http___www.ted.com_talks_alain_de_botton_atheism_2_0_transcript_language_hr_1.xml
1.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 7.10 7.11 7.12 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 10.1 10.2 10.3 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.7 11.8 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.7 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.6 13.7 13.8 13.9 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.5 14.6 14.7 14.8 14.9 14.10 14.11 14.12 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 15.6 15.7 15.8 15.9 15.10 15.11 15.12 15.13 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 17.1 17.2 17.3 17.4 17.5 17.6 17.7 17.8 17.9 17.10 18.1 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 19.5 19.6 19.7 19.8 19.9 19.10 19.11 19.12 20.1 20.2 20.3 20.4 20.5 20.6 20.7 20.8 21.1 21.2 21.3 21.4 21.5 21.6 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.4 22.5 22.6 22.7 22.8 23.1 23.2 23.3 23.4 23.5 23.6 23.7 24.1 24.2 24.3 24.4 24.5 24.6 24.7 25.1 25.2 25.3 25.4 25.5 25.6 25.7 25.8 26.1 26.2 26.3 26.4 26.5 26.6 26.7 26.8 27.1 27.2 27.3 27.4 27.5 27.6 27.7 28.1 28.2 28.3 28.4 28.5 28.6 29.1 29.2 29.3 29.4 29.5 29.6 29.7 29.8 29.9 30.1 31.1 32.1 33.1 34.1 34.2 35.1 36.1 37.1 37.2 38.1 38.2 38.3 38.4 38.5 38.6 38.7 38.8 38.9 39.1 39.2 39.3 40.1 40.2 40.3 40.4 40.5 40.6 40.7 40.8 41.1 41.2 41.3 42.1 42.2 42.3 42.4 42.5 42.6 42.7 42.8 43.1 44.1 45.1 45.2 45.3 45.4 45.5 45.6 45.7 46.1 47.1 48.1
Transcript 0:11 One of the most common ways of dividing the world is into those who believe and those who don't -- into the religious and the atheists. And for the last decade or so, it's been quite clear what being an atheist means. There have been some very vocal atheists who've pointed out, not just that religion is wrong, but that it's ridiculous. These people, many of whom have lived in North Oxford, have argued -- they've argued that believing in God is akin to believing in fairies and essentially that the whole thing is a childish game. 0:50 Now I think it's too easy. I think it's too easy to dismiss the whole of religion that way. And it's as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. And what I'd like to inaugurate today is a new way of being an atheist -- if you like, a new version of atheism we could call Atheism 2.0. Now what is Atheism 2.0? Well it starts from a very basic premise: of course, there's no God. Of course, there are no deities or supernatural spirits or angels, etc. Now let's move on; that's not the end of the story, that's the very, very beginning. 1:27 I'm interested in the kind of constituency that thinks something along these lines: that thinks, "I can't believe in any of this stuff. I can't believe in the doctrines. I don't think these doctrines are right. But," a very important but, "I love Christmas carols. I really like the art of Mantegna. I really like looking at old churches. I really like turning the pages of the Old Testament." Whatever it may be, you know the kind of thing I'm talking about -- people who are attracted to the ritualistic side, the moralistic, communal side of religion, but can't bear the doctrine. Until now, these people have faced a rather unpleasant choice. It's almost as though either you accept the doctrine and then you can have all the nice stuff, or you reject the doctrine and you're living in some kind of spiritual wasteland under the guidance of CNN and Walmart. 2:16 So that's a sort of tough choice. I don't think we have to make that choice. I think there is an alternative. I think there are ways -- and I'm being both very respectful and completely impious -- of stealing from religions. If you don't believe in a religion, there's nothing wrong with picking and mixing, with taking out the best sides of religion. And for me, atheism 2.0 is about both, as I say, a respectful and an impious way of going through religions and saying, "What here could we use?" The secular world is full of holes. We have secularized badly, I would argue. And a thorough study of religion could give us all sorts of insights into areas of life that are not going too well. And I'd like to run through a few of these today. 3:02 I'd like to kick off by looking at education. Now education is a field the secular world really believes in. When we think about how we're going to make the world a better place, we think education; that's where we put a lot of money. Education is going to give us, not only commercial skills, industrial skills, it's also going to make us better people. You know the kind of thing a commencement address is, and graduation ceremonies, those lyrical claims that education, the process of education -- particularly higher education -- will make us into nobler and better human beings. That's a lovely idea. Interesting where it came from. 3:34 In the early 19th century, church attendance in Western Europe started sliding down very, very sharply, and people panicked. They asked themselves the following question. They said, where are people going to find the morality, where are they going to find guidance, and where are they going to find sources of consolation? And influential voices came up with one answer. They said culture. It's to culture that we should look for guidance, for consolation, for morality. Let's look to the plays of Shakespeare, the dialogues of Plato, the novels of Jane Austen. In there, we'll find a lot of the truths that we might previously have found in the Gospel of Saint John. Now I think that's a very beautiful idea and a very true idea. They wanted to replace scripture with culture. And that's a very plausible idea. It's also an idea that we have forgotten. 