na ovaj jedan -- polazi upravo od te statističke neverovatnoće. Živa stvorenja su suviše kompleksna da bi nastala slučajnošću; i stoga mora postojati njihov tvorac. Ovakva tvrdnja, naravno, uskače sama sebi u stomak. Ma kakav tvorac sposoban da stvori nešto vrlo složeno mora sam da bude još složeniji, i to je samo početak onoga što on treba da radi, a tu su i druge stvari, kao što su oproštaj grehova, blagoslov braka, uslišivanje molitva... -- navijanje za našu stranu u nekom ratu --
(Laughter)
(smeh)
disapprove of our sex lives, and so on.
-- osuđivanje naših seksualnih života, i 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.
Složenost je problem koji svaka biološka teorija mora da reši, i nemoguće ga je rešiti pretpostavljanjem uzroka koji je još složeniji, čime problem postaje još složeniji. Darvinova prirpodna selekcija je toliko zadivljujuće elegantna, jer rešava taj problem tako što složenost objašnjava koristeći samo jednostavnost. Ona to u osnovi čini preko glatkog uspona, postepenog uspona, korak po korak. Ovde moram da naglasim da je poenta ove priče kako darvinizam nagriza religiju upravo zato što on jeste elegantan, sveden, moćan, štedljivo moćan. On poseduje stabilnost prelepog 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.
A teorija o bogu nije samo loša teorija. Ispada da ona, u principu, ne može ni da drži vodu.
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.
Da se vratim na taktiku evolucionističkog lobija. Želim da istaknem da je provokacija možda i najbolji metod. Moj pristup napadu kreacionizma je drugačiji od pristupa te struje. Moj pristup napadu kreacionizma podrazumeva napad na religiju, i ovde se dotičem velikog tabua - zabrani pričanja lošeg o religiji, a ja ću to da učinim rečima pokojnog Daglasa Adamsa, dragog prijatelja koji bi, ukoliko nije bio na TED-u svakako trebalo da bude 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 trebalo da bude.
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 svoj govor snimljen na Kembridžu, neposredno pred smrt, započinje objašnjavajući na koji način nauka radi, kroz testiranje hipoteza, koje su tako postavljene da budu slabe na opovrgavanje , a onda 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 funkcioniše tako. U njenom središtu su određene ideje, koje nazivamo svetima. A to ustvari znači da o takvoj ideja ili tvrdnja ne smeš da kažeš ni jednu lošu stvar. Jednostavno ti nije dozvoljeno. A zašto? Zato što nije.
(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." --
Zašto bi bilo savršeno legitimno podržati republikance ili demokrate, ovaj ili onaj ekonomski model, Mac umesto Windows-a, a da je imati stav o tome kako je univerzum nastao, ili o onome ko ga je stovrio - ne, to je sveto. Dakle, navikli smo da se religijske ideje ne izazivaju, i veoma je interesantna rekacija koju Ričard izaziva onda kada to radi." Mislio je na mene, ne na onog drugog.
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 potpuno pomame oko toga, zato što izgovaranje takvih stvari nije dozvoljeno, ali kada se to posmatra racionalno, ne postoji ni jedan razlog zbog koga o takvim idejama ne treba da se raspravlja, kao o bilo kojim drugim; samo što smo se nekako složili međusobno da ne treba," i to je kraj 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.
Smatram da ne samo da nauka nagriza religiju, već i da religija nagriza nauku. Ona (religija) uči ljude da budu zadovoljni trivijalnim, natprirodnim objašnjenjima, i čini ih slepim za sjajna realistična objašnjenja koja već imamo da ponudimo. Uči ih da prihvate autoritet, otkrovenje i veru, umesto da uvek tragaju za 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 Daglas Adams, sjajna fotografija iz njegove knjige Poslednja šansa da progledamo. (Last Chance to See) A ovo je tipičan naučni časopis - Quarterly Review of Biology. Kao gostujući urednik sastaviću posebno izdanje posvećeno pitanju da li je asteroid ubio dinosauruse. Prvi članak je standardni naučni članak u kome se iznose dokazi, "Iridijumski sloj na K-T granici, kalijum-argonsko datiranje kratera u Jukatanu, kao indikacija da je asteroid ubio dinosauruse." Potpno standardan naučni rad. Sad, sledeći: "Predsednik Kraljevskog društva snažno i iskreno veruje... (smeh) ...da je asteroid ubio dinosauruse." (smeh)
(Laughter)
"It has been privately revealed to Professor Huxtane
"Profesoru Hakstejnu je rečeno iz privatnih izvora
that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs."
