Militant atheism | Richard Dawkins

Translator: Jørgen Leditzig Reviewer: Louise Frilund

Denne pragtfulde musik, velkomstmusikken:

That splendid music, the coming-in music,

"The Elephant March" from "Aida," is the music I've chosen for my funeral.

"Gloria all’Egitto" fra Aïda, er musikken, som jeg har valgt til min begravelse -

(Laughter)

(Latter)

And you can see why. It's triumphal.

- og I kan forstå hvorfor. Den er triumferende.

I won't feel anything, but if I could,

Jeg vil - jeg vil ikke føle noget, men hvis jeg kunne,

I would feel triumphal at having lived at all,

ville jeg føle triumf over overhovedet at have levet,

and at having lived on this splendid planet,

og over at have levet på denne pragtfulde planet,

and having been given the opportunity to understand

og over at have haft lejlighed til at forstå

something about why I was here in the first place, before not being here.

noget om, hvorfor jeg overhovedet var her, før jeg ikke var her mere.

Can you understand my quaint English accent?

Kan I forstå min mærkelige engelske accent?

(Laughter)

Like everybody else, I was entranced yesterday by the animal session.

I går blev jeg, ligesom alle andre, henrykt over dyreforelæsningerne.

Robert Full and Frans Lanting and others;

Robert Full og Frans Lanting og andre -

the beauty of the things that they showed.

skønheden i de ting de viste.

The only slight jarring note was when Jeffrey Katzenberg said of the mustang,

Den eneste lille hage var, da Jeffrey Katzenberg kaldte mustangen,

"the most splendid creatures that God put on this earth."

"Det mest pragtfulde væsen som Gud har sat på denne jord."

Now of course, we know that he didn't really mean that,

Vi er naturligvis klar over, at han ikke virkelig mente det,

but in this country at the moment, you can't be too careful.

men i USA, i øjeblikket, kan man ikke være for forsigtig.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

I'm a biologist, and the central theorem of our subject: the theory of design,

Jeg er biolog, og den centrale læresætning i vores emne: teorien om design,

Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.

Darwins teori om evolution ved naturlig selektion.

In professional circles everywhere, it's of course universally accepted.

I faglige kredse overalt er den, naturligvis, universelt accepteret.

In non-professional circles outside America, it's largely ignored.

I ikke-faglige kredse udenfor USA, bliver den stort set ignoreret.

But in non-professional circles within America,

Men i ikke-faglige kredse i USA

it arouses so much hostility --

vækker den så meget fjendtlighed, -

(Laughter)

(Latter)

it's fair to say that American biologists are in a state of war.

- at det er rimeligt at sige, at amerikanske biologer befinder sig i en krigstilstand.

The war is so worrying at present,

Krigen er så bekymrende i øjeblikket,

with court cases coming up in one state after another,

med retssager der begynder i den ene stat efter den anden,

that I felt I had to say something about it.

at jeg følte, jeg måtte sige noget om det.

If you want to know what I have to say about Darwinism itself,

Hvis I vil vide, hvad jeg har at sige om selve darwinismen,

I'm afraid you're going to have to look at my books,

er jeg bange for, I er nødt til at læse mine bøger,

which you won't find in the bookstore outside.

som I ikke finder i boghandlen udenfor.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

Contemporary court cases

Nutidige retssager

often concern an allegedly new version of creationism,

vedrører ofte en angiveligt ny form for kreationisme,

called "Intelligent Design," or ID.

der kaldes Intelligent Design eller ID.

Don't be fooled. There's nothing new about ID.

Lad jer ikke narre. Der er ikke noget nyt ved ID.

It's just creationism under another name,

Det er blot kreationisme under et andet navn.

rechristened -- I choose the word advisedly --

Gendøbt - jeg vælger ordet bevidst -

(Laughter)

(Latter)

for tactical, political reasons.

- af taktiske politiske årsager.

The arguments of so-called ID theorists

De såkaldte ID-teoretikeres argumenter,

are the same old arguments that had been refuted again and again,

er de samme gamle argumenter, som er blevet afvist igen og igen

since Darwin down to the present day.

fra Darwin og frem til i dag.

There is an effective evolution lobby

Der er en effektiv evolutions-lobby,

coordinating the fight on behalf of science,

som koordinerer kampen på vegne af videnskaben,

and I try to do all I can to help them,

og jeg prøver, at gøre alt hvad jeg kan for at hjælpe dem,

but they get quite upset when people like me dare to mention

men de bliver helt ophidsede, når folk, som jeg, vover at nævne,

that we happen to be atheists as well as evolutionists.

at vi tilfældigvis er ateister såvel som evolutionister.

They see us as rocking the boat, and you can understand why.

De synes, at vi skaber rørte vande, og I forstår nok hvorfor.

Creationists, lacking any coherent scientific argument for their case,

Kreationister, som mangler et sammenhængende videnskabeligt argument for deres sag,

fall back on the popular phobia against atheism:

falder tilbage på den populære fobi mod ateisme.

Teach your children evolution in biology class,

Lær dine børn om evolution i biologi,

and they'll soon move on to drugs, grand larceny and sexual "pre-version."

og de vil snart gå over til narkotika, tyveri og seksuel pre-version.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

In fact, of course, educated theologians from the Pope down

Faktisk støtter uddannede teologer, fra Paven

are firm in their support of evolution.

og nedefter, naturligvis, evolutionen.

This book, "Finding Darwin's God," by Kenneth Miller,

Denne bog, "Finding Darwin's God" af Kenneth Miller,

is one of the most effective attacks on Intelligent Design that I know

er et af de mest effektive angreb på Intelligent Design,

som jeg kender, og den er så meget desto mere effektiv,

and it's all the more effective because it's written by a devout Christian.

fordi den er skrevet af en troende kristen.

