Kwame Anthony Appiah: Is religion good or bad? (This is a trick question)

Translator: Laura Luīze Veinberga Reviewer: Ilze Garda

People say things about religion all the time.

Cilvēki visu laiku viskaut ko saka par reliģiju.

(Laughter)

(Smiekli)

The late, great Christopher Hitchens

Lieliskais, mūžībā aizgājušais Kristofers Hičenss

wrote a book called "God Is Not Great"

sarakstīja grāmatu „Dievs nav varens”,

whose subtitle was, "Religion Poisons Everything."

kuras apakšvirsraksts bija „Reliģija visu samaitā.'”

(Laughter)

(Smiekli)

But last month, in Time magazine,

Bet pagājušajā mēnesī „TIME” žurnālā

Rabbi David Wolpe, who I gather is referred to as America's rabbi,

rabīns Deivids Volps, kuru, kā noprotu, dēvē par Amerikas rabīnu,

said, to balance that against that negative characterization,

kurš, lai atsvērtu šo negatīvo raksturojumu, ir teicis,

that no important form of social change

ka jebkura veida sociālās pārmaiņas

can be brought about except through organized religion.

var ieviest tikai caur organizēto reliģiju.

Now, remarks of this sort on the negative

Šāda veida apgalvojumi par negatīvo

and the positive side are very old.

un pozitīvo pusi ir ļoti seni.

I have one in my pocket here

Viens man ir tepat kabatā —

from the first century BCE by Lucretius,

no 1. gadsimta p.m.ē. To teicis Lukrēcijs,

the author of "On the Nature of Things," who said,

autors poēmai „Par lietu dabu” —

"Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum" --

„Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum”.

I should have been able to learn that by heart —

Man būtu vajadzējis to iemācīties no galvas.

which is, that's how much religion

Tas nozīmē — „tik daudz ļauna

is able to persuade people to do evil,

cilvēkus mudina darīt reliģija”,

and he was talking about the fact

un viņš runāja par Agamemnona lēmumu

of Agamemnon's decision to place his daughter

likt savu meitu Ifigēniju

Iphigenia on an altar of sacrifice

uz upuraltāra,

in order to preserve the prospects of his army.

lai saglabātu savas armijas izredzes.

So there have been these long debates

Šīs debates par reliģiju ir gadsimtiem ilgas,

over the centuries, in that case, actually,

šajā gadījumā patiesībā varam teikt —

we can say over the millennia, about religion.

People have talked about it a lot,

tūkstošiem gadu ilgas.

Cilvēki par to ir daudz runājuši,

and they've said good and bad

un teikuši labu un sliktu,

and indifferent things about it.

un neitrālu par to.

What I want to persuade you of today

Šodien vēlos jūs pārliecināt

is of a very simple claim,

par ļoti vienkāršu apgalvojumu,

which is that these debates are

proti, šīs debates ir

in a certain sense preposterous,

savā ziņā muļķīgas,

because there is no such thing as religion

tāpēc ka nav tāda lieta kā reliģija,

about which to make these claims.

par ko izteikt šos apgalvojumus.

There isn't a thing called religion,

Nav tāda lieta vārdā „reliģija”,

and so it can't be good or bad.

tāpēc tā nevar būt laba vai slikta.

It can't even be indifferent.

Tā pat nevar būt neitrāla.

And if you think about claims

Domājot par apgalvojumiem

about the nonexistence of things,

par lietu neesamību,

one obvious way to try and establish

viens pašsaprotams veids, kā mēģināt konstatēt

the nonexistence of a purported thing

kādas vispārpieņemtas lietas neesamību,

would be to offer a definition of that thing

būtu piedāvāt šīs lietas definīciju

and then to see whether anything satisfied it.

un tad skatīties, vai ir kaut kas, kas tai atbilst.

I'm going to start out on that little route

Vispirms es sākšu ar šo vienkāršo veidu.

to begin with.