da je asteroid ubio dinosauruse"
(Laughter)
(smeh)
"Professor Hordley was brought up to have total and unquestioning faith" --
"Profesor Horli je od malih nogu vaspitan tako da poseduje potpunu i nepokolebljivu veru
(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 ubio dinosauruse" "Profesor Hokins propagira zvaničnu dogmu, koja je obavezna za sve odane hokinzijance, da je asteroid ubio dinosauruse."
(Laughter)
(smeh)
That's inconceivable, of course.
To je, naravno, neprihvatljivo.
But suppose --
Ali pretpostavimo...
[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 novinar upitao je Džordža Buša starijeg da li misli da su ateisti jednaki građani i patriote kao i ostali Amerikanci. Bušov sraman odgovor glasio je: "Ne, nisam siguran da ateiste možemo smatrati građanima, kao što ne treba da ih ubrajamo u patriote. 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?
Ovo nije Bušova izolovana omaška, iskazana u trenutnom verskom zanosu, a kasnije povučena. On je se nije odrekao ni posle mnogih poziva za objašnjenje ili povlačenje reči. On je to stvarno mislio. Tačnioje, on je znao da to nije nikakva pretnja izbornim rezultatima, baš naprotiv. Demokrate i republikanci moraju da paradiraju svojom religioznošću ukoliko žele pobedu na izborima. Obe partije obraćaju se jednoj naciji pod bogom. Šta bi na to rekao Tomas Džeferson?
[In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty]
Uzgred budi rečeni, obično nisam ponosan što sam Britanac,
Incidentally, I'm not usually very proud of being British, but you can't help making the comparison.
ali ne mogu da izbegnem ovo poređenje.
(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.
Šta praktično znači biti ateista? Ateista je neko ko o Jehovi (Bogu) misli isto što i svaki pristojni hrišćanin misli o Toru ili Balu ili zlatnom teletu. Kao što je već rečeno, svi smo mi ateisti za većinu božanstava u koje je čovečanstvo ikada verovalo. Neki od nas samo idu za još jednog boga dalje.
(Laughter)
(smeh)
(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.
Kako god da definišemo ateizam, on je zasigurno oblik akademskog uverenja na koje svaka osoba ima pravo, a da pritom ne bude opanjkavana kao ne-patriota, ili neuračunjiv građanin. Bilo kako bilo, nepobitna je činjenica da je se ateisti danas predstavljaju kao g-din Hitler ili g-ža Belzebub. Sve to proizilazi iz shvatanja da su ateisti neka uvrnuta 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.
Natali Angier napisala je jedan tužan tekst za New Yorker, u kome govori o tome koliko se usamljeno oseća kao ateistkinja. Objasnila je kako se oseća u toj opkoljenoj manjini. A koliko je zapravo ateista u Americi? Poslednje istraživanje pruža ohrabrujuće podatke. Hrišćanstvo, naravno, zauzima ogromnu većinu populacije koja broji blizu 160 miliona. Šta mislite, koja grupa zauzima drugo mesto, ubedljivo ispred 2.8 miliona Jevreja i 1.1 milion Muslimana, Hindusa, Budista i svih ostalih religija zajedno? Drugo mesto, sa blizu 30 miliona zauzima grupa 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?
I onda moraš da se zapitaš zašto su političari, željni glasova, tako prepuni strahopoštovanja prema, recimo, jevrejskom lobiju. Država Izrael izgleda postoji zahvaljujući glasu američkih Jevreja, dok u isto vreme nereligiozne šalju u politički zaborav. Ti sekularni, nereligiozni glasovi, adekvatno okupljeni, su devet puta brojniji od jevrejskih. Kako to da ova daleko značajnija manjina ne napravi prvi korak i upotrebi 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?
Dobro, toliko o kvantitetu. Sada o kvalitetu... Postoji li bilo kakva veza, pozitivna ili negativna, između inteligencije i sklonosti ka religioznisti?
[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.