4:21 If you went to a top university -- let's say you went to Harvard or Oxford or Cambridge -- and you said, "I've come here because I'm in search of morality, guidance and consolation; I want to know how to live," they would show you the way to the insane asylum. This is simply not what our grandest and best institutes of higher learning are in the business of. Why? They don't think we need it. They don't think we are in an urgent need of assistance. They see us as adults, rational adults. What we need is information. We need data, we don't need help. 4:50 Now religions start from a very different place indeed. All religions, all major religions, at various points call us children. And like children, they believe that we are in severe need of assistance. We're only just holding it together. Perhaps this is just me, maybe you. But anyway, we're only just holding it together. And we need help. Of course, we need help. And so we need guidance and we need didactic learning. 5:14 You know, in the 18th century in the U.K., the greatest preacher, greatest religious preacher, was a man called John Wesley, who went up and down this country delivering sermons, advising people how they could live. He delivered sermons on the duties of parents to their children and children to their parents, the duties of the rich to the poor and the poor to the rich. He was trying to tell people how they should live through the medium of sermons, the classic medium of delivery of religions. 5:37 Now we've given up with the idea of sermons. If you said to a modern liberal individualist, "Hey, how about a sermon?" they'd go, "No, no. I don't need one of those. I'm an independent, individual person." What's the difference between a sermon and our modern, secular mode of delivery, the lecture? Well a sermon wants to change your life and a lecture wants to give you a bit of information. And I think we need to get back to that sermon tradition. The tradition of sermonizing is hugely valuable, because we are in need of guidance, morality and consolation -- and religions know that. 6:09 Another point about education: we tend to believe in the modern secular world that if you tell someone something once, they'll remember it. Sit them in a classroom, tell them about Plato at the age of 20, send them out for a career in management consultancy for 40 years, and that lesson will stick with them. Religions go, "Nonsense. You need to keep repeating the lesson 10 times a day. So get on your knees and repeat it." That's what all religions tell us: "Get on you knees and repeat it 10 or 20 or 15 times a day." Otherwise our minds are like sieves. 6:37 So religions are cultures of repetition. They circle the great truths again and again and again. We associate repetition with boredom. "Give us the new," we're always saying. "The new is better than the old." If I said to you, "Okay, we're not going to have new TED. We're just going to run through all the old ones and watch them five times because they're so true. We're going to watch Elizabeth Gilbert five times because what she says is so clever," you'd feel cheated. Not so if you're adopting a religious mindset. 7:01 The other things that religions do is to arrange time. All the major religions give us calendars. What is a calendar? A calendar is a way of making sure that across the year you will bump into certain very important ideas. In the Catholic chronology, Catholic calendar, at the end of March you will think about St. Jerome and his qualities of humility and goodness and his generosity to the poor. You won't do that by accident; you will do that because you are guided to do that. Now we don't think that way. In the secular world we think, "If an idea is important, I'll bump into it. I'll just come across it." Nonsense, says the religious world view. Religious view says we need calendars, we need to structure time, we need to synchronize encounters. This comes across also in the way in which religions set up rituals around important feelings. 7:46 Take the Moon. It's really important to look at the Moon. You know, when you look at the Moon, you think, "I'm really small. What are my problems?" It sets things into perspective, etc., etc. We should all look at the Moon a bit more often. We don't. Why don't we? Well there's nothing to tell us, "Look at the Moon." But if you're a Zen Buddhist in the middle of September, you will be ordered out of your home, made to stand on a canonical platform and made to celebrate the festival of Tsukimi, where you will be given poems to read in honor of the Moon and the passage of time and the frailty of life that it should remind us of. You'll be handed rice cakes. And the Moon and the reflection on the Moon will have a secure place in your heart. That's very good. 8:22 The other thing that religions are really aware of is: speak well -- I'm not doing a very good job of this here -- but oratory, oratory is absolutely key to religions. In the secular world, you can come through the university system and be a lousy speaker and still