Atheism 2.0 | Alain de Botton

Translator: Monika Mändmaa Reviewer: Karl Hein

One of the most common ways of dividing the world

Üks levinuim viis jagada maailm kaheks

is into those who believe

on eristada neid, kes usuvad

and those who don't --

ja neid, kes ei usu -

into the religious and the atheists.

jagades inimesed usklikeks ja ateistideks.

And for the last decade or so,

Viimasel kümmekonnal aastal

it's been quite clear

on olnud üsna selge arusaam,

what being an atheist means.

mida ateistiks olemine tähendab.

There have been some very vocal atheists

Mõned väga häälekad ateistid,

who've pointed out,

on avaldanud arvamust,

not just that religion is wrong,

et religioon pole mitte üksnes vale,

but that it's ridiculous.

vaid et see on lausa naeruväärne.

These people, many of whom have lived in North Oxford,

Need inimesed - ja paljud neist on elanud Põhja-Oxfordis -

have argued --

on väitnud,

they've argued that believing in God

nad on väitnud, et Jumalasse uskumine

is akin to believing in fairies

on nagu uskumine haldjatesse

and essentially that the whole thing

ja sisuliselt on kogu see värk

is a childish game.

lihtsalt lapsik mäng.

Now I think it's too easy.

Minu arust on see liiga lihtne.

I think it's too easy

Oleks liiga kerge

to dismiss the whole of religion that way.

kogu religioon sedasi kõrvale heita.

And it's as easy as shooting fish in a barrel.

See oleks nagu lati alt läbi jooksmine.

And what I'd like to inaugurate today

Täna tahaksingi teile näidata,

is a new way of being an atheist --

kuidas saaks olla ateist uut moodi

if you like, a new version of atheism

ehk et esitleda ateismi uut versiooni,

we could call Atheism 2.0.

mille nimi võiks olla Ateism 2.0

Now what is Atheism 2.0?

Mida see Ateism 2.0 endast kujutab?

Well it starts from a very basic premise:

Põhieeldus on siin väga lihtne:

of course, there's no God.

loomulikult ei ole Jumalat olemas.

Of course, there are no deities or supernatural spirits

Loomulikult pole olemas ei jumalusi ega üleloomulikke jõude

or angels, etc.

nagu pole ka ingleid jne

Now let's move on; that's not the end of the story,

Läheme aga edasi, see pole veel kõik.

that's the very, very beginning.

See on alles päris-päris algus.

I'm interested in the kind of constituency

Mulle pakuvad huvi sellised tegelased,

that thinks something along these lines:

kes mõtlevad umbes nii:

that thinks, "I can't believe in any of this stuff.

"Ma ei suuda midagi sellist tõsiselt võtta.

I can't believe in the doctrines.

Ma ei saa uskuda mingeid doktriine.

I don't think these doctrines are right.

Ma ei arva, et need doktriinid peaksid paika.

But," a very important but, "I love Christmas carols.

Aga siin on üks väga tähtis "aga" - , "mulle meeldivad jõululaulud.

I really like the art of Mantegna.

Mulle meeldib väga Mantegna looming.

I really like looking at old churches.

Mulle meeldib vanu kirikuid vaadata.

I really like turning the pages of the Old Testament."

Mulle meeldib sirvida Vana Testamenti."

Whatever it may be,

Mis iganes see ka poleks,

you know the kind of thing I'm talking about --

te saate aru, kellest ma räägin -

people who are attracted to the ritualistic side,

inimestest, keda köidavad religiooni rituaalid,

the moralistic, communal side of religion,

väärtused ja kogukondlik aspekt,

but can't bear the doctrine.

aga kes ei kannata doktriini.

Until now, these people have faced a rather unpleasant choice.

Siiani on need inimesed olnud üsna ebameeldiva valiku ees.

It's almost as though either you accept the doctrine

Sa kas võtad omaks doktriini

and then you can have all the nice stuff,

ja saad kõik need toredad asjad

or you reject the doctrine and

või sa ei tunnista doktriini

you're living in some kind of spiritual wasteland

ja elad mingil vaimsel tühermaal

under the guidance of CNN and Walmart.

CNNi ja Walmarti meelevallas.

So that's a sort of tough choice.

Nii et valik on üsna keeruline.

I don't think we have to make that choice.

Ma ei arva, et see on meie ainus valik.

I think there is an alternative.

Minu arust on olemas alternatiiv.

I think there are ways --

Olen seisukohal, et on võimalus

and I'm being both very respectful and completely impious --

- olen siin nüüd ühtaegu aupaklik ja teisalt täiesti ketserlik -

of stealing from religions.

varastada religioonidelt.

If you don't believe in a religion,

Kuigi religiooni ei usuta,

there's nothing wrong with picking and mixing,

pole midagi halba, kui üht-teist üle võtame,

with taking out the best sides of religion.

sõeludes välja parima, mis religioonil pakkuda on.

And for me, atheism 2.0

Minu jaoks on Ateism 2.0

is about both, as I say,

võimalus ühtaegu lugupidamisega ja aukartuseta

a respectful and an impious way

vaadata erinevaid religioone ja küsida: "Mida saaksime sellest kasutada?"

of going through religions and saying, "What here could we use?"