Istraživanje koje sam spomenuo, koje je sproveo ARIS, nije segregiralo podatke na osnovu socio-ekonomskog statusa, stepena obrazovanja, koeficijenta inteligencije, ili na drugi način. Ali, nedavno objavljen članak Pola G. Bela u Mensinom magazinu pruža nekakav uvid u ovo. Mensa je, kao što znate, međunarodna organizacija koja okuplja ljude sa visokim koeficijentom inteligencije. Na osnovu sveobuhvatne analize literature Bel zaključuje da, citiram, "od 43 studije sprovedene posle 1927. godine, o vezi između religioznosti i inteligencije ili stepena obrazovanja, sve osim četiri pokazuju negativnu vezu. To jest, što je neko inteligentniji ili obrazovaniji, to je manja šansa da je taj neko religiozan." Ja, ipak, nisam čitao te studije, pa ne mogu da komentarišem analitički postupak, ali bih svakako voleo da se obavi više ovakvih istraživanja. I ukoliko mi dozvolite, svestan sam da ovde među nama ima vas koji lako možete da finansijski podržite jedno masivno istraživanje koje će zauvek odgovoriti na to pitanje, i ovom prilikom 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.
Dozvolite mi sada da vam predstavim podatke koji su ispravni i zvanični, a koji se odnose na jednu posebnu grupu, uglavnom top-naučnika. Larson i Vitam su 1998. godine uradili istraživanje u samom kremu američke nauke, među članovima Nacionalne Akademije Nauka. I u ovako odabranoj grupi verovanje u boga opada na zadivljujućih 7%. Oko 20% su agnostici, a ostali bi se ispravno mogli nazvati ateistima. Brojke su slične i kada se analiza verovanje u besmrtnost duše. Ove brojke su još manje među biolozima. Samo 5,5% veruje u boga, naspram 7.5% fizičara. Nisam upoznat sa statistikom u drugim naučnim oblastima, recimo istoriji ili filozofiji, ali bio bih iznenađen ako bi bile drugačije.
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 da smo došli do zaista interesantne situacije - do groteskne razlike između američke inteligencije sa jedne, i glasačkog tela sa druge strane. Filozofski stav o prirodi univerzuma, svojstven za većinu najvećih naučnika u Americi, a verovatno i izvan nje, toliko je odvratan američkoj javnosti da ni jedan kandidat na izborima ne sme da se usudi da ga podrži. Ako sam u pravu, to sada znači da vrh najmoćnije države na svetu nije rezervisan upravo za one ljude koji tu treba da budu, intelektualce, osim ukoliko nisu spremni da lažu o svojim verovanjima. Bespogovorno, političke prilike u Americi nikako nisu mesto za one koji su u isto vreme inteligentni i iskreni.
(Laughter)
(aplauz)
(Applause)
Ja nisam građanin ove zemlje, ali se nadam da ukoliko predložim da se nešto mora da se promeni
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.
to neće biti suviše nepristojno.
(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.
A mislim da sam već delimično otkrio šta bi to moglo da bude. A iz onoga što sam video na TED-u, mislim da je ovo idealno mesto za to. Ponavljam i da će to koštati. Potrebno nam je osvešćivanje, osnaživanje ateista u Americi da "izađu iz ormara". (aluzija na gej populaciju - prim. prev.)
(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.
I to bi moglo da bude slično onoj kampanji homoseksualaca od pre neku godinu, pritom, nikako se ne bismo smeli pognuti pred raskrinkavanjem ljudi protiv njihove volje. U večini slučajeva, ljudi koji se sami razotkriju doprineće uništenju mita o tome kako nešto nije uredu sa ateistima.
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.
Naprotiv, oni će upravo i pokazati da su ateisti često ona vrsta ljudi koji treba da budu uzor vašoj deci. Ona vrsta ljudi koju bi marketinški stručnjaci angažovali da preporuši neki proizvod. Ona vrsta ljudi koji sede u ovoj prostoriji. Trebalo bi da se javi i efekat grudvanja, pozitivan fidbek, da što više imena imamo, više novih i dobijamo. Verovatno ćemo videti i efekat praga. Kada se dostigne kritična masa, javiće se neviđeno ubrzanje cele stvari. Ali, ponovo, treba nam 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.