have a great career. But the religious world doesn't think that way. What you're saying needs to be backed up by a really convincing way of saying it. 8:42 So if you go to an African-American Pentecostalist church in the American South and you listen to how they talk, my goodness, they talk well. After every convincing point, people will go, "Amen, amen, amen." At the end of a really rousing paragraph, they'll all stand up, and they'll go, "Thank you Jesus, thank you Christ, thank you Savior." If we were doing it like they do it -- let's not do it, but if we were to do it -- I would tell you something like, "Culture should replace scripture." And you would go, "Amen, amen, amen." And at the end of my talk, you would all stand up and you would go, "Thank you Plato, thank you Shakespeare, thank you Jane Austen." And we'd know that we had a real rhythm going. All right, all right. We're getting there. We're getting there. 9:16 (Applause) 9:18 The other thing that religions know is we're not just brains, we are also bodies. And when they teach us a lesson, they do it via the body. So for example, take the Jewish idea of forgiveness. Jews are very interested in forgiveness and how we should start anew and start afresh. They don't just deliver us sermons on this. They don't just give us books or words about this. They tell us to have a bath. So in Orthodox Jewish communities, every Friday you go to a Mikveh. You immerse yourself in the water, and a physical action backs up a philosophical idea. We don't tend to do that. Our ideas are in one area and our behavior with our bodies is in another. Religions are fascinating in the way they try and combine the two. 9:55 Let's look at art now. Now art is something that in the secular world, we think very highly of. We think art is really, really important. A lot of our surplus wealth goes to museums, etc. We sometimes hear it said that museums are our new cathedrals, or our new churches. You've heard that saying. Now I think that the potential is there, but we've completely let ourselves down. And the reason we've let ourselves down is that we're not properly studying how religions handle art. 10:25 The two really bad ideas that are hovering in the modern world that inhibit our capacity to draw strength from art: The first idea is that art should be for art's sake -- a ridiculous idea -- an idea that art should live in a hermetic bubble and should not try to do anything with this troubled world. I couldn't disagree more. The other thing that we believe is that art shouldn't explain itself, that artists shouldn't say what they're up to, because if they said it, it might destroy the spell and we might find it too easy. That's why a very common feeling when you're in a museum -- let's admit it -- is, "I don't know what this is about." But if we're serious people, we don't admit to that. But that feeling of puzzlement is structural to contemporary art. 11:06 Now religions have a much saner attitude to art. They have no trouble telling us what art is about. Art is about two things in all the major faiths. Firstly, it's trying to remind you of what there is to love. And secondly, it's trying to remind you of what there is to fear and to hate. And that's what art is. Art is a visceral encounter with the most important ideas of your faith. So as you walk around a church, or a mosque or a cathedral, what you're trying to imbibe, what you're imbibing is, through your eyes, through your senses, truths that have otherwise come to you through your mind. 11:35 Essentially it's propaganda. Rembrandt is a propagandist in the Christian view. Now the word "propaganda" sets off alarm bells. We think of Hitler, we think of Stalin. Don't, necessarily. Propaganda is a manner of being didactic in honor of something. And if that thing is good, there's no problem with it at all. 11:51 My view is that museums should take a leaf out of the book of religions. And they should make sure that when you walk into a museum -- if I was a museum curator, I would make a room for love, a room for generosity. All works of art are talking to us about things. And if we were able to arrange spaces where we could come across works where we would be told, use these works of art to cement these ideas in your mind, we would get a lot more out of art. Art would pick up the duty that it used to have and that we've neglected because of certain mis-founded ideas. Art should be one of the tools by which we improve our society. Art should be didactic. 12:27 Let's think of something else. The people in the modern world, in the secular world, who are interested in matters of the spirit, in matters of the mind, in higher soul-like concerns, tend to be isolated individuals. They're poets, they're philosophers, they're photographers, they're filmmakers. And they tend to be on their own. They're our cottage industries. They are vulnerable, single people. And they get depressed and they get sad on their own. And they don't really change much. 12:52 Now think about religions, think about organized religions. What do organized religions do? They group together, they form institutions. And that has all sorts of advantages. First of all, scale, might. The Catholic Church pulled in 97 billion dollars last year according to the Wall Street Journal. These are massive machines. They're collaborative, they're branded, they're multinational, and they're highly disciplined. 