The secular world is full of holes.

Ilmalik maailm on täis lünkasid.

We have secularized badly, I would argue.

Ütleksin, et oleme kehvasti ilmalikustunud.

And a thorough study of religion

Ja põhjalik religioonide läbitöötamine

could give us all sorts of insights

võiks anda mitmeid ideid

into areas of life that are not going too well.

eluvaldkondades, kus praegu pole asjad just parimas korras.

And I'd like to run through a few of these today.

Võiksime täna heita pilgu mõnele neist.

I'd like to kick off by looking at education.

Alustaksin haridusest.

Now education is a field

Haridus on valdkond,

the secular world really believes in.

millesse ilmalik maailm tõeliselt usub.

When we think about how we're going to make the world a better place,

Püüdes leida võimalusi maailma parandamiseks, mõtleme haridusele.

we think education; that's where we put a lot of money.

Investeerime haridusse suuri summasid.

Education is going to give us, not only commercial skills, industrial skills,

Haridus ei anna meile mitte üksnes kaubandus- ja tootmisoskused,

it's also going to make us better people.

vaid teeb meist paremad inimesed.

You know the kind of thing a commencement address is, and graduation ceremonies,

Teate ju küll neid aktusekõnesid,

those lyrical claims

poeetilisi üleskutseid,

that education, the process of education -- particularly higher education --

mis rõhutavad, et haridus ja õppimine, eriti just kõrgharidus,

will make us into nobler and better human beings.

teeb meid üllamateks ja paremateks inimesteks.

That's a lovely idea.

Iseenesest armas mõte.

Interesting where it came from.

Huvitav, kust see pärineb?

In the early 19th century,

19. sajandi alguses

church attendance in Western Europe

hakkas Lääne-Euroopas kirikus käimine

started sliding down very, very sharply, and people panicked.

järsult vähenema ja inimesed sattusid paanikasse.

They asked themselves the following question.

Tekkis küsimus:

They said, where are people going to find the morality,

mis on nüüd inimeste moraalne kompass?

where are they going to find guidance,

kust nüüd võib leida juhatust,

and where are they going to find sources of consolation?

ja kust saada lohutust?

And influential voices came up with one answer.

Ja mõjukad tegelased andsid ühese vastuse.

They said culture.

Nad ütlesid - kultuurist.

It's to culture that we should look

Kultuur on see, mis annab meile

for guidance, for consolation, for morality.

suuniseid, lohutust ja õigeid väärtusi.

Let's look to the plays of Shakespeare,

Vaadakem Shakespeare'i näidendeid,

the dialogues of Plato, the novels of Jane Austen.

Platoni dialooge, Jane Austeni novelle.

In there, we'll find a lot of the truths

Sealt leiame hulgaliselt samu tõdesid,

that we might previously have found in the Gospel of Saint John.

mida varasemalt võisime leida Johannese evangeeliumist.

Now I think that's a very beautiful idea and a very true idea.

Minu arust on see üks igati ilus ja ka väga õige mõte.

They wanted to replace scripture with culture.

Nad tahtsid asendada pühakirja kultuuriga.

And that's a very plausible idea.

See oli igati arvestatav idee.

It's also an idea that we have forgotten.

Samas on see idee, mille oleme unustanud.

If you went to a top university --

Kui läheksite mõnda tippülikooli -

let's say you went to Harvard or Oxford or Cambridge --

näiteks Harvardisse või Oxfordi või Cambridge'i

and you said, "I've come here

ja ütleksite: “Tulin leidma õigeid väärtusi, juhatust ja meelerahu,

because I'm in search of morality, guidance and consolation;

I want to know how to live,"

Öelge, kuidas peaksin elama!",

they would show you the way to the insane asylum.

siis suunaksid nad teid vaimuhaiglasse.

This is simply not what our grandest and best institutes of higher learning

See pole lihtsalt see,

millega meie parimad ja suurimad ülikoolid tegelevad.

are in the business of.

Why? They don't think we need it.

Miks? Sest nad ei arva, et see on vajalik.

They don't think we are in an urgent need of assistance.

Ei leita, et meil oleks hädasti abi vaja.

They see us as adults, rational adults.

Meid võetakse ratsionaalsete täiskasvanutena.

What we need is information.

Vajatakse hoopis teadmisi.

We need data, we don't need help.

Vajatakse andmeid, aga mitte abi.

Now religions start from a very different place indeed.

Religioon aga lähtub hoopis erinevatest alustest.

All religions, all major religions,

Kõik religioonid, kõik peamised religioonid,

at various points call us children.

nimetavad meid sageli lasteks.

And like children,

Ja nii nagu lapsedki,

they believe that we are in severe need of assistance.

vajame me religiooni vaatenurgast tõsist abi.

We're only just holding it together.

Saame vaid hädavaevu hakkama.

Perhaps this is just me, maybe you.

Võib-olla käib see vaid minu või teie kohta.

But anyway, we're only just holding it together.

Aga igatahes, tuleme toime vaid hädavaevu.

And we need help. Of course, we need help.

Ja me vajame abi. Loomulikult vajame me abi.

And so we need guidance and we need didactic learning.