So if you look in the dictionaries

Tātad, ieskatoties vārdnīcās

and if you think about it,

un to apdomājot,

one very natural definition of religion

viena ļoti dabiska reliģijas definīcija ir tā,

is that it involves belief in gods or in spiritual beings.

ka reliģija ietver ticību dieviem vai garīgām būtnēm.

As I say, this is in many dictionaries,

Kā teicu, tas ir daudzās vārdnīcās,

but you'll also find it actually

bet to var atrast arī

in the work of Sir Edward Tylor,

sera Edvarda Tailora darbā,

who was the first professor of anthropology at Oxford,

kurš bija pirmais antropoloģijas profesors Oksfordā,

one of the first modern anthropologists.

viens no pirmajiem mūsdienu antropologiem.

In his book on primitive culture,

Savā grāmatā par pirmatnējo kultūru

he says the heart of religion is what he called animism,

viņš raksta, ka reliģijas sirds ir tā dēvētais animisms,

that is, the belief in spiritual agency,

kas ir ticība garīgiem spēkiem,

belief in spirits.

ticība gariem.

The first problem for that definition

Šīs definīcijas pirmā problēma

is from a recent novel by Paul Beatty called "Tuff."

ir atrodama nesenajā Pola Beitija romānā „Tufs”.

There's a guy talking to a rabbi.

Tur ir vīrietis, kurš runā ar rabīnu.

The rabbi says he doesn't believe in God.

Rabīns saka, ka viņš netic Dievam.

The guy says, "You're a rabbi, how can you not believe in God?"

Vīrietis saka: „Tu esi rabīns, kā tu vari neticēt Dievam?”

And the reply is, "It's what's so great about being Jewish.

Un atbilde ir: „Tādēļ ir tik labi būt ebrejam.

You don't have to believe in a God per se,

Tev nav jātic Dievam,

just in being Jewish." (Laughter)

tikai tam, ka esi ebrejs.” (Smiekli)

So if this guy is a rabbi, and a Jewish rabbi,

Tātad, ja šīs vīrietis ir rabīns, ebreju rabīns,

and if you have to believe in God in order to be religious,

un ticēšana Dievam ir svarīga, lai būtu reliģiozs,

then we have the rather counterintuitive conclusion

tad mums sanāk diezgan neloģisks secinājums —

that since it's possible to be a Jewish rabbi

ja reiz ir iespējams būt par ebeju rabīnu,

without believing in God,

neticot Dievam,

Judaism isn't a religion.

jūdaisms nav reliģija.

That seems like a pretty counterintuitive thought.

Tā šķiet diezgan neloģiska doma.

Here's another argument against this view.

Lūk, vēl viens pretarguments šim viedoklim.

A friend of mine, an Indian friend of mine,

Mans draugs, indiešu draugs,

went to his grandfather when he was very young,

aizgāja pie sava vectēva, kad viņš bija ļoti jauns,

a child, and said to him,

vēl bērns, un teica viņam:

"I want to talk to you about religion,"

„Es gribu ar tevi parunāt par reliģiju.”

and his grandfather said, "You're too young.

Viņa vectēvs sacīja: „Tu esi pārāk jauns.

Come back when you're a teenager."

Atnāc vēlreiz, kad būsi pusaudzis.”

So he came back when he was a teenager,

Viņš atnāca vēlreiz, kad bija pusaudzis,

and he said to his grandfather,

un teica savam vectēvam:

"It may be a bit late now

„Nu varbūt ir mazliet par vēlu,

because I've discovered that I don't believe in the gods."

jo esmu atklājis, ka neticu dieviem.”

And his grandfather, who was a wise man, said,

Viņa vectēvs, kurš bija gudrs vīrs, sacīja:

"Oh, so you belong to the atheist branch

„Ak tā, tad tu piederi pie hinduisma ateistu filiāles.”

of the Hindu tradition." (Laughter)

(Smiekli)

And finally, there's this guy,

Visbeidzot ir šis kungs,

who famously doesn't believe in God.

kurš, kā visiem zināms, netic Dievam.