13:16 These are all very good qualities. We recognize them in relation to corporations. And corporations are very like religions in many ways, except they're right down at the bottom of the pyramid of needs. They're selling us shoes and cars. Whereas the people who are selling us the higher stuff -- the therapists, the poets -- are on their own and they have no power, they have no might. So religions are the foremost example of an institution that is fighting for the things of the mind. Now we may not agree with what religions are trying to teach us, but we can admire the institutional way in which they're doing it. 13:47 Books alone, books written by lone individuals, are not going to change anything. We need to group together. If you want to change the world, you have to group together, you have to be collaborative. And that's what religions do. They are multinational, as I say, they are branded, they have a clear identity, so they don't get lost in a busy world. That's something we can learn from. 14:08 I want to conclude. Really what I want to say is for many of you who are operating in a range of different fields, there is something to learn from the example of religion -- even if you don't believe any of it. If you're involved in anything that's communal, that involves lots of people getting together, there are things for you in religion. If you're involved, say, in a travel industry in any way, look at pilgrimage. Look very closely at pilgrimage. We haven't begun to scratch the surface of what travel could be because we haven't looked at what religions do with travel. If you're in the art world, look at the example of what religions are doing with art. And if you're an educator in any way, again, look at how religions are spreading ideas. You may not agree with the ideas, but my goodness, they're highly effective mechanisms for doing so. 14:55 So really my concluding point is you may not agree with religion, but at the end of the day, religions are so subtle, so complicated, so intelligent in many ways that they're not fit to be abandoned to the religious alone; they're for all of us. 15:10 Thank you very much. 15:12 (Applause) 15:29 Chris Anderson: Now this is actually a courageous talk, because you're kind of setting up yourself in some ways to be ridiculed in some quarters. 15:35 AB: You can get shot by both sides. You can get shot by the hard-headed atheists, and you can get shot by those who fully believe. 15:42 CA: Incoming missiles from North Oxford at any moment. 15:44 AB: Indeed. 15:46 CA: But you left out one aspect of religion that a lot of people might say your agenda could borrow from, which is this sense -- that's actually probably the most important thing to anyone who's religious -- of spiritual experience, of some kind of connection with something that's bigger than you are. Is there any room for that experience in Atheism 2.0? 16:06 AB: Absolutely. I, like many of you, meet people who say things like, "But isn't there something bigger than us, something else?" And I say, "Of course." And they say, "So aren't you sort of religious?" And I go, "No." Why does that sense of mystery, that sense of the dizzying scale of the universe, need to be accompanied by a mystical feeling? Science and just observation gives us that feeling without it, so I don't feel the need. The universe is large and we are tiny, without the need for further religious superstructure. So one can have so-called spiritual moments without belief in the spirit. 16:42 CA: Actually, let me just ask a question. How many people here would say that religion is important to them? Is there an equivalent process by which there's a sort of bridge between what you're talking about and what you would say to them? 16:58 AB: I would say that there are many, many gaps in secular life and these can be plugged. It's not as though, as I try to suggest, it's not as though either you have religion and then you have to accept all sorts of things, or you don't have religion and then you're cut off from all these very good things. It's so sad that we constantly say, "I don't believe so I can't have community, so I'm cut off from morality, so I can't go on a pilgrimage." One wants to say, "Nonsense. Why not?" And that's really the spirit of my talk. There's so much we can absorb. Atheism shouldn't cut itself off from the rich sources of religion. 17:31 CA: It seems to me that there's plenty of people in the TED community who are atheists. But probably most people in the community certainly don't think that religion is going away any time soon and want to find the language to have a constructive dialogue and to feel like we can actually talk to each other and at least share some things in common. Are we foolish to be optimistic about the possibility of a world where, instead of religion being the great rallying cry of divide and war, that there could be bridging? 18:01 AB: No, we need to be polite about differences. Politeness is a much-overlooked virtue. It's seen as hypocrisy. But we need to get to a stage when you're an atheist and someone says, "Well you know, I did pray the other day," you politely ignore it. You move on. Because you've agreed on 90 percent of things, because you have a shared view on so many things, and you politely differ. And I think that's what the religious wars of late have ignored. They've ignored the possibility of harmonious disagreement. 