People like Kenneth Miller could be called a "godsend" to the evolution lobby,

Folk som Kenneth Miller kunne kaldes en Guds gave til evolutions-lobbyen -

(Laughter)

(Latter)

because they expose the lie that evolutionism is, as a matter of fact,

- fordi de afslører løgnen om, at evolutionisme, faktisk,

tantamount to atheism.

er ensbetydende med ateisme.

People like me, on the other hand, rock the boat.

Folk som jeg, på den anden side, skaber rørte vande.

But here, I want to say something nice about creationists.

Men her vil jeg gerne sige noget pænt om kreationister.

It's not a thing I often do, so listen carefully.

Det er ikke noget jeg ofte gør, så vær opmærksom.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

I think they're right about one thing.

Jeg tror, de har ret i én ting.

I think they're right that evolution

Jeg tror, de har ret i, at evolution

is fundamentally hostile to religion.

er fundamentalt fjendtlig over for religion.

I've already said that many individual evolutionists, like the Pope,

Jeg har allerede sagt, at mange individuelle evolutionister, som paven,

are also religious, but I think they're deluding themselves.

er religiøse, men jeg tror, de narrer sig selv.

I believe a true understanding of Darwinism

Jeg tror, en ægte forståelse af darwinismen

is deeply corrosive to religious faith.

er stærkt skadelig for religiøs tro.

Now, it may sound as though I'm about to preach atheism,

Nu kan det lyde, som om jeg skal til at prædike ateisme,

and I want to reassure you that that's not what I'm going to do.

og jeg ønsker at forsikre jer om, at det ikke er, hvad jeg vil gøre.

In an audience as sophisticated as this one,

For et publikum så sofistikeret som denne - som dette -

that would be preaching to the choir.

ville det være at prædike til de omvendte.

No, what I want to urge upon you --

Nej, hvad jeg vil opfordre jer til -

(Laughter)

(Latter)

Instead, what I want to urge upon you is militant atheism.

- hvad jeg i stedet vil opfordre jer til, er militant ateisme.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

(Applause)

(Bifald)

But that's putting it too negatively.

Men det er at udtrykke det for negativt.

If I was a person who were interested in preserving religious faith,

Hvis jeg ville - hvis jeg var en person, der var interesseret i at bevare religiøs tro,

I would be very afraid of the positive power of evolutionary science,

ville jeg være meget bange for den evolutionære videnskabs positive kraft,

and indeed science generally, but evolution in particular,

og videnskab generelt, men evolution i særdeleshed,

to inspire and enthrall, precisely because it is atheistic.

til at inspirere og tryllebinde, netop fordi den er ateistisk.

Now, the difficult problem for any theory of biological design

Det vanskelige problem for enhver teori om biologisk design

is to explain the massive statistical improbability of living things.

er, at forklare den massive statistiske usandsynlighed for levende tings eksistens.

Statistical improbability in the direction of good design --

Statistisk usandsynlighed i retning af godt design -

"complexity" is another word for this.

kompleksitet er et andet ord for dette.

The standard creationist argument --

Det kreationistiske standard-argument - der er kun ét, de reduceres alle til dette ene -

there is only one; they're all reduced to this one --

takes off from a statistical improbability.

tager udgangspunkt i en statistisk usandsynlighed.

Living creatures are too complex to have come about by chance;

Levende væsener er for komplekse til at være opstået ved en tilfældighed,

therefore, they must have had a designer.

ergo må de have haft en designer.

This argument of course, shoots itself in the foot.

Dette argument skyder, naturligvis, sig selv i foden.

Enhver designer, som er i stand til at konstruere noget virkelig komplekst,

Any designer capable of designing something really complex

has to be even more complex himself,

er nødt til selv at være endnu mere kompleks, og det er før vi overhovedet tænker

and that's before we even start on the other things he's expected to do,

på andre ting, som han forventes at gøre,

like forgive sins, bless marriages, listen to prayers --

f.eks. at tilgive synder, velsigne ægteskaber, lytte til bønner -

favor our side in a war --

- holde med os i en krig -

(Laughter)

(Latter)

disapprove of our sex lives, and so on.

være uenig i vores seksuelle præferencer og så videre.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

Complexity is the problem that any theory of biology has to solve,

Kompleksitet er problemet, som enhver biologisk teori skal løse,

and you can't solve it by postulating an agent that is even more complex,

og man kan ikke løse det ved at postulere en agent, som er endnu mere kompleks,

thereby simply compounding the problem.

hvorved problemet blot forværres.

Darwinian natural selection is so stunningly elegant

Darwins naturlige selektion er så betagende elegant,

because it solves the problem of explaining complexity

fordi den løser problemet med at forklare kompleksitet

in terms of nothing but simplicity.

ved hjælp af den rene enkelhed.

Essentially, it does it by providing a smooth ramp

Essentielt set, gør den det ved at skabe en jævn rampe

of gradual, step-by-step increment.

til gradvis trin-for-trin tilvækst.

But here, I only want to make the point

Men her vil jeg bare gøre opmærksom på,

that the elegance of Darwinism is corrosive to religion,

at darwinismens elegance er skadelig for religion,

precisely because it is so elegant, so parsimonious, so powerful,

netop fordi den er så elegant, så påholdende, så kraftfuld,

so economically powerful.

så økonomisk kraftfuld.

Den deler en smuk hængebros enkle økonomiske fordele.

It has the sinewy economy of a beautiful suspension bridge.

The God theory is not just a bad theory.

Teorien om Gud er ikke bare en dårlig teori.

It turns out to be -- in principle --

Den viser sig at være principielt ude af stand til at gøre det arbejde, der kræves af den.

incapable of doing the job required of it.

So, returning to tactics and the evolution lobby,

Så med hensyn til taktikken og evolutions-lobbyen,

I want to argue that rocking the boat

vil jeg argumentere for, at det helt rigtige at gøre, kunne være at skabe rørte vande.

may be just the right thing to do.