Samuti on meil vaja suuniseid ja põhjalikku õpetust.

You know, in the 18th century in the U.K.,

18. sajandi Suurbritannias oli tähtsaim jutlustaja,

the greatest preacher, greatest religious preacher, was a man called John Wesley,

tuntuim usukuulutaja ja jutlustaja, mees nimega John Wesley,

who went up and down this country delivering sermons,

kes käis üle kogu maa jutlusi pidamas

advising people how they could live.

ja andis inimestele juhatust, kuidas oma elu elada.

He delivered sermons on the duties of parents to their children

Ta jutlusi rääkisid vanemate kohustustest oma laste ees

and children to their parents,

ja laste kohustustest oma vanemate ees

the duties of the rich to the poor and the poor to the rich.

rikaste kohustustest vaeste ees ja vaeste kohustustest rikaste ees.

He was trying to tell people how they should live

Ta püüdis inimesi õpetada, kuidas tuleks elada

through the medium of sermons,

the classic medium of delivery of religions.

tema meediumiks oli jutlus,

klassikaline religiooni edastamise vorm.

Now we've given up with the idea of sermons.

Tänaseks on jutlused oma tähtsuse minetanud.

If you said to a modern liberal individualist,

Kui öelda kaasaegsele liberaalsele individualistile:

"Hey, how about a sermon?"

"Hei, kuidas oleks ühe jutlusega?"

they'd go, "No, no. I don't need one of those.

oleks vastus: "Ei, seda mul küll pole vaja.

I'm an independent, individual person."

Ma olen sõltumatu indiviid."

What's the difference between a sermon

Aga mis vahe on jutlusel

and our modern, secular mode of delivery, the lecture?

ja tänapäevasel ilmalikul infoedastusel, loengul?

Well a sermon wants to change your life

Jutluse eesmärk on muuta su elu

and a lecture wants to give you a bit of information.

aga loengu eesmärk on lihtsalt infot anda.

And I think we need to get back to that sermon tradition.

Arvan, et peaksime pöörduma tagasi jutluste traditsiooni juurde.

The tradition of sermonizing is hugely valuable,

Jutlustamise tava on ülimalt väärtuslik,

because we are in need of guidance,

sest suunamist on meil ju vaja,

morality and consolation --

on vaja väärtusi ja lohutust -

and religions know that.

ja religioonid teavad seda.

Another point about education:

Veel midagi hariduse teemal:

we tend to believe in the modern secular world

ilmalikus maailmas kaldume uskuma,

that if you tell someone something once, they'll remember it.

et kui räägime asjast ühe korra, siis jääb see meelde.

Sit them in a classroom, tell them about Plato

Eks pange 20-aastased koolipinki istuma ja rääkige neile Platonist

at the age of 20, send them out for a career in management consultancy for 40 years,

saatke nad järgmiseks 40 aastaks tööle juhtimiskonsultandina

and that lesson will stick with them.

ja neil püsib meeles, mida selles loengus räägiti.

Religions go, "Nonsense.

Religiooni seisukohast on see nonsenss.

You need to keep repeating the lesson 10 times a day.

"Õppetundi tuleb korrutada 10 korda päevas.

So get on your knees and repeat it."

Nii et põlvita ja korda!"

That's what all religions tell us:

Nii ütlevad kõik religioonid:

"Get on you knees and repeat it 10 or 20 or 15 times a day."

"Põlvita ja korda 10 või 20 või 15 korda päevas."

Otherwise our minds are like sieves.

Meie pea on samahästi kui sõel.

So religions are cultures of repetition.

Seega on religioon kordamise kultuur.

They circle the great truths again and again and again.

Peamisi tõdesid käiatakse ikka uuesti ja uuesti.

We associate repetition with boredom.

Meile seostub kordamine igavusega.

"Give us the new," we're always saying.

"Andke meile midagi uut!", ütleme me alati.

"The new is better than the old."

"Uus on parem kui vana".

If I said to you, "Okay, we're not going to have new TED.

Kui ma ütleksin: "Me ei tee uut TEDi.

We're just going to run through all the old ones

Lihtsalt vaatame uuesti kõiki vanu loenguid

and watch them five times because they're so true.

ja vaatame neid viis korda, sest see jutt on sulatõsi.

We're going to watch Elizabeth Gilbert five times

Vaatame Elizabeth Gilbertit viis korda,

because what she says is so clever," you'd feel cheated.

sest ta räägib nii õigeid asju," te ju tunneksite end petetuna?

Not so if you're adopting a religious mindset.

Aga mitte siis, kui vaataksite seda religiooni vaatenurgast.

The other things that religions do

Teine asi, mida religioonid teevad,

is to arrange time.

on aja korraldamine.

All the major religions give us calendars.

Kõikidel peamistel religioonidel on oma kalender.

What is a calendar?

Mis on kalender?

A calendar is a way of making sure that across the year

Kalender tagab, et aasta jooksul

you will bump into certain very important ideas.

satume kokku mitmete väga oluliste põhimõtetega.

In the Catholic chronology, Catholic calendar,

Katoliiklikus ajaarvamises, katoliku kalendris

at the end of March you will think about St. Jerome

on märtsi lõpus aeg mõelda Püha Eusebiusele

and his qualities of humility and goodness

ja tema alandlikkusele ning headusele

and his generosity to the poor.

ja heldusele vaeste vastu.