18:32 CA: And finally, does this new thing that you're proposing that's not a religion but something else, does it need a leader, and are you volunteering to be the pope? 18:40 (Laughter) 18:42 AB: Well, one thing that we're all very suspicious of is individual leaders. It doesn't need it. What I've tried to lay out is a framework and I'm hoping that people can just fill it in. I've sketched a sort of broad framework. But wherever you are, as I say, if you're in the travel industry, do that travel bit. If you're in the communal industry, look at religion and do the communal bit. So it's a wiki project. 19:03 (Laughter) 19:05 CA: Alain, thank you for sparking many conversations later. 19:08 (Applause)
1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8 10.9 10.10 10.11 10.12 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.7 11.8 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.7 12.8 12.9 13.1 13.2 13.3 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.5 14.6 14.7 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 16.6 16.7 16.8 17.1 17.2 17.3 17.4 17.5 17.6 17.7 17.8 17.9 17.10 17.11 17.12 18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4 18.5 18.6 18.7 18.8 18.9 18.10 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 20.1 20.2 20.3 20.4 20.5 21.1 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.4 22.5 22.6 22.7 22.8 22.9 22.10 22.11 22.12 23.1 23.2 23.3 23.4 23.5 23.6 23.7 23.8 24.1 24.2 24.3 24.4 24.5 25.1 25.2 25.3 25.4 25.5 25.6 25.7 25.8 26.1 26.2 26.3 26.4 26.5 26.6 26.7 27.1 27.2 27.3 27.4 27.5 27.6 27.7 28.1 28.2 28.3 28.4 28.5 28.6 28.7 28.8 29.1 29.2 29.3 29.4 29.5 29.6 29.7 29.8 30.1 30.2 30.3 30.4 30.5 30.6 31.1 31.2 31.3 31.4 31.5 31.6 32.1 32.2 32.3 32.4 32.5 32.6 32.7 32.8 32.9 33.1 34.1 36.1 37.1 37.2 38.1 39.1 40.1 40.2 41.1 41.2 41.3 41.4 41.5 42.1 42.2 42.3 43.1 43.2 43.3 43.4 43.5 43.6 44.1 44.2 44.3 45.1 45.2 45.3 45.4 45.5 45.6 45.7 45.8 46.1 48.1 48.2 48.3 48.4 48.5 48.6 48.7 50.1
Transcript Translated by Senzos Osijek Reviewed by Tilen Pigac - EFZG 0:11 Jedan od najčešćih načina u dijeljenju svijeta jest na one koji vjeruju i one koji ne vjeruju -- na religiozne i ateiste. Tijekom posljednjih desetak godina postalo je prilično jasno što znači biti ateist. Postojali su neki veoma glasni ateisti koji su istaknuli da religija nije samo pogrešna, već da je i smiješna. Ti su ljudi, od kojih mnogi žive u sjevernom Oxfordu raspravljali -- raspravljali o tome kako je vjerovanje u Boga jednako kao vjerovanje u vile i da je u suštini ta cijela stvar djetinjasta igra. 0:50 Ja smatram da je to prejednostavno. Smatram kako je prejednostavo odbaciti cijelu religiju na taj način. I to je jednako jednostavno kao pucanje u ribu koja se nalazi u bačvi. Ono što bih danas želio započeti je nov način kako biti ateist -- ako vam se sviđa, novu verziju ateizma bismo mogli nazvati Ateizam 2.0. Dakle, što je Ateizam 2.0? Počinje s veoma osnovnom pretpostavkom: naravno, nema Boga. Naravno, nema božanstava ni nadnaravnih duhova ili anđela itd. A sada nastavimo dalje; to nije kraj priče, to je sami početak. 1:27 Zainteresiran sam za vrstu birača koji misle nešto poput ovih rečenica: koji misle, „Ne mogu vjerovati ni u što od tih stvari. Ne mogu vjerovati u nauku. Mislim da nauke nisu točne. Ali,“ jedno veoma važno ali, „volim božićne pjesme. Stvarno mi se sviđa Mantegnina umjetnost. Stvarno volim gledati stare crkve. Volim listati Stari Zavjet.“ Što god da to je, znate o čemu pričam -- ljudi koji su privučeni ritualnom stranom, moralnom, javnom stranom religije, ali ne mogu podnijeti dogmu. Do sada, ti ljudi su se susretali s relativno neugodnim izborom. Gotovo je jednako teško prihvatite li vi dogmu i onda možete imati sve lijepe stvari ili odbijete dogmu i živite u nekoj vrsti duhovne pustinje pod vodstvom CNN-a i Walmarta. 2:16 To je na neki način težak izbor. Mislim da ne moramo odlučiti. Mislim da postoji alternativa. Mislim da postoje načini -- i veoma ih i poštujem i potpuno sam nepobožan -- prema krađi iz religija. Ako ne vjerujete u religiju onda nema ništa loše u prebiranju i miješanju uzimajući najbolje strane religije. A za mene, ateizam 2.0 upravo ima oboje, kao što kažem poštovanje i nepobožan način kretanja kroz religiju uz riječi, „Što bismo ovdje mogli upotrijebiti?“ Sekularni je svijet pun rupa. Raspravio bih o tome kako smo opako zastranili u svjetovno. I temeljita studija religije bi nam mogla dati razne vrste uvida u područja života koji ne idu baš dobro. Danas bih želio proći nekoliko njih. 3:02 Želio bih započeti gledajući obrazovanje. Obrazovanje je područje u koje svjetovni svijet zaista vjeruje. Kad razmišljamo o tome kako ćemo svijet učiniti boljim mjestom, sjetimo se obrazovanja; u to ulažemo veliku količinu novca. Obrazovanje će nam dati, ne samo trgovačke vještine, industrijske vještine već će nas učiniti i boljim ljudima. Znate one stvari poput promocija i proslava mature, ti lirski zahtjevi koji obrazovanje, čiji će nas tijek obrazovanja -- pogotovo u višim stadijima obrazovanja -- učiniti plemenitijim i boljim ljudskim bićima. To je divna ideja. Zanimljivo je odakle je došla. 