My approach to attacking creationism is --

Min tilgang til at angribe kreationismen er anderledes end evolutions-lobbyens.

unlike the evolution lobby --

my approach to attacking creationism is to attack religion as a whole.

Min tilgang til at angribe kreationismen er at angribe religion som helhed,

And at this point I need to acknowledge the remarkable taboo

og på dette tidspunkt er jeg nødt til at erkende det bemærkelsesværdige tabu

against speaking ill of religion,

mod at tale dårligt om religion,

and I'm going to do so in the words of the late Douglas Adams,

og jeg har tænkt mig at gøre det med den afdøde Douglas Adams’ ord,

a dear friend who, if he never came to TED,

en kær ven, som hvis han aldrig kom til TED,

certainly should have been invited.

i hvert fald burde have været inviteret.

(Richard Saul Wurman: He was.)

(Richard Saul Wurman: Det blev han.)

Richard Dawkins: He was. Good. I thought he must have been.

Richard Dawkins: Det blev han. Godt. Det forestillede jeg mig også.

He begins this speech, which was tape recorded in Cambridge

Han begynder denne tale, som blev optaget i Cambridge

shortly before he died --

kort før hans død.

he begins by explaining how science works through the testing of hypotheses

Han begynder med at forklare, hvordan videnskaben fungerer gennem afprøvning af hypoteser,

that are framed to be vulnerable to disproof, and then he goes on.

der er udformet til at være sårbare over for modbevis, og derfra fortsætter han.

I quote, "Religion doesn't seem to work like that.

Jeg citerer: "Religion synes ikke at fungere på den måde.

It has certain ideas at the heart of it, which we call 'sacred' or 'holy.'

Den har visse ideer i kernen, som vi kalder hellige.

What it means is: here is an idea or a notion

Det betyder, at her er en idé eller et begreb,

that you're not allowed to say anything bad about.

som du ikke må sige noget dårligt om.

You're just not. Why not? Because you're not."

Det må du bare ikke. Hvorfor ikke? Fordi det må du ikke.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

"Why should it be that it's perfectly legitimate

Hvorfor skal det være sådan, at det er helt legitimt at støtte republikanerne eller demokraterne,

to support the Republicans or Democrats,

this model of economics versus that,

eller den ene økonomiske model frem for den anden, eller Macintosh i stedet for Windows,

Macintosh instead of Windows,

but to have an opinion about how the universe began,

men at have en mening om hvordan universet begyndte,

about who created the universe --

om hvem der skabte universet - nej det er helligt.

no, that's holy.

So, we're used to not challenging religious ideas,

Så vi er vant til ikke at kritisere religiøse ideer,

and it's very interesting how much of a furor Richard creates

og det er meget interessant, hvor meget furore Richard skaber,

when he does it." --

når han gør det.” Han mente mig, ikke Richard Wurman.

He meant me, not that one.

"Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it,

"Alle bliver helt ophidsede over det,

because you're not allowed to say these things.

fordi man ikke har lov til at sige disse ting, men når man ser rationelt på det,

Yet when you look at it rationally,

there's no reason why those ideas

er der ingen grund til, at disse idéer ikke burde kunne debatteres

shouldn't be as open to debate as any other,

bortset fra, at vi på en eller anden måde har aftalt mellem os,

except that we've agreed somehow between us

that they shouldn't be."

at de ikke burde," og det er slutningen på Douglas’ citat.

And that's the end of the quote from Douglas.

In my view, not only is science corrosive to religion;

Efter min mening er videnskab ikke bare skadelig for religion,

religion is corrosive to science.

religion er skadelig for videnskab.

It teaches people to be satisfied with trivial,

Den lærer folk at være tilfredse med trivielle, overnaturlige ikke-forklaringer,

supernatural non-explanations,

and blinds them to the wonderful, real explanations

og blænder dem overfor de vidunderlige virkelige forklaringer, som vi har inden for vores rækkevidde.

that we have within our grasp.

It teaches them to accept authority, revelation and faith,

Det lærer dem at acceptere autoritet, åbenbaringer og tro

instead of always insisting on evidence.

i stedet for altid at kræve beviser.

There's Douglas Adams, magnificent picture from his book, "Last Chance to See."

Her ser vi Douglas Adams på et pragtfuldt billede fra hans bog, "Last Chance to See."

Now, there's a typical scientific journal,

Her er et typisk videnskabeligt tidsskrift: Quarterly Review of Biology.

The Quarterly Review of Biology.

And I'm going to put together, as guest editor,

Og som gæsteredaktør skal jeg lave

a special issue on the question, "Did an asteroid kill the dinosaurs?"

et særnummer om spørgsmålet: "Dræbte en asteroide dinosaurerne?"

And the first paper is a standard scientific paper,

Og den første artikel er en almindelig videnskabelig artikel,

presenting evidence,

som fremlægger beviser: "Iridium-lag ved K/Pg-grænsen,

"Iridium layer at the K-T boundary,

and potassium argon dated crater in Yucatan,

kalium-argon dateret krater i Yucatan,

indicate that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs."

viser, at en asteroide dræbte dinosaurerne."

Perfectly ordinary scientific paper.

En ganske almindelig videnskabelig artikel.

Now, the next one.

Den næste artikel: "Præsidenten for The Royal Society

"The President of the Royal Society

has been vouchsafed a strong inner conviction

er blevet forundt en stærk indre overbevisning," - (Latter) -

that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs."

"... at en asteroide dræbte dinosaurerne."

(Laughter)

(Latter)

"It has been privately revealed to Professor Huxtane

"Det er blevet personligt åbenbaret for professor Huxtane,

that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs."

at en asteroide dræbte dinosaurerne."