You won't do that by accident; you will do that because you are guided to do that.

See ei ole juhuslik. Su mõtted lähevad neile teemadele, sest sind suunatakse.

Now we don't think that way.

Meie päris nii ei mõtle.

In the secular world we think, "If an idea is important, I'll bump into it.

Ilmalikus maailmas mõtleme: "Kui mõni asi on oluline, küll ma siis komistan selle otsa.

I'll just come across it."

See lihtsalt satub mulle ette."

Nonsense, says the religious world view.

Jama, ütleb religioosne maailmavaade.

Religious view says we need calendars, we need to structure time,

Religioosse lähenemise kohaselt on vaja kalendreid, aega tuleb struktureerida

we need to synchronize encounters.

kokkusattumisi tuleb sünkroniseerida.

This comes across also

Seda on selgelt näha ka viisis,

in the way in which religions set up rituals

kuidas religioon kujundab rituaale oluliste emotsioonide ümber.

around important feelings.

Take the Moon. It's really important to look at the Moon.

Võtame näiteks Kuu. Kuu vaatamine on väga tähtis.

You know, when you look at the Moon,

Kui vaadatakse Kuud, mõeldakse

you think, "I'm really small. What are my problems?"

"Ma olen ju nii väike. Mis need minu probleemid ikka on."

It sets things into perspective, etc., etc.

See paneb asju vaatama teise nurga alt.

We should all look at the Moon a bit more often. We don't.

Peaksime ehk kõik Kuud sagedamini sagedamini. Ometi ei tee me seda

Why don't we? Well there's nothing to tell us, "Look at the Moon."

Miks me seda ei tee? Sest miski ei tuleta meelde: "Vaata Kuud!"

But if you're a Zen Buddhist in the middle of September,

Aga kui sa oled zen budist, siis septembri keskel

you will be ordered out of your home, made to stand on a canonical platform

käsutatakse sind kodust välja, seisma kanoonilisele platvormile

and made to celebrate the festival of Tsukimi,

ja tähistama Tsukimi festivali,

where you will be given poems to read

kus tuleb lugeda luuletusi

in honor of the Moon and the passage of time

austamaks Kuud ja aja möödumist

and the frailty of life that it should remind us of.

ja elu haprust, mida see meile meenutama peaks.

You'll be handed rice cakes.

Sulle ulatatakse riisikooke.

And the Moon and the reflection on the Moon

Ja Kuu ning mõtisklused Kuust

will have a secure place in your heart.

saaksid kindla koha sinu südames.

That's very good.

See on väga hea.

The other thing that religions are really aware of

Veel üks asi, mida religioonid hästi teadvustavad -

is: speak well --

kõnele hästi.

I'm not doing a very good job of this here --

Mul ei õnnestu see hetkel väga,

but oratory, oratory is absolutely key to religions.

aga kõnekunst on ülima tähtsusega religioonide jaoks.

In the secular world, you can come through the university system and be a lousy speaker

Ilmalikus maailmas võib läbida ülikooli väljudes sealt kehva kõnelejana

and still have a great career.

ja ikkagi teha suurt karjääri.

But the religious world doesn't think that way.

Aga religioosne maailm ei mõtle niimoodi.

What you're saying needs to be backed up

Seda, mida sa ütled, peab toetama

by a really convincing way of saying it.

väga veenev ütlemise viis.

So if you go to an African-American Pentecostalist church

Kui minna arfo-ameerika nelipühilaste kirikusse

in the American South

Ameerika lõunaosariikides

and you listen to how they talk,

ja kuulata nende kõnet -

my goodness, they talk well.

taevake, nad kõnelevad hästi!

Iga veenva väite peale öeldakse: "Aamen, aamen, aamen!"

After every convincing point, people will go, "Amen, amen, amen."

At the end of a really rousing paragraph, they'll all stand up,

Ja peale tõsiselt erutavat lõiku tõusevad nad kõik püsti

and they'll go, "Thank you Jesus, thank you Christ, thank you Savior."

ja ütlevad:"Tänan Jeesus, tänan Kristus, tänan Lunastaja!"

If we were doing it like they do it --

Kui me teeksime nii, nagu nemad -

let's not do it, but if we were to do it --

ärgem tehkem, aga kui me teeks -

I would tell you something like, "Culture should replace scripture."

ma ütleks teile sedasi et, "Kultuur asendagu pühakirja!"

And you would go, "Amen, amen, amen."

Teie ütleksite: "Aamen, aamen, aamen"

And at the end of my talk, you would all stand up

ja jutu lõpus tõuseksite kõik püsti ja ütleksite:

and you would go, "Thank you Plato, thank you Shakespeare, thank you Jane Austen."

"Tänan Platon, tänan Shakespeare, tänan Jane Austen!"

And we'd know that we had a real rhythm going.

Ja me teaksime, et meil on ühine rütm.

All right, all right. We're getting there. We're getting there.

Hea küll. Hakkab tulema.

(Applause)

The other thing that religions know is we're not just brains,

Veel üks asi, mida religioon teab, on et me pole üksnes ajud,

we are also bodies.

me oleme ka kehad.