3:34 Početkom 19. stoljeća, dolasci u crkvu u Zapadnoj Europi počeli su opadati i to veoma, veoma oštro te su ljudi počeli paničariti. Počeli su se zapitkivati sljedeće. Rekli su, gdje će ljudi pronaći moralnost, gdje će pronaći navođenje i gdje će pronaći izvore utjehe? Utjecajni glasovi su smislili odgovor. Rekli su da je to kultura. U kulturi bismo trebali potražiti navođenje, utjehu, moralnost. Pogledajmo Shakespearova djela, Platonove dijaloge, romane Jane Austen. Tamo ćemo naći mnogo istina koje smo prije pronalazili u Evanđelju svetog Ivana. Mislim da je to veoma divna zamisao i veoma istinita zamisao. Željeli su zamijeniti Sveto pismo kulturom. I to je vrlo ostvariva zamisao. To je također zamisao koju smo zaboravili. 4:21 Ako ste išli na vrhunski fakultet -- recimo da ste išli na Harvard ili Oxford ili Cambridge -- i rekli ste, „Došao sam ovamo jer sam u potrazi za moralnošću, navođenjem i utjehom; želim znati kako živjeti“, pokazali bi vam put do ustanove za mentalne bolesnike. To jednostavno nije ono što naše najveće i najbolje institucije visokog obrazovanja rade. Zašto? Ne misle da nam to treba. Ne misle da imamo stalnu potrebu za pomoći. Vide nas kao odrasle, racionalne odrasle. Ono što trebamo je informacija. Trebamo podatke, ne trebamo pomoć. 4:50 Ustvari, religije počinju u potpuno drugačijem mjestu. Sve religije, sve glavne religije u raznim nas trenucima zovu djecom. I poput djece, one vjeruju da imamo ozbiljnu potrebu za pomoći. Mi samo nekako uspijevamo to držati zajedno. Možda sam to samo ja, možda ti. Kako god, mi to samo držimo zajedno. I treba nam pomoć. Naravno da nam treba pomoć. I zato trebamo navođenje i trebamo didaktičko učenje. 5:14 Znate, u 18. stoljeću u Ujedinjenom Kraljevstvu, najveći propovjednik, navjeći religiozni propovjednik je bio čovjek imenom John Wesley koji je išao uzduž i poprijeko ove zemlje držeći propovijedi, savjetujući ljude kako bi mogli živjeti. Držao je propovijedi o dužnostima roditelja prema djeci i djece prema njihovim roditeljima, o dužnostima bogatih prema siromašnima i siromašnih prema bogatima. Pokušavao je reći ljudima kako trebaju živjeti kroz medij propovijedi, klasični medij dostavljanja religija. 5:37 Sad smo odustali od ideje propovijedi. Kada biste modernoj liberalnoj individui rekli, „Hej, što kažeš na propovijed?“, rekli bi, „Ne, ne. Ne treba mi to. Ja sam neovisna, zasebna osoba.“ Koja je razlika između propovijedi i našeg modernog, svjetovnog načina dostavljanja -- predavanja? Pa, propovjednik želi promijeniti vaš život, a predavač vam želi dati malo informacija. I smatram kako se trebamo vratiti na tu tradiciju propovijedanja. Tradicija propovijedanja veoma je cijenjena jer nam je potrebno navođenje, moralnost i utjeha -- a religije to znaju. 6:09 Još jedna stvar u vezi obrazovanja: naginjemo tome da u modernom sekularnom svijetu vjerujemo da ako nekome nešto jednom kažete, da će to zapamtiti. Posjednite ih u učionicu, pričajte im o Platonu dok imaju 20 godina, pošaljite ih po karijeru u poslovnom savjetovanju na 40 godina i to će im predavanje ostati u glavi. Religije kažu, „Glupost. Morate im ponavljati predavanja deset puta na dan. Kleknite i ponavljajte.“ To nam sve religije kažu: „Kleknite i ponovite to 10 ili 20 ili 15 puta dnevno.“ U suprotnom su nam umovi poput sita. 6:37 Dakle, religije su kulture ponavljanja. Obilaze velike istine ponovo i ponovo i ponovo. Mi vežemo ponavljanje s dosadom. „Dajte nam novo“, uvijek govorimo. „Novo je bolje od starog.“ Da vam kažem, „U redu, nećemo imati novi TED. Samo ćemo proći kroz sve stare i gledati ih pet puta jer su tako istiniti. Gledat ćemo Elizabeth Gilbert pet puta jer ono što ona kaže tako je pametno“, osjećali biste se prevareno. No nije tako, ako usvajate religiozno razmišljanje. 7:01 Druga stvar koju religije rade je raspored vremena. Sve nam glavne religije daju kalendare. Što je kalendar? Kalendar je način na koji osiguravate da ćete tijekom godine naletjeti na određene veoma važne misli. U katoličkoj kronologiji, katoličkom kalendaru, na kraju ožujka ćete pomisliti na sv. Jeronima i njegove kvalitete poniznosti i dobrote i njegove velikodušnosti prema siromašnima. To nećete slučajno učiniti; učinit ćete to zato što ste navedeni da to učinite. Mi ne mislimo na taj način. U sekularnom svijetu mi mislimo, „Ako je ideja važna, naletjet ću na nju. Samo će mi sinuti.“ Glupost, kaže religiozni pogled na svijet. Religiozni pogled na svijet kaže da trebamo kalendare, trebamo strukturirati vrijeme, moramo sinkronizirati susrete. Ovo se također isprepliće u načinu na koji religije postavljaju rituale oko važnih osjećaja. 7:46 Uzmite za primjer Mjesec.Veoma je važno gledati u Mjesec. Znate, kad gledate u Mjesec, razmišljate, „Doista sam malen. Koji su moji problemi?“ To stavlja stvari u određenu perspektivu, itd., itd. Svi bismo ćešće trebali gledati u Mjesec. Ne radimo to. Zašto ne? Pa, ništa nam ne govori, „Gledaj u Mjesec.“ Ali ako ste Zen Budist, sredinom rujna bit će vam naređeno da izađete iz kuće, stanete na kanonsku platformu i slavite festival Tsukimi, gdje ćete čitati pjesme u čast Mjesecu i prolaznosti vremena i slabosti života na koju bi nas to trebalo podsjetiti. Dat će vam rižine torte. I Mjesec i odsjaj Mjeseca će imati sigurno mjesto u vašem srcu. To je veoma dobro. 8:22 Još je jedna stvar koje su religije veoma svjesne: dobro govori -- ja ovdje ne obavljam baš dobar posao -- ali govorništvo, govorništvo je definitivno ključ za religije. U sekularnom svijetu možete proći kroz fakultetski sustav i biti loš govornik, a ipak imati odličnu karijeru. Ali religiozni svijet ne misli tako. Ono što govorite mora biti potkrijepljeno veoma uvjerljivim načinom govorenja. 