(Laughter)

(Latter)

"Professor Hordley was brought up

"Professor Hordley blev opdraget

to have total and unquestioning faith" --

til at have absolut og ukritisk tro på," -

(Laughter) --

(Latter)

"that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs."

"... at en asteroide dræbte dinosaurerne."

"Professor Hawkins has promulgated an official dogma

"Professor Hawkins har udstedt et officielt dogme,

binding on all loyal Hawkinsians

bindende for alle loyale Hawkins-tilhængere,

that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs."

at en asteroide dræbte dinosaurerne."

(Laughter)

(Latter)

That's inconceivable, of course.

Det er, selvfølgelig, utænkeligt.

But suppose --

Men sæt -

[Supporters of the Asteroid Theory cannot be patriotic citizens]

(Bifald)

(Laughter)

(Applause)

In 1987, a reporter asked George Bush, Sr.

- i 1987 spurgte en journalist George Bush Sr.,

whether he recognized the equal citizenship and patriotism

om han anerkendte amerikanske ateisters ligeret

of Americans who are atheists.

til medborgerskab og patriotisme.

Mr. Bush's reply has become infamous.

Mr. Bush’ svar er berygtet.

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens,

"Nej jeg synes ikke, at ateister bør betragtes som borgere,

nor should they be considered patriots.

ej bør de heller betragtes som patrioter.

This is one nation under God."

Dette er én nation under Gud."

Bush's bigotry was not an isolated mistake,

Bush’ snæversynethed var ikke en enkeltstående fejl,

blurted out in the heat of the moment and later retracted.

som røg ud i farten og senere tilbagetrukket.

He stood by it in the face of repeated calls for clarification or withdrawal.

Han stod ved det på trods af gentagne opfordringer til afklaring eller tilbagetrækning.

He really meant it.

Han mente det virkelig.

More to the point, he knew it posed no threat to his election --

For at sige det klart: Han vidste, det ikke udgjorde nogen trussel mod valget af ham, tværtimod.

quite the contrary.

Democrats as well as Republicans parade their religiousness

Demokrater, såvel som republikanere, skilter med deres religiøsitet,

if they want to get elected.

hvis de ønsker at blive valgt. Begge partier påberåber sig ”én nation under Gud”.

Both parties invoke "one nation under God."

What would Thomas Jefferson have said?

Hvad ville Thomas Jefferson have sagt?

[In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty]

For øvrigt er jeg normalt ikke meget stolt af at være britisk,

Incidentally, I'm not usually very proud of being British,

but you can't help making the comparison.

men man kan ikke lade være at sammenligne.

(Applause)

(Bifald)

In practice, what is an atheist?

Hvad er en ateist egentlig?

An atheist is just somebody who feels about Yahweh

En ateist er bare én, som har samme holdning til Jahve,

the way any decent Christian feels about Thor or Baal or the golden calf.

som enhver ordentlig kristen har til Thor eller Baal eller guldkalven.

As has been said before, we are all atheists about most of the gods

Som det er blevet sagt før: Vi er alle ateister mht. de fleste af de guder,

that humanity has ever believed in.

som menneskeheden nogensinde har troet på. Nogle af os tror bare på én gud mindre.

Some of us just go one god further.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

(Applause)

(Bifald)

And however we define atheism, it's surely the kind of academic belief

Og hvordan vi end definerer ateisme, er det vel den slags akademiske overbevisning,

that a person is entitled to hold without being vilified

som en person er berettiget til at have, uden at blive hængt ud

as an unpatriotic, unelectable non-citizen.

som en upatriotisk, uvalgbar ikke-borger.

Nevertheless, it's an undeniable fact that to own up to being an atheist

Ikke desto mindre er det en ubestridelig kendsgerning, at hvis man indrømmer sin ateisme,

is tantamount to introducing yourself as Mr. Hitler or Miss Beelzebub.

betragtes man som hr. Hitler eller frk. Beelzebub.

And that all stems from the perception of atheists

Og dette stammer fra opfattelsen om, at ateister

as some kind of weird, way-out minority.

er en slags underligt, outreret mindretal.

Natalie Angier wrote a rather sad piece in the New Yorker,

Natalie Angier skrev en temmelig trist artikel i The New Yorker,

saying how lonely she felt as an atheist.

som beskrev, hvor ensom hun følte sig som ateist.

She clearly feels in a beleaguered minority.

Hun føler sig tydeligvis som del af et betrængt mindretal,

But actually, how do American atheists stack up numerically?

men hvor mange amerikanske ateister er der egentlig?

The latest survey makes surprisingly encouraging reading.

Den seneste undersøgelse er overraskende opmuntrende læsning.

Christianity, of course, takes a massive lion's share of the population,

Kristendommen har, selvfølgelig, broderparten af befolkningens støtte

med næsten 160 millioner mennesker.

with nearly 160 million.

But what would you think was the second largest group,

Men hvad ville I sige, den næststørste gruppe var,

convincingly outnumbering Jews with 2.8 million, Muslims at 1.1 million,

som er overbevisende større end jødedommen med 2,8 millioner, islam med 1,1 millioner

Hindus, Buddhists and all other religions put together?

og hinduisme, buddhisme og alle andre religioner tilsammen?

The second largest group, with nearly 30 million,

Den næststørste gruppe, med næsten 30 millioner,

is the one described as non-religious or secular.

er den, der beskrives som ikke-religiøs eller verdslig.

You can't help wondering why vote-seeking politicians

Man forundres over, at stemmesøgende politikere

are so proverbially overawed by the power of, for example, the Jewish lobby --

er så utroligt imponerede af f.eks. den jødiske lobbys magt.

the state of Israel seems to owe its very existence to the American Jewish vote --

Staten Israel synes at skylde sin blotte eksistens

til de amerikanske jøders stemmekraft, mens de

while at the same time,

consigning the non-religious to political oblivion.

ikke-religiøse ikke tillægges megen politisk betydning.