Sumnjam da sama reč "ateista" sadrži u sebi prepreku, koja nema veze sa onime što ona zapravo znači, a ista ta prepreka ne dozvoljava ateistima da se rado tako i predstavljaju. Koje bi još reči mogle da se koriste u tu svrhu, da podmažu sistem, poguraju stvar. Darvin je voleo termin "agnostik", i to ne samo zbog odanosti prijatelju Haksliju, koji je tu reč i skovao.
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."
Darvin je rekao: "Nikada nisam bio ateista u smislu poricanja postojanja Boga. Mislim da bi "agnostik" bio pravi termin kojim bi se opisalo stanje mog 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.
Edvarda Ejveling bi ga lako iznervirao, što mu nije bila osobina. Ejveling je bio glasni ateista, koji nije uspeo da ubedi Darvina prihvati da mu Ejveling posveti svoju knjigu, što je slučajno i izrodilo fascinantan mit o tome da je Karl Marks hteo da Kapital posveti Darvinu. Nije. To je zapravo želeo Ejveling. Desilo se to da je Marksova ćerka bila sa Ejvelingom, i da su se nakon Darvinove i Marksove smrti izmešali Ejvelingovi i Marksovi Papiri, uključujući i Darvinovo pismo u kome je pisalo: "Dragi moj gospodine, hvala Vam mnogo, ali ja ne želim da svoju knjigu posvetite meni." Otud pogrešna pretpostavka da je pismo bilo upućeno Marksu, što je preraslo u taj mit, koji ste verovatno već čuli. To da je Marks hteo da posveti Kapital Darvinu je neka vrsta urbane legende.
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.
Bilo kako bilo, Ejveling je hteo da mu posveti knjigu, i kada su se sreli Darvin ga je pitao: "Zašto se nazivate ateistima?" "Agnostik", odgovorio je Ejveling, "je zapravo pristojna reč za ateistu, dok je ateist agresivan termin za agnostika." Darvin dalje pita: "Ali zašto biste hteli biti agresivni?" Darvin je smatrao da bi ateizam bio prihvatljiv u obrazovanim krugovima, ali da javnost nije, citiram, "zrela za njega". Što je naravno naš stari prijateljski argument: "Ne talasaj." Nije zabeleženo da je Ejveling rekao Darvinu da spusti nos.
(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.
Ali, kako bilo, to je bilo pre više od sto godina. Pomislisli biste da smo malo porasli od tad. Jedan moj prijatelj, posrnuli Jevrej, koji istovremeno obeležava Sabat iz razloga kulturne solidarnosti i tradicije, sebe opisuje kao agnostika za dobre vile. On se neće nazvati ateistom zato što je, u principu nemoguće dokazati njeno postojanje, pa agnostici smatraju kako je i postojanje boga u terminima verovatnoće 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.
Tako je on striktni agnostik po pitanju postojanja dobrih vila, a njeno postojanje nije bap verovatno, zar ne? Kao i postojanje boga. I otuda to - agnostik za dobre vile. Međutim, Bertrand Rasel je pokazao istu poentu, koristeći nekakav zamišljeni čajnik u Marsovoj orbiti. Morali biste da budete strogi agnostici po pitanju postojanja čajnika u orbiti oko Marsa, ali to ne znači da verovatnoću njegovog postojanja smatrate jednakom verovatnoći njegovog 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.
Lista stvari za koje možemo biti isključivi agnostici ne prestaje kod dobrih vila i takvog čanika. Ona je beskonačna. Ako želite verovati u bilo koju od njih, jednoroge, dobre vile, čajnike, Jahvea, na vama je da objasnite zašto verujete. Nije na nama da objasnimo zašto ne verujemo. Mi koji smo ateisti, smo takođe i a-čajnici i a-vilići.
(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."
Ali se ne stidimo da to i kažemo. Zbog toga taj moj prijatelj kaže za sebe da je agnostik za dobre vile, kao odrednicu za nešto što bi većina ljudi označila kao ateizam. Ukoliko želimo da motivišemo ateiste da probiju led, moramo da mislimo nešto bolje od bedža na kome piše "agnostik za dobre vile (ili čajnike)".
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.
A termin "humanista"? On se već široko koristi među svetskim organizacijama, mrežama, časopisima, i drugim stvarima. Moj problem sa njim je njegov očigledan antropocentrizam. Jedna od stvari koju nas je Darvin naučio je i da ljudska vrsta nije jedina, već je jedna od milona srodnih, nekih više, drugih manje.