8:42 Ako odete u afričko - američku Pentekostalnu crkvu na američkom Jugu i slušate kako govore, ajme, govore dobro. Nakon svake uvjerljive točke, ljudi bi govorili, „Amen, amen, amen.“ Na kraju veoma uzbudljivog paragrafa, ustat će i govorit će, „Hvala ti Isuse, hvala ti Kriste, hvala ti Spasitelju.“ Kad bismo mi to radili poput njih -- nemojmo to raditi, ali kad bismo radili -- rekao bih vam nešto poput, „Kultura bi trebala zamijeniti Sveto pismo.“ A vi biste rekli, „Amen, amen, amen.“ Na kaju mog govora, ustali biste i govorili, „Hvala ti Platone, hvala ti Shakespeare, hvala ti Jane Austen.“ I znali bismo da imamo pravi ritam. U redu, u redu. Dolazimo do toga. Dolazimo do toga. 9:16 (Pljesak) 9:18 Još jedna stvar koju religije znaju je da mi nismo samo mozgovi, već i tijela. I kad nas uče lekciju, rade to preko tijela. Kao primjer uzmite židovsku ideju opraštanja. Židovi su veoma zaisteresirani za oproštenje i kako krenuti s novim i svježim početkom. Za to nam ne dovode samo propovjednike. Ne daju nam samo knjige i riječi o tome. Kažu nam da se okupamo. U zajednicama ortodoksnih Židova, svakog petka idete na Mikveh. Umočite se u vodu i tjelesne radnje potkrijepljuju filozofsku ideju. Mi to ne radimo. Naše su ideje u jednom području, a naše ponašanje s našim tijelom u drugom. Religije su fascinantne na način kako kombiniraju to dvoje. 9:55 Sada malo pogledajmo umjetnost. Umjetnost je nešto o čemu u sekularnom svijetu imamo visoko mišljenje. Smatramo kako je umjetnost veoma, veoma važna. Mnogo našeg viška bogatstva ide u muzeje itd. Ponekad čujemo kako se kaže da su muzeji naše nove katedrale, naše nove crkve. Čuli ste da se to tako govori. Mislim kako je potencijal tu, ali smo potpuno iznevjerili sami sebe. A razlog zbog kojeg smo iznevjerili sami sebe je to što nismo prikladno proučili kako religije rukuju umjetnošću. 10:25 Dvije veoma loše ideje koje kruže modernim svijetom, a sprječavaju naš kapacitet da vučemo snagu iz umjetnosti: Prva je ideja da bi umjetnost trebala postojati zbog umjetnosti -- smiješna ideja -- ideja da bi umjetnost trebala živjeti u hermetičkom mjehuru i ne bi ništa trebala raditi s tim problematičnim svijetom. Uopće se ne slažem s tim. Druga stvar u koju vjerujemo je da se umjetnost ne treba objašnjavati, da umjetnici ne bi trebali reći što im je bilo na umu, jer kad bi rekli, mogli bi uništiti čaroliju i moglo bi nam se to činiti prejednostavnim. Zato je veoma čest osjećaj kad ste u muzeju -- priznajmo -- „Ne znam o čemu je ovo.“ Ali ako smo ozbiljni ljudi, to ne priznajemo. Ali taj osjećaj zbunjenosti je sastavni dio suvremene umjetnosti. 11:06 Religije imaju mnogo zdraviji stav prema umjetnosti. Nemaju problema s time da nam kažu što je umjetnost. Umjetnost su dvije stvari u svim glavim vjerama. Prvo, pokušava vas podsjetiti što tu morate voljeti. A drugo, pokušava vas podsjetiti čega se morate bojati i što morate mrziti. I to je umjetnost. Umjetnost je organski susret s najvažnijim idejama vaše vjere. Dakle, dok hodate crkvom ili džamijom ili katedralom, ono što pokušavate upiti, ono što upijate očima, osjetilima, zapravo su istine koje su vam na drugačiji način pale na pamet. 11:35 U suštini je to propaganda. Rembrandt propagira kršćanski pogled. Riječ „propaganda“ aktivira alarm. Sjetimo se Hitlera, sjetimo se Staljina. Nemojte nužno. Propaganda je način na koji možemo biti didaktični u čast nečega. A ako je to nešto dobro, onda to uopće nije problem. 11:51 Moje viđenje je da bi muzeji trebali kopirati nešto iz religijskih knjiga. I trebali bi se pobrinuti da kada uđete u muzej -- da sam ja kustos u muzeju, napravio bih sobu za ljubav, sobu za velikodušnost. Sva umjetnička djela nam govore o tim stvarima. I kada bih bio u mogućnosti rasporediti mjesta gdje bismo dolazili do djela i gdje bi nam bilo rečeno, upotrijebi ta umjetnička djela kako bi zacementirao te ideje u svoj um, na taj bismo način mnogo više dobili od umjetnosti. Umjetnost bi pokupila dužnost koju je nekada imala i koju smo zanemarili zbog određenih pogrešno utvrđenih ideja. Umjetnost bi trebala biti jedan od alata kojim možemo poboljšati našu zajednicu. Umjetnost bi trebala biti didaktična. 12:27 Razmislimo o nečem drugom. Ljudi u modernom svijetu, u sekularnom svijetu, koji su zainteresirani za pitanja duha, pitanja uma, pitanja viših duhovnih briga, često su izolirani pojedinci. Oni su pjesnici, filozofi, fotografi, redatelji. I navikli su biti svoji na svome. Oni su naše kućne radinosti. Oni su ranjivi, sami ljudi. I postanu depresivni i postanu žalosni sami sa sobom. I zapravo se ne mijenjaju previše. 12:52 Razmislite o religijama, razmislite o organiziranim religijama. Što rade organizirane religije? Skupljaju se, stvaraju institucije. I to ima razne prednosti. Prije svega, moć. Katolička je crkva dobila 97 milijardi dolara prošle godine prema podacima Wall Street Journala. To su golemi strojevi. Surađuju, označeni su, multinacionalni su i visoko su disciplinirani. 