And when they teach us a lesson,

Ja kui nad annavad meile õppetunni,

they do it via the body.

teevad nad seda keha kaudu.

So for example,

Võtame näiteks

take the Jewish idea of forgiveness.

judaismi andestamise idee.

Jews are very interested in forgiveness

Juudid huvituvad väga andestusest

and how we should start anew and start afresh.

ja sellest, kuidas alustada uuesti ja värskelt.

They don't just deliver us sermons on this.

Nad ei pea sellest lihtsalt jutluseid.

They don't just give us books or words about this.

Nad ei anna meile raamatuid või õpetussõnu.

They tell us to have a bath.

Nad käsivad meil minna vanni.

So in Orthodox Jewish communities, every Friday you go to a Mikveh.

Seega ortodokssetes juudi kogukondades ootab sind igal reedel ees Mikveh.

You immerse yourself in the water,

Sa kastad end vette

and a physical action backs up a philosophical idea.

ja füüsiline akt toetab filosoofilist ideed.

We don't tend to do that.

Me ei kipu sedasi tegema.

Our ideas are in one area and our behavior with our bodies is in another.

Meie ideed asuvad ühes kohas ja meie käitumine koos kehaga teises kohas.

Religions are fascinating in the way they try and combine the two.

Religioonid on imetlusväärsed nende kahe ühendamisel.

Let's look at art now.

Vaatame nüüd kunsti.

Now art is something that in the secular world,

Kunst on midagi, millest ilmalikus maailmas

we think very highly of. We think art is really, really important.

peetakse väga lugu. Me arvame, et kunst on väga-väga tähtis.

A lot of our surplus wealth goes to museums, etc.

Suur osa meie jõukusest suunatakse muuseumitesse.

We sometimes hear it said

Mõnikord öeldakse,

that museums are our new cathedrals, or our new churches.

et muuseumid on uued katedraalid, kirikud.

You've heard that saying.

Olete seda ütlust kuulnud.

Now I think that the potential is there,

Ma usun, et potentsiaal on olemas,

but we've completely let ourselves down.

aga me oleme ennast täielikult alt vedanud.

And the reason we've let ourselves down

Ja põhjus miks me oleme end alt vedanud,

is that we're not properly studying

on et me pole korralikult uurinud,

how religions handle art.

kuidas religioonid käsitlevad kunsti.

The two really bad ideas that are hovering in the modern world

On kaks tõeliselt halba ideed, mis ringlevad tänapäeva maailmas,

that inhibit our capacity to draw strength from art:

mis pärsivad meie võimet saada kunstist jõudu.

The first idea is that art should be for art's sake --

Esimene mõte on, et kunst peaks olema üksnes kunsti pärast -

a ridiculous idea --

naeruväärne mõte -

an idea that art should live in a hermetic bubble

mõte, et kunst peaks elama hermeetilises mullis

and should not try to do anything with this troubled world.

ega peaks püüdma midagi saavutada selles vaevatud maailmas.

I couldn't disagree more.

Ma ei nõustu sellega mingil juhul.

The other thing that we believe is that art shouldn't explain itself,

Teine asi - me usume, et kunst ei peaks ennast seletama,

that artists shouldn't say what they're up to,

et kunstnikud ei peaks ütlema, mis neil plaanis on,

because if they said it, it might destroy the spell

sest kui nad ütleks, võiks see röövida võlu

and we might find it too easy.

ja meile võiks see tunduda liiga lihtne.

That's why a very common feeling when you're in a museum --

Seetõttu on väga levinud tunne muuseumis olles -

let's admit it --

is, "I don't know what this is about."

tunnistagem seda -

ma ei tea, millest see räägib.

But if we're serious people, we don't admit to that.

Aga kui me oleme tõsised inimesed, siis me ei tunnista seda.

But that feeling of puzzlement is structural

Aga see hämmingu tunne

to contemporary art.

on kaasaegse kunsti määrav joon.

Now religions have a much saner attitude to art.

Religioonidel on palju mõistlikum suhtumine kunsti.

They have no trouble telling us what art is about.

Neil pole probleemiks öelda, millest kunst räägib.

Art is about two things in all the major faiths.

Kunst räägib kahest peamisest asjast usu juures.

Firstly, it's trying to remind you

Esiteks, püüab see meenutada,

of what there is to love.

mis on armastusväärne.

And secondly, it's trying to remind you

Ja teiseks püüab see meenutada,

of what there is to fear and to hate.

mis on põlastusväärne.

And that's what art is.

Ja see ongi kunst.

Art is a visceral encounter with the most important ideas of your faith.

Kunst on intuitiivne kohtumine olulisemate ideedega usu juures.

So as you walk around a church,

Niisiis jalutades kirikus

or a mosque or a cathedral,

või mošees või katedraalis,

what you're trying to imbibe, what you're imbibing is,

see, mis sa püüad imeda endasse

through your eyes, through your senses,

oma silmade, meelte kaudu

truths that have otherwise come to you through your mind.

on tõed, mis muidu jõuavad sinuni mõistuse kaudu.

Essentially it's propaganda.

Sisuliselt on see propaganda.