This secular non-religious vote, if properly mobilized,

Denne sekulære ikke-religiøse stemmekraft, hvis den mobiliseres rigtigt,

is nine times as numerous as the Jewish vote.

er ni gange så stor som den jødiske stemmekraft.

Why does this far more substantial minority

Hvorfor udnytter dette langt større mindretal

not make a move to exercise its political muscle?

ikke sine politiske muskler?

Well, so much for quantity. How about quality?

Nå, men så meget for kvantitet. Hvad med kvalitet?

Is there any correlation, positive or negative,

Er der nogen sammenhæng, positiv eller negativ,

between intelligence and tendency to be religious?

mellem intelligens og tendensen til at være religiøs?

[Them folks misunderestimated me]

(Latter)

(Laughter)

The survey that I quoted, which is the ARIS survey,

Undersøgelsen, som jeg citerede, der er ARIS undersøgelsen,

didn't break down its data by socio-economic class or education,

opdelte ikke sine data ud fra socioøkonomisk klasse, uddannelse,

IQ or anything else.

IK eller noget andet.

But a recent article by Paul G. Bell in the Mensa magazine

Men en nylig artikel af Paul G. Bell i Mensa-bladet

provides some straws in the wind.

giver en rettesnor.

Mensa, as you know, is an international organization

Mensa er, som bekendt, en international organisation

for people with very high IQ.

for folk med meget høj IK.

And from a meta-analysis of the literature,

Og ud fra en meta-analyse af litteraturen

Bell concludes that, I quote -- "Of 43 studies carried out since 1927

konkluderer Bell, at, og jeg citerer, "af 43 undersøgelser udført siden 1927,

on the relationship between religious belief,

om forholdet mellem religiøs tro og ens intelligens eller uddannelsesniveau,

and one's intelligence or educational level,

all but four found an inverse connection.

fandt alle, på nær fire, en omvendt sammenhæng.

That is, the higher one's intelligence or educational level,

Dvs., at jo højere intelligens eller uddannelsesniveau man har,

the less one is likely to be religious."

desto mindre er sandsynligheden for at være religiøs.”

Well, I haven't seen the original 42 studies,

Jeg har ikke set de oprindelige 42 undersøgelser, og jeg kan ikke kommentere på meta-analysen,

and I can't comment on that meta-analysis,

but I would like to see more studies done along those lines.

men jeg vil gerne se flere undersøgelser af den slags udført.

And I know that there are -- if I could put a little plug here --

Og jeg ved, hvis jeg må gøre lidt reklame,

at der er folk blandt publikum,

there are people in this audience

easily capable of financing a massive research survey to settle the question,

som let kan finansiere en massiv forsknings-undersøgelse, som kan afklare spørgsmålet,

and I put the suggestion up, for what it's worth.

og jeg stiller forslaget – Hvad det end måtte nytte.

But let me know show you some data

Men lad mig vise jer nogle data,

that have been properly published and analyzed,

der er blevet forskriftsmæssigt offentliggjort og analyseret

on one special group -- namely, top scientists.

om en speciel gruppe, nemlig topforskere.

In 1998, Larson and Witham polled the cream of American scientists,

I 1998 adspurgte Larson og Witham

de bedste amerikanske forskere,

those who'd been honored by election to the National Academy of Sciences,

som var blevet hædret ved at blive valgt til National Academy of Sciences.

and among this select group,

Og blandt denne udvalgte gruppe

belief in a personal God dropped to a shattering seven percent.

var troen på en personlig Gud faldet til rystende 7 procent.

About 20 percent are agnostic; the rest could fairly be called atheists.

Omkring 20 procent er agnostikere, og resten kunne med rette kaldes ateister.

Similar figures obtained for belief in personal immortality.

Tilsvarende tal fik man for troen på personlig udødelighed.

Among biological scientists, the figure is even lower:

Blandt biologer er tallene endnu lavere,

5.5 percent, only, believe in God.

kun 5,5 procent tror på Gud. For fysikere er det 7,5 procent.

Physical scientists, it's 7.5 percent.

I've not seen corresponding figures for elite scholars

Jeg har ikke set tilsvarende tal for elite-forskere

in other fields, such as history or philosophy,

på andre områder, såsom historie og filosofi,

but I'd be surprised if they were different.

men jeg ville blive overrasket, hvis de var anderledes.

So, we've reached a truly remarkable situation,

Så vi har nået en virkelig bemærkelsesværdig situation,

a grotesque mismatch between the American intelligentsia

et grotesk misforhold mellem den amerikanske intelligentsia

and the American electorate.

og de amerikanske vælgere.

A philosophical opinion about the nature of the universe,

En filosofisk holdning om universets tilstand,

which is held by the vast majority of top American scientists

som det store flertal af amerikanske top-videnskabsfolk

and probably the majority of the intelligentsia generally,

og formentlig hovedparten af intelligentsiaen er i besiddelse af,

is so abhorrent to the American electorate

er så afskyelig for de amerikanske vælgere,

that no candidate for popular election dare affirm it in public.

at ingen kandidat til folkelige valg tør bekræfte det offentligt.

If I'm right, this means that high office

Hvis jeg har ret, betyder det, at høje politiske stillinger

in the greatest country in the world

i det bedste land i verden

is barred to the very people best qualified to hold it --

er lukket land for netop de mennesker, som er bedst kvalificerede, intelligentsiaen,

the intelligentsia --

unless they are prepared to lie about their beliefs.

medmindre de er beredte på at lyve om deres tro.

To put it bluntly: American political opportunities

For at sige det rent ud, politiske muligheder i USA

are heavily loaded against those

er stærkt imod dem,

who are simultaneously intelligent and honest.

som på samme tid er intelligente og ærlige.