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".
Postoje i druge mogućnosti, kao recimo "naturalista". Ali i tu može da dođe do zabune, čak i što se Darvina tiče, jer... Značenje reči naturalista je, naravno, suprotno od značenja reči "natpridodno". I u tom smislu se ponekad i koristi. Ali Darvin bi bio zbunjen drugim značenjem te reči, koju je izjednačavao sa, a pretpostavljam da bi se još neki složili... oni koji bi je pomešali sa nudistima.
(Laughter)
(smeh)
Such people might be those belonging to the British lynch mob, which last year attacked a pediatrician in mistake for a pedophile.
Neki od njih bi mogli da budu i iz grupe Britanaca koja je prošle godine linčovala pedijatra, jer ga je zamenila sa 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 najbolja alternativa za izraz ateista jednostavno "ne-teista". Nedostaje joj taj snažan prizvuk da bog ne postoji, i stoga bi mogla da bude lako prihvaćena kao i "agnostik za čajnike". Sasvim je kompatibilna sa pojmom boga koji koriste fizičari. Kada ljudi poput... Kada ateisti poput Stivena Hokinga ili Alberta Ajnštajna koriste reč "bog", oni se njome služe kao metaforom za onaj duboki, misteriozni deo fizike koji još uvek ne razumemo. Reč ne-teista bi u tom smislu značila sve to, a da nasuprot reči "ateista" ne izaziva te fobične i histerične reakcije. Ipak, zapravo mislim da je dobar način koristiti upravo reč "ateista" baš zato što je ona tabu koji izaziva toliko treske i histerične fobije. Možda teže okupimo kritičnu masu tom rečju nego nekom drugom, kao što je ne-teista, nego nekom drugom pomirljivijom, kao što je ne-teista, ali ako to uspemo da uradimo sa tom rečju, efekat će biti još jači i 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."
Rekao sam bih se jako bžplašio evolucije da sam religiozan. Otići ću i korak dalje. Plašio bih se i nauke uopšte ukoliko je ispravno razumem. I to zbog toga što je naučni pogled na svet toliko uzbudljiviji i toliko poetičniji, toliko ispunjeniji čudima nego bilo kakva izmišljotina u osiromašenim rafalima religiozne mašte. Kao što je Karl Sagan, još jedan nedavno preminuli heroj rekao: "Kako to da gotovo nijedna religija nije pogledala nauku i rekla: "Ovo je bolje nego što smo mi mislili! Svemir je neuporedivo veći nego što je naš prorok rekao, veličanstveniji, finiji, elegantniji!" Umesto toga oni kažu: "Ne, ne, ne! Moj bog je malen bog i želim da ostane takav." Bilo koja religija, stara ili nova, koja naglašava veličanstvenost svemira koju otkriva moderna nauka mogla bi da istakne poštovanje i strahopoštovanje, koje tako teško izlazi iz konvencionalnih vera."
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.
Ovde je elitna publika, i stoga bih očekivao da je oko 10% vas religiozno. Mnogi od vas verovatno smatrate da je kulturno i poželjno poštovati religiju, ali isto tako mislim da veliki broj vas potajno prezire religiju koliko i ja.
(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.
Ako ste jedna od tih osoba, pritom mnogi od vas možda i nisu, ali ako jeste jedna od takvih osoba, zamolio bih vas da prestanete da budete ugodni, već da istupite i to i kažete. A ukoliko ste pritom i bogati, razmislite i otome na koj način možete da promenite sve ovo. Religijski lobi u ovoj zemlji je masivno finansiran od strane fondacija, a da ne pominjem i sve poreske olakšice, od fondacija kao što su Templeton i Discovery Institut. Neophodno je da istupi anti-Templton. Kada bi se moje knjige prodavale koliko i Hokingove, umesto onoliko koliko se prodaju Dokinsove, ja bih to uradio.
People are always going on about, "How did September the 11th change you?"
Ljudi me sve vreme pitaju kako me je promenio događaj 11. septembra.
Well, here's how it changed me.
Evo kako.
Let's all stop being so damned respectful.
Prestanimo da budemo tako prokleto učtivi.
Thank you very much.
Hvala vam mnogo.
(Applause)
(aplauz)