Rembrandt is a propagandist

Rembrandt on propagandist

in the Christian view.

kristlikust vaatepunktist.

Now the word "propaganda" sets off alarm bells.

Sõna "propaganda" tekitab meis umbusku.

We think of Hitler, we think of Stalin. Don't, necessarily.

Meile meenub Hitler, Stalin. Mitte ilmtingimata.

Propaganda is a manner of being didactic in honor of something.

Propaganda on didaktiline moodus millegi ülistamisel.

And if that thing is good, there's no problem with it at all.

Ja kui see asi on hea, siis pole mingit probleemi.

My view is that museums should take a leaf out of the book of religions.

Ma leian, et muuseumid peaksid võtma eeskuju religioonidest.

And they should make sure that when you walk into a museum --

Nad peaksid kindlustama, et muuseumisse astudes -

if I was a museum curator,

kui ma oleksin muuseumi kuraator,

I would make a room for love, a room for generosity.

teeksin ma ühe ruumi armastuse, teise helduse jaoks.

All works of art are talking to us about things.

Kõik kunstiteosed räägivad meile midagi maailmast.

And if we were able to arrange spaces

Ja kui me saaks korralda ruumid selliselt,

where we could come across works

et me kohtume teostega nii,

where we would be told, use these works of art

et meile öeldakse: "Kasutage neid teoseid,

to cement these ideas in your mind,

et kinnistada neid ideid oma meeltesse",

we would get a lot more out of art.

me saaksime kunstist palju enam.

Art would pick up the duty that it used to have

Kunst võtaks rolli, mis sel kunagi oli

and that we've neglected because of certain mis-founded ideas.

ja mille me hülgasime teatud väärarvamuste tõttu.

Art should be one of the tools

Kunst peaks olema üks vahenditest,

by which we improve our society.

mille kaudu me saame ühiskonda parandada.

Art should be didactic.

Kunst peaks olema didaktiline.

Let's think of something else.

Vaatleme nüüd midagi muud.

The people in the modern world, in the secular world,

Inimesed kaasaegses ilmalikus maailmas,

who are interested in matters of the spirit,

kes huvituvad vaimu küsimustest,

in matters of the mind,

in higher soul-like concerns,

meele, kõrgema hingelisuse küsimustest

tend to be isolated individuals.

kipuvad olema isoleeritud indiviidid.

They're poets, they're philosophers, they're photographers, they're filmmakers.

Nad on poeedid, filosoofid, fotograafid, filmikunstnikud.

And they tend to be on their own.

Ja nad on valdavalt omaette.

They're our cottage industries. They are vulnerable, single people.

Nad on väikeetevõtjad. Nad on haavatavad, üksikud inimesed.

And they get depressed and they get sad on their own.

Ja nad satuvad depressiooni ja muutuvad kurvaks omaette.

And they don't really change much.

Ja nad ei muuda eriti midagi.

Now think about religions, think about organized religions.

Mõelgem nüüd religioonidele, organiseeritud religioonidele.

What do organized religions do?

Mida nad teevad?

They group together, they form institutions.

Nad koguvad inimesed kokku, nad moodustavad institutsioone.

And that has all sorts of advantages.

Ja sellel on palju eeliseid.

First of all, scale, might.

Esiteks - mastaap, jõud.

The Catholic Church pulled in 97 billion dollars last year

Katoliku kirik kogus eelmisel aastal 97 miljardit dollarit

according to the Wall Street Journal.

Wall Street Journali andmetel.

These are massive machines.

Need on tohutud masinavärgid.

They're collaborative, they're branded, they're multinational,

Nad on koostööpõhised, bränditud, rahvusvahelised

and they're highly disciplined.

ja nad on äärmiselt distsiplineeritud.

These are all very good qualities.

Need on kõik väga head omadused.

We recognize them in relation to corporations.

Me seostame neid korporatsioonidega.

And corporations are very like religions in many ways,

Ja korporatsioonid on mitmeti väga sarnased religioonidega,

except they're right down at the bottom of the pyramid of needs.

ehkki nad on vajaduste püramiidi alumiseimas osas -

They're selling us shoes and cars.

nad müüvad meile kingi ja autosid.

Whereas the people who are selling us the higher stuff --

Samas kui inimesed, kes müüvad meile kõrgemat kraami -

the therapists, the poets --

are on their own and they have no power,

terapeudid, luuletajad -

on omaette ja neil pole mõjuvõimu,

they have no might.

neil pole jõudu.

So religions are the foremost example

Seega religioon on parim näide

of an institution that is fighting for the things of the mind.

institutsioonist, mis võitleb vaimsete asjade eest.

Now we may not agree with what religions are trying to teach us,

Me ei pruugi nõustuda selles, mida religioon püüab meile õpetada,

but we can admire the institutional way

aga me peame imetlema institutsionaalset viisi,

in which they're doing it.

millega nad seda teevad.

Books alone, books written by lone individuals,

Raamatud üksi, raamatud, mille kirjutanud üksikud indiviidid,

are not going to change anything.

ei muuda midagi.

We need to group together.

Me peame grupeeruma.

If you want to change the world, you have to group together, you have to be collaborative.