(Laughter)

(Bifald)

(Applause)

I'm not a citizen of this country, so I hope it won't be thought unbecoming

Jeg er ikke borger i USA, så jeg håber ikke, det vil være upassende,

if I suggest that something needs to be done.

hvis jeg foreslår, at noget må gøres.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

And I've already hinted what that something is.

Og jeg har allerede antydet, hvad det noget er.

From what I've seen of TED, I think this may be the ideal place to launch it.

Ud fra hvad jeg har set af TED, tror jeg, det kan være det ideelle sted at begynde det.

Again, I fear it will cost money.

Igen, jeg er bange for, at det vil koste penge.

We need a consciousness-raising,

Vi har brug for en bevidstgørende

coming-out campaign for American atheists.

ud-af-skabet-kampagne for amerikanske ateister.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

This could be similar to the campaign organized by homosexuals

Det kunne svare til den kampagne, som blev arrangeret af homoseksuelle

a few years ago,

for få år siden,

although heaven forbid that we should stoop to public outing

men Gud forbyde, at vi skulle nedlade os til offentligt at skubbe mennesker

of people against their will.

ud af skabet mod deres vilje.

In most cases, people who out themselves

I de fleste tilfælde vil folk, som springer ud,

will help to destroy the myth that there is something wrong with atheists.

medvirke til at ødelægge myten om, at der er noget galt med ateister.

On the contrary,

Tværtimod

they'll demonstrate that atheists are often the kinds of people

vil de vise, at ateister ofte er den slags mennesker,

who could serve as decent role models for your children,

der kunne tjene som gode rollemodeller for jeres børn.

the kinds of people an advertising agent could use to recommend a product,

Den slags mennesker som en reklame-agent kunne bruge til at anbefale et produkt.

the kinds of people who are sitting in this room.

Den slags mennesker, der sidder her i salen.

There should be a snowball effect, a positive feedback,

Der burde være en sneboldeffekt, en positiv tilbagemelding,

such that the more names we have, the more we get.

sådan, at jo flere navne vi har, desto flere får vi.

There could be non-linearities, threshold effects.

Der kunne være uregelmæssigheder, tærskel-effekter.

When a critical mass has been obtained,

Når en kritisk masse er opnået,

there's an abrupt acceleration in recruitment.

er der en brat stigning i rekrutteringen.

And again, it will need money.

Og igen, der vil være brug for penge.

I suspect that the word "atheist" itself

Jeg formoder, at ordet "ateist" i sig selv

contains or remains a stumbling block

indeholder, eller fortsat er en forhindring

far out of proportion to what it actually means,

langt ude af proportioner med, hvad det egentlig betyder, og en forhindring for folk,

and a stumbling block to people

who otherwise might be happy to out themselves.

der ellers med glæde ville komme ud af skabet.

So, what other words might be used to smooth the path,

Så, hvilke andre ord kunne blive brugt til at bane vejen,

oil the wheels, sugar the pill?

smøre hjulene, sødne medicinen? Darwin selv foretrak agnostiker -

Darwin himself preferred "agnostic" --

and not only out of loyalty to his friend Huxley,

og ikke kun af loyalitet overfor sin ven Huxley, som fandt på begrebet.

who coined the term.

Darwin said, "I have never been an atheist

Darwin sagde, "Jeg har aldrig været en ateist

in the same sense of denying the existence of a God.

i forstanden at benægte Guds eksistens.

I think that generally an 'agnostic'

Jeg tror, at agnostiker, generelt

would be the most correct description of my state of mind."

ville være den mest korrekte beskrivelse af mit sindelag."

He even became uncharacteristically tetchy with Edward Aveling.

Han blev endda ukarakteristisk irriteret på Edward Aveling.

Aveling was a militant atheist

Aveling var en militant ateist,

who failed to persuade Darwin

der ikke kunne overtale Darwin

to accept the dedication of his book on atheism --

til at acceptere dedikationen af sin bog om ateisme -

incidentally, giving rise to a fascinating myth

hvilket i øvrigt gav anledning til en fascinerende myte, om

that Karl Marx tried to dedicate "Das Kapital" to Darwin,

at Karl Marx forsøgte at dedikere "Das Kapital" til Darwin,

which he didn't, it was actually Edward Aveling.

hvilket han ikke gjorde. Det var faktisk Edward Aveling.

What happened was that Aveling's mistress was Marx's daughter,

Hvad der skete, var, at Avelings elskerinde var Marx' datter,

and when both Darwin and Marx were dead,

og da både Darwin og Marx var døde,

Marx's papers became muddled up with Aveling's papers,

blev Marx' papirer rodet sammen med Avelings,

and a letter from Darwin saying, "My dear sir, thank you very much

og et brev fra Darwin, hvori der stod: "Min kære Herre, mange tak,

but I don't want you to dedicate your book to me,"

men jeg ønsker ikke, at De dedikerer Deres bog til mig"

was mistakenly supposed to be addressed to Marx,

blev fejlagtigt antaget, som rettet til Marx,

and that gave rise to this whole myth, which you've probably heard.

og det gav anledning til hele denne myte, som I sikkert kender.

It's a sort of urban myth, that Marx tried to dedicate "Kapital" to Darwin.

Det er en slags vandrehistorie,

at Marx forsøgte at dedikere ”Das Kapital” til Darwin.

Anyway, it was Aveling, and when they met, Darwin challenged Aveling.

Hvorom alting er, var det til Aveling, og da de mødtes, udfordrede Darwin Aveling:

"Why do you call yourselves atheists?"

"Hvorfor kalder I jer selv ateister?"

"'Agnostic, '" retorted Aveling, "was simply 'atheist' writ respectable,

"Agnostiker," svarede Aveling, "var bare et respektabelt ord for ateist,

and 'atheist' was simply 'agnostic' writ aggressive."

og ateist var bare et aggressivt ord for agnostiker."