13:16 To su sve veoma dobre kvalitete. Prepoznajemo ih u odnosu s korporacijama. I korporacije su na mnogo načina veoma slične religijama . osim što su skroz na dnu piramide potreba. Prodaju nam cipele i automobile. A s druge strane ljudi koji nam prodaju više stvari -- terapeuti, pjesnici -- sami su na svome i nemaju moć, nemaju snage Dakle, religije su najistaknutiji primjer institucija koje se bore za stvari koje imaju na umu. Možda se nećemo složiti s tim što nas religije pokušavaju naučiti, ali se možemo diviti institucijskom načinu na koji to rade. 13:47 Knjige same po sebi, knjige koje su pisali sami pojedinci ništa neće promijeniti. Moramo se skupiti. Ako želite promijeniti svijet, moramo se skupiti, moramo surađivati. I to je ono što religije rade. Multinacionalne su, kao što kažem, označene su, imaju jasan identitet pa se stoga ne izgube u zaposlenom svijetu. To je nešto iz čega možemo učiti. 14:08 Želio bih zaključiti. Ono što zapravo želim reći za mnoge od vas koji posluju u rasponu različitih polja, postoji nešto što možemo naučiti iz primjera religije -- čak i ako ne vjerujete ni u jednu. Ako ste uključeni u bilo što javno, što uključuje nalaženje mnogo ljudi zajedno, za vas postoje stvari u religiji. Ako ste uključeni, recimo u putničku industriju na bilo koji način, pogledajte hodočašća. Veoma dobro pogledajte hodočašća. Nismo počeli ni grebati što bi putovanje moglo biti zato što nismo pogledali što religije rade s putovanjima. Ako ste u svijetu umjetnosti, pogledajte primjer toga što religije rade s umjetnošću. A ako ste nastavnik na bilo koji način, ponovo, pogledajte kako religije šire ideje. Možda se nećete složiti s idejama, ali pobogu, tu su veoma efektivni mehanizmi za to. 14:55 Zaista, moja zaključna točka je da se možda nećete složiti s religijom, ali na kraju dana, religije su toliko vješte, toliko komplicirane, toliko inteligentne na mnogo načina da su stvorene kako ne bi bile ostavljene religioznima; one su za sve nas. 15:10 Puno vam hvala. 15:29 Chris Anderson: Ovo je doista hrabar govor jer se na neki način postavljate kao meta za ismijavanje u nekim dijelovima. 15:35 AB: Mogu vas ubiti obje strane. Mogu vas ubiti zadrti ateisti i mogu vas ubiti oni koji potpuno vjeruju. 15:42 CA: Stižu rakete iz sjevernog Oxforda svakog trena. 15:44 AB: Uistinu. 15:46 CA: Ali izostavili ste jedan aspekt religije za koji mnogo ljudi kaže da vi iz toga koristite podsjetnik, a to je svijest -- to je zapravo najvažnija stvar svakome tko je religiozan -- duhovno iskustvo, neka vrsta povezivanja s nečim što je veće od vas. Postoji li mjesto za takvo iskustvo u Ateizmu 2.0? 16:06 AB: Apsolutno. Ja, poput mnogih od vas susrećem ljude koji kažu stvari poput, „Ali ne postoji li tamo negdje nešto veće od nas, nešto drugo?“ A ja kažem, „Naravno.“ A oni kažu, „Pa nisi li onda na neki način religiozan?“ A ja kažem, „Ne.“ Zašto taj pojam misterije, taj pojam vrtoglavog razmjera svemira mora biti udružen s mističnim osjećajem? Znanost i jednostavno promatranje nam daje osjećaj bez toga, stoga nemam potrebu. Svemir je velik, a mi smo mali bez potrebe za daljnjom religioznom superstrukturom. Dakle, netko može imati takozvane duhovne trenutke bez vjerovanja u duhove. 16:42 CA: Zapravo, da vas pitam jedno pitanje. Koliko ljudi ovdje bi reklo da im je religija važna? Postoji li odgovarajući proces u kojem imamo na neki način most između onog o čemu vi pričate i onog što biste im rekli? 16:58 AB: Rekao bih da postoji mnogo, mnogo pukotina u sekularnom životu i one mogu biti začepljene. Nije baš tako kako pokušavam sugerirati, nije baš ni tako da, ili morate imati religiju i onda prihvatiti razne vrste stvari, ili ne morate imati religiju i onda su vam uskraćene te veoma dobre stvari. Tako je tužno što stalno govorimo, „Ne vjerujem pa ne mogu imati zajednicu, uskraćena mi je moralnost, ne mogu ići na hodočašća.“ Netko bi rekao, „Glupost. Zašto ne?“ I to je zapravo duša mog govora. Postoji toliko toga što možemo upiti. Ateizam ne bi smio sam sebe lišiti bogatih izvora religije. 17:31 CA: Čini mi se da postoji mnogo ljudi u TED zajednici koji su ateisti. Ali vjerojatno većina ljudi u zajednici zasigurno ne smatra da će religija ubrzo otići i žele pronaći jezik kako bi imali konstruktivan dijalog i osjećali se da zaista možemo razgovarati jedni s drugima i barem dijeliti neke zajedničke stvari. Jesmo li blesavi što smo optimistični po pitanju mogućnosti svijeta gdje bi, umjesto religije koja postoji kao masovni plač, uzrok podijeljenosti i rata moglo postojati premošćivanje? 18:01 AB: Ne, moramo biti pristojni u vezi razlika. Pristojnost je često previđeno svojstvo. Viđeno je kao licemjerje. Ali moramo doći do faze kada ste ateist i netko kaže, „Znaš što, molio sam se neki dan.“, a vi to pristojno ignorirate. Krenete dalje. Jer ste se složili s 90% stvari, jer ste podijelili viđenje tolikih stvari i pristojno se razlikujete. I smatram da su to nedavni religiozni ratovi ignorirali. Ignorirali su mogućnost složnog neslaganja. 18:32 CA: I konačno, da li ta nova stvar koju predlažete, a nije religija već nešto drugo, treba vođu i da li se vi dobrovoljno javljate da budete papa? 18:42 AB: Pa, jedna stvar oko koje smo veoma sumnjičavi su vođe pojedinci. Nema potrebe za njima. Ono što sam pokušao istaknuti je okvir i nadam se da ga ljudi mogu popuniti. Skicirao sam na neki način široki okvir. Ali gdje god da jeste, kao što kažem, ako ste u putničkoj industriji, radite to s putovanjem. Ako ste u javnoj industriji, pogledajte religiju i radite javni dio. Dakle, to je wiki projekt. 19:05 CA: Alain, hvala vam za pokretanje mnogih razgovora kasnije.