Kui tahta maailma muuta, tuleb koguneda kokku, teha koostööd.

And that's what religions do.

Ja seda religioonid teevad.

They are multinational, as I say,

Nad on rahvusvahelised, nagu ma ütlesin,

they are branded, they have a clear identity,

bränditud, neil on selge identiteet,

so they don't get lost in a busy world.

seega nad ei kao ära kirevas maailmas.

That's something we can learn from.

Sellest me võiksime õppida.

I want to conclude.

Ma tahaksin kokku võtta.

Really what I want to say

Mis ma tõepoolest tahan öelda

is for many of you who are operating in a range of different fields,

teile, kes te toimetate erinevates valdkondades,

there is something to learn from the example of religion --

et on võimalik õppida religiooni eeskujust -

even if you don't believe any of it.

isegi, kui sa sellest midagi ei usu.

If you're involved in anything that's communal,

Kui oled seotud millegi kogukondlikuga,

that involves lots of people getting together,

mis hõlmab paljusid inimesi,

there are things for you in religion.

on asju, mida relgioonist sulle vaja.

If you're involved, say, in a travel industry in any way,

Kui oled seotud näiteks turismitööstusega,

look at pilgrimage.

vaata palverändusid.

Look very closely at pilgrimage.

Vaata hoolega palverändusid.

We haven't begun to scratch the surface

Me pole veel ligilähedalegi jõudnud sellele,

of what travel could be

mis reisimine võiks olla,

because we haven't looked at what religions do with travel.

sest me pole vaadanud, mida religioonid teevad reisimisega.

If you're in the art world,

Kui tegutsed kunstivaldkonnas,

look at the example of what religions are doing with art.

vaata mida religioonid teevad kunstiga.

And if you're an educator in any way,

Ja kui sa oled haridusega seotud mingil viisil,

again, look at how religions are spreading ideas.

jällegi, vaata, kuidas religioonid levitavad ideid.

You may not agree with the ideas,

Sa ei pruugi nende ideedega nõustuda,

but my goodness, they're highly effective mechanisms for doing so.

aga taeva päralt, nad on äärmiselt efektiivsed oma tegudes.

So really my concluding point

Seega minu kokkuvõte on,

is you may not agree with religion,

et sa ei pruugi religiooniga nõustuda,

but at the end of the day,

aga õigupoolest

religions are so subtle, so complicated,

on religioonid nii peened, nii keerulised,

so intelligent in many ways

nii intelligentsed mitmel moel,

that they're not fit to be abandoned to the religious alone;

et neid ei peaks jätma üksnes usklikele.

they're for all of us.

Need on meile kõigile.

Thank you very much.

Tänan väga.

(Applause)

Chris Anderson: Now this is actually a courageous talk,

See on tegelikult üsna uljas kõne,

because you're kind of setting up yourself in some ways

sest sa mõnesmõttes sead ennast

to be ridiculed in some quarters.

naerualuseks mõnes seltskonnas.

AB: You can get shot by both sides.

- Võib jääda kahe tule vahele.

You can get shot by the hard-headed atheists,

Võib jääda põikpäisete ateistide

and you can get shot by those who fully believe.

kui ka andunud usklike tule alla.

CA: Incoming missiles from North Oxford at any moment.

- Põhja-Oxfordist on raketid teel.

AB: Indeed.

- Tõepoolest.

CA: But you left out one aspect of religion

- Aga sa jätsid välja religiooni ühe aspekti,

that a lot of people might say

mille paljude inimeste arvates

your agenda could borrow from,

võiks su plaan laenata -

which is this sense --

see on see tunne,

that's actually probably the most important thing to anyone who's religious --

mis on tõenäoliselt usklike jaoks kõige tähtsam -

of spiritual experience,

of some kind of connection

spirituaalne kogemus

with something that's bigger than you are.

teatud seotusest

millegi suuremaga, kui sa ise.

Is there any room for that experience in Atheism 2.0?

Kas sellise kogemuse jaoks on Ateism 2.0-s ruumi?

AB: Absolutely. I, like many of you, meet people

- Absoluutselt. Mina, nagu paljud teist, kohtume inimestega,

who say things like, "But isn't there something bigger than us,

kes ütlevad: "Aga kas pole midagi meist suuremat, midagi muud?"

something else?"

And I say, "Of course." And they say, "So aren't you sort of religious?"

Ja ma ütlen: "Muidugi!" Ja nad ütlevad: "Sa oled siis omamoodi usklik?"

And I go, "No." Why does that sense of mystery,

Ja ma ütlen: "Ei." Miks peaks see müstika tajumine,

that sense of the dizzying scale of the universe,

see universumi peadpööritav suurus,

need to be accompanied by a mystical feeling?

käima koos müstilise elutunnetusega?

Science and just observation

Teadus ja paljas vaatlus

gives us that feeling without it,

annavad meile sellise tunde ilma selletagi.

so I don't feel the need.

Seega ma ei näe vajadust.

The universe is large and we are tiny,

Universum on suur ja meie oleme väikesed

without the need for further religious superstructure.

ilma vajaduseta edasise religioosse struktuuri järgi.

So one can have so-called spiritual moments

Seega - võib kogeda niiöelda vaimseid hetki

without belief in the spirit.

ilma vaime uskumata.