Darwin complained, "But why should you be so aggressive?"

Darwin beklagede sig, "Men hvorfor er I så aggressive?"

Darwin thought that atheism might be well and good for the intelligentsia,

Darwin mente, at ateisme kunne være godt nok for intelligentsiaen,

but that ordinary people were not, quote, "ripe for it."

men, at almindelige mennesker ikke var, citat: "modne til det."

Which is, of course, our old friend, the "don't rock the boat" argument.

Dette er naturligvis vores gamle ven "Skab ikke rørte vande"-argumentet.

It's not recorded whether Aveling told Darwin to come down off his high horse.

Det er ikke dokumenteret, hvorvidt Aveling sagde til Darwin, at han skulle stoppe med at spille klog.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

But in any case, that was more than 100 years ago.

Men, alligevel, det var mere end 100 år siden.

You'd think we might have grown up since then.

Man skulle tro, at vi er blevet mere voksne siden.

Now, a friend, an intelligent lapsed Jew,

En af mine venner, en intelligent bortfaldet jøde,

who, incidentally, observes the Sabbath for reasons of cultural solidarity,

som i øvrigt holdt Sabbatten hellig

på grund af kulturel solidaritet,

describes himself as a "tooth-fairy agnostic."

beskriver sig selv som en "tandfe-agnostiker".

Han vil ikke kalde sig selv ateist,

He won't call himself an atheist

because it's, in principle, impossible to prove a negative,

fordi det i princippet er umuligt at føre negativ bevisførelse,

but "agnostic" on its own might suggest that God's existence

men agnostiker alene kunne antyde, at Guds eksistens

was therefore on equal terms of likelihood as his non-existence.

derfor var på lige fod med sandsynligheden for hans ikke-eksistens.

Så min ven er strengt agnostisk om tandfeen,

So, my friend is strictly agnostic about the tooth fairy,

but it isn't very likely, is it?

men den er ikke særlig sandsynlig, vel? Ligesom Gud.

Like God.

Hence the phrase, "tooth-fairy agnostic."

Derfor udtrykket "tandfe-agnostiker",

Bertrand Russell made the same point

men Bertrand Russell fastslog det samme

using a hypothetical teapot in orbit about Mars.

ved hjælp af en hypotetisk tepotte i kredsløb omkring Mars.

You would strictly have to be agnostic

Man ville være strengt agnostisk om,

about whether there is a teapot in orbit about Mars,

hvorvidt der er en tepotte i kredsløb om Mars,

but that doesn't mean you treat the likelihood of its existence

men det betyder ikke, at man behandler sandsynligheden for dens eksistens

as on all fours with its non-existence.

på lige fod med dens ikke-eksistens.

The list of things which we strictly have to be agnostic about

Listen over ting, som vi må være strengt agnostiske om,

doesn't stop at tooth fairies and teapots; it's infinite.

slutter ikke ved tandfeer og tepotter. Den er uendelig.

If you want to believe one particular one of them --

Hvis I ønsker at tro på en særlig en af dem,

unicorns or tooth fairies or teapots or Yahweh --

enhjørninger eller tandfeer eller tepotter eller Jahve,

the onus is on you to say why.

er det op til jer at sige hvorfor.

The onus is not on the rest of us to say why not.

Det påhviler ikke resten af os at sige, hvorfor I ikke skal gøre det.

We, who are atheists,

Vi, der er ateister, er også ikke-tandfeister og ikke-tepotteister.

are also a-fairyists and a-teapotists.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

But we don't bother to say so.

Men vi gider ikke sige det,

And this is why my friend uses "tooth-fairy agnostic"

og det er derfor, min ven bruger tandfe-agnostiker,

as a label for what most people would call atheist.

som en betegnelse for hvad de fleste mennesker ville kalde ateist.

Nonetheless, if we want to attract deep-down atheists to come out publicly,

Men hvis vi ønsker at tiltrække de, som er ateister på bunden til at komme ud af skabet offentligt,

we're going to have find something better to stick on our banner

er vi nødt til at finde noget bedre

at skrive på vort banner end tandfe- eller tepotte-agnostiker.

than "tooth-fairy" or "teapot agnostic."

So, how about "humanist"?

Hvad så med humanist?

This has the advantage of a worldwide network of well-organized associations

Det har fordelen af et verdensomspændende netværk af velorganiserede foreninger

and journals and things already in place.

og tidsskrifter, hvor tingene allerede er på plads.

My problem with it is only its apparent anthropocentrism.

Mit problem med det er kun dets tilsyneladende fokus på mennesker.

One of the things we've learned from Darwin

En af de ting, vi har lært fra Darwin,

is that the human species is only one

er, at den menneskelige race kun er én

among millions of cousins, some close, some distant.

blandt millioner af fætre og kusiner, nogle nære, andre langt ude.

And there are other possibilities, like "naturalist,"

Og der er andre muligheder, som naturalist.

but that also has problems of confusion,

Men her er der også forvirring,

because Darwin would have thought naturalist --

fordi Darwin ville have tænkt naturalist -

"Naturalist" means, of course, as opposed to "supernaturalist" --

naturalist betyder, naturligvis, det modsatte af supernaturalist.

and it is used sometimes --

Og det bruges nogle gange.

Darwin would have been confused by the other sense of "naturalist,"

Darwin ville være blevet forvirret af den anden betydning af naturalist,

which he was, of course,

som han var, naturligvis, og jeg formoder, der kunne være andre,

and I suppose there might be others who would confuse it with "nudism".

der ville forveksle det med nudisme.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

Such people might be those belonging to the British lynch mob,

Sådanne mennesker kunne være dem, der tilhører den gruppe af britiske selvtægtere,

which last year attacked a pediatrician in mistake for a pedophile.

der sidste år fejlagtigt angreb en børnelæge, i stedet for en pædofil.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

I think the best of the available alternatives for "atheist"

Jeg tror det bedste af de tilgængelige alternativer til ateist, simpelthen er ikke-teist.

is simply "non-theist."

It lacks the strong connotation that there's definitely no God,

Det mangler den stærke betydning, at Gud absolut ikke findes,

and it could therefore easily be embraced by teapot or tooth-fairy agnostics.

og det kan derfor let blive taget til eje af tepotte- eller tandfe-agnostikere.

It's completely compatible with the God of the physicists.

Det er helt foreneligt med fysikernes Gud.

Når folk som - når ateister,

When atheists like Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein use the word "God,"

som Stephen Hawking og Albert Einstein, bruger ordet "Gud",

they use it of course as a metaphorical shorthand

bruger de det, naturligvis, som metaforisk stenografi

for that deep, mysterious part of physics which we don't yet understand.

for den dybe mystiske del af fysikken, som vi endnu ikke forstår.

Ikke-teist er godt nok til det, men i modsætning til ateist

"Non-theist" will do for all that, yet unlike "atheist,"

it doesn't have the same phobic, hysterical responses.

får det ikke de samme fobiske, hysteriske reaktioner.

But I think, actually, the alternative

Men jeg mener faktisk, at alternativet er,

is to grasp the nettle of the word "atheism" itself,

at gribe fast om roden på ordet ateisme selv,

precisely because it is a taboo word,

netop fordi det er et tabuord,

carrying frissons of hysterical phobia.

som bærer det kolde gys af hysterisk fobi.

Critical mass may be harder to achieve with the word "atheist"

Kritisk masse kan være sværere at nå med ordet ateist,

than with the word "non-theist,"

end med ordet ikke-teist,

or some other non-confrontational word.

eller et andet ikke-konfronterende ord.

But if we did achieve it with that dread word "atheist" itself,

Men hvis vi nåede det med skræmmeordet ateist,

the political impact would be even greater.

ville den politiske slagkraft være endnu større.

Now, I said that if I were religious, I'd be very afraid of evolution --

Jeg sagde før, at hvis jeg var religiøs, ville jeg være meget bange for evolution. Jeg vil gå endnu længere.

I'd go further: I would fear science in general, if properly understood.

Jeg ville frygte videnskab generelt, hvis den blev opfattet rigtigt.

And this is because the scientific worldview

Og det er fordi, det videnskabelige verdenssyn

is so much more exciting, more poetic,

er meget mere spændende, mere poetisk,

more filled with sheer wonder

mere fyldt med ren undren end noget

than anything in the poverty-stricken arsenals of the religious imagination.

i den religiøse fantasis fattige arsenaler.

As Carl Sagan, another recently dead hero, put it,

Som Carl Sagan, en anden helt, som døde for nylig, udtrykte det:

"How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science

"Hvordan kan det være, at næppe nogen større religion har set på videnskaben,

and concluded, 'This is better than we thought!

og konkluderet: "Det er bedre end vi troede!

The universe is much bigger than our prophet said,

Universet er langt større, end vores profet sagde,

grander, more subtle, more elegant'?

større, mere spidsfindigt, mere elegant"? I stedet siger de: "Nej, nej, nej!

Instead they say, 'No, no, no!

My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.'

Min gud er en lille gud, og sådan skal han forblive."

A religion, old or new,

En religion, gammel eller ny,

that stressed the magnificence of the universe

der ville understrege universets pragt,

as revealed by modern science,

som fremstillet af den moderne videnskab,

might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe

kunne være i stand til at trække reserver af ærbødighed og ærefrygt frem,

hardly tapped by the conventional faiths."

som næppe er udnyttet af konventionelle trosretninger."

Now, this is an elite audience,

Dette er et elite-publikum,

and I would therefore expect about 10 percent of you to be religious.

og jeg ville derfor forvente, at omkring 10 procent af jer er religiøse.

Many of you probably subscribe to our polite cultural belief

Mange af jer er sikkert tilhængere af vores høflige kulturelle overbevisning om, at vi skal respektere religionen,

that we should respect religion.

But I also suspect that a fair number of those

men jeg har også mistanke om, at en hel del af disse mennesker

secretly despise religion as much as I do.

hemmeligt foragter religion ligeså meget, som jeg gør.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

If you're one of them, and of course many of you may not be,

Hvis du er en af dem, og det er der, selvfølgelig, nok mange af jer, der ikke er,

but if you are one of them,

men hvis du er en af dem, beder jeg dig om at holde op med at være høflig,

I'm asking you to stop being polite,

come out, and say so.

kom ud og sig det, og hvis du tilfældigvis er rig,

And if you happen to be rich,

så tænk på måder hvorpå du kan gøre en forskel.

give some thought to ways in which you might make a difference.

The religious lobby in this country

Den religiøse lobby i USA

is massively financed by foundations -- to say nothing of all the tax benefits --

er massivt finansieret af fonde, for ikke at nævne alle de skattemæssige fordele,

by foundations, such as the Templeton Foundation and the Discovery Institute.

af fonde såsom Templeton Foundation og Discovery Institute.

We need an anti-Templeton to step forward.

Vi har brug for, at et anti-Templeton træder frem.

If my books sold as well as Stephen Hawking's books,

Hvis mine bøger solgte ligeså godt som Stephen Hawkings bøger,

instead of only as well as Richard Dawkins' books, I'd do it myself.

i stedet for kun som Richard Dawkins' bøger, ville jeg gøre det selv.

Folk spørger altid, "Hvordan forandrede den 11. september dig?"

People are always going on about, "How did September the 11th change you?"

Well, here's how it changed me.

Nuvel, her er hvordan det forandrede mig:

Let's all stop being so damned respectful.

Lad os alle stoppe med at være så forbandet respektfulde.

Thank you very much.

Mange tak.

(Applause)

(Bifald)