CA: Actually, let me just ask a question.

- Tegelikult, luba mul küsida:

How many people here would say

Kui palju inimesi siin ütleksid,

that religion is important to them?

et religioon on neile tähtis?

Is there an equivalent process

Kas on olemas mingi protsess,

by which there's a sort of bridge

mis looks silla

between what you're talking about and what you would say to them?

selle vahel, millest sa räägid ja mida sa ütleksid neile?

AB: I would say that there are many, many gaps in secular life

- Ma ütleksin, et ilmalikus elus on palju lünki

and these can be plugged.

ja need on võimalik täita.

It's not as though, as I try to suggest,

Ei ole nii, nagu ma ütlesin,

it's not as though either you have religion

et sul kas on religioon

and then you have to accept all sorts of things,

ja siis sa pead leppima kõiksugu asjdega

or you don't have religion

või sul pole religiooni

and then you're cut off from all these very good things.

ja siis sa oled ära lõigatud kõigist neist headest asjadest.

It's so sad that we constantly say,

Kahju, et me pidevalt ütleme:

"I don't believe so I can't have community,

"Ma ei ole usklik, seega mul ei saa olla kogudust,

so I'm cut off from morality,

ma olen ära lõigatud moraalist,

so I can't go on a pilgrimage."

ma ei saa minna palverännule."

One wants to say, "Nonsense. Why not?"

Tahaks öelda: "Jama! Miks mitte?"

And that's really the spirit of my talk.

Ja see on mu jutu iva.

There's so much we can absorb.

On palju, mis me võime omaks võtta.

Atheism shouldn't cut itself off from the rich sources of religion.

Ateism ei peaks ennast ära lõikama religiooni rikastest allikatest.

CA: It seems to me that there's plenty of people in the TED community

- Mulle tundub, et TEDi kogukonnas on palju inimesi,

who are atheists.

kes on ateistid.

But probably most people in the community

Aga ilmselt enamik kogukonnast

certainly don't think that religion is going away any time soon

ei arva, et religioonid kaoks kuhugi lähitulevikus

and want to find the language

ja tahavad leida keelt,

to have a constructive dialogue

millega pidada konstruktiivset dialoogi

and to feel like we can actually talk to each other

ja tunda, et me tõesti räägime üksteisega

and at least share some things in common.

ja vähemalt jagada mõningaid asju.

Are we foolish to be optimistic

Kas meist on rumal olla optimistlik

about the possibility of a world

where, instead of religion being the great rallying cry

maailma suhtes, kus selle asemel,

et religioon õhutab lõhestumisele ja sõjale,

of divide and war,

that there could be bridging?

võib leida sildu?

AB: No, we need to be polite about differences.

- Ei, me peame olema viisakad erinevuste suhtes.

Politeness is a much-overlooked virtue.

Viisakus on seni vähetähtsustatud voorus.

It's seen as hypocrisy.

Seda peetakse silmakirjalikkuseks.

But we need to get to a stage when you're an atheist

Aga me peame jõudma selleni, et olles ateist

and someone says, "Well you know, I did pray the other day,"

ja kuuldes kedagi ütlemas: "Tead, ma palvetasin ükspäev,"

you politely ignore it.

sa viisakalt ignoreerid seda.

You move on.

Sa lähed edasi.

Because you've agreed on 90 percent of things,

Sest nõustute 90% asjadest,

because you have a shared view on so many things,

jagate vaateid nii paljudes asjades,

and you politely differ.

ja sa jääd viisakalt eriarvamusele.

And I think that's what the religious wars of late have ignored.

Ja ma arvan, et seda on viimase aja religioonisõjad ignoreerinud.

They've ignored the possibility of harmonious disagreement.

Nad on ignoreerinud harmoonilise eriarvamuse võimalust.

CA: And finally, does this new thing that you're proposing

- Ja lõpuks, kas see uus asi, mida sa välja pakud -

that's not a religion but something else,

mis pole religioon, aga midagi muud -

does it need a leader,

kas see vajab juhti

and are you volunteering to be the pope?

ja kas sa pakud end vabatahtlikult paavstiks?

(Laughter)

Üks asi, mille suhtes me kõik väga umbusklikud oleme,

AB: Well, one thing that we're all very suspicious of

is individual leaders.

on üksikisikust juhid.

It doesn't need it.

See ei vaja seda.

What I've tried to lay out is a framework

Mida ma olen üritanud teha, on ehitada välja raamistik

and I'm hoping that people can just fill it in.

ja ma loodan, et inimesed täidavad selle ise.

I've sketched a sort of broad framework.

Ma visandasin umbkaudse raamistiku.

But wherever you are, as I say, if you're in the travel industry, do that travel bit.

Aga kusiganes sa ka poleks - kui oled reisiäris, tee see reisimise osa.

If you're in the communal industry, look at religion and do the communal bit.

Kui sa oled kogukonnaga seotud, vaata religiooni ja tee kogukonna osa.

So it's a wiki project.

See on wikiprojekt.

(Laughter)

CA: Alain, thank you for sparking many conversations later.

Alain, tänan sind ärgitamast arutelule.

(Applause)