His name is the Dalai Lama.

Viņa vārds ir Dalailama.

He often jokes that he's one of the world's leading atheists.

Viņš bieži joko, ka ir viens no pasaules vadošajiem ateistiem.

But it's true, because the Dalai Lama's religion

Bet tā ir patiesība, jo Dalailamas reliģija

does not involve belief in God.

neietver ticību Dievam.

Now you might think this just shows

Jūs, iespējams, domājat, ka tas tikai parāda,

that I've given you the wrong definition

ka esmu iedevis jums nepareizo definīciju

and that I should come up with some other definition

un ka man vajadzētu piedāvāt kādu citu

and test it against these cases

un pārbaudīt to caur šiem piemēriem,

and try and find something that captures

un mēģināt atrast kaut ko, kas ietver

atheistic Judaism, atheistic Hinduism,

ateistisko jūdaismu, ateistisko hinduismu

and atheistic Buddhism as forms of religiosity,

un ateistisko budismu kā reliģijas veidus,

bet es patiesībā domāju, ka tā ir slikta doma,

but I actually think that that's a bad idea,

and the reason I think it's a bad idea

un iemesls, kāpēc es domāju, ka tā ir slikta doma,

is that I don't think that's how

ir, jo es neuzskatu,

our concept of religion works.

ka šādi darbojas mūsu priekšstats par reliģiju.

I think the way our concept of religion works

Manuprāt, mūsu priekšstats par reliģiju

is that we actually have, we have a list

patiesībā vairāk līdzinās sarakstam

of paradigm religions

ar paradigmu reliģijām

and their sub-parts, right,

un to apakšgrupām,

and if something new comes along

un, ja parādās kaut kas jauns,

that purports to be a religion,

kas tiecas kļūt par reliģiju,

what we ask is, "Well, is it like one of these?"

mēs jautājam: „Vai tā līdzinās kādai no šīm?”

Right?

Ne tā?

And I think that's not only how we think about religion,

Manuprāt, mēs šādi domājam ne tikai par reliģiju,

and that's, as it were,

un tas ir...

so from our point of view,

no mūsu viedokļa

anything on that list had better be a religion,

labāk lai viss šajā sarakstā ir reliģija,

which is why I don't think an account of religion

tāpēc es nedomāju, ka reliģiju uzskaitījums,

that excludes Buddhism and Judaism

kas izslēdz budismu vai jūdaismu,

has a chance of being a good starter,

varētu būt labs sākums,

because they're on our list.

jo tie ir mūsu sarakstā.

But why do we have such a list?

Bet kāpēc mums ir šāds saraksts?

What's going on? How did it come about

Kas notiek?

that we have this list?

Kā nākas, ka mums ir šāds saraksts?

I think the answer is a pretty simple one

Man šķiet, ka atbilde ir diezgan vienkārša

and therefore crude and contentious.

un tāpēc sākotnēja un strīdīga.

I'm sure a lot of people will disagree with it,

Esmu pārliecināts, ka daudzi tam nepiekritīs,

but here's my story,

bet, lūk, mans stāsts.

and true or not, it's a story that I think

Patiess vai nepatiess, bet tas ir stāsts, kurš, manuprāt,

gives you a good sense of how

labi palīdz saprast,

the list might have come about,

kā šis saraksts varēja rasties,

and therefore helps you to think about

un tāpēc palīdz, domājot par to,

what use the list might be.

kāda tam varētu būt nozīme.

I think the answer is, European travelers,

Manuprāt, atbilde ir tajā, ka eiropiešu ceļotāji

starting roughly about the time of Columbus,

aptuveni kopš Kolumba laika

started going around the world.

sāka apceļot pasauli.

They came from a Christian culture,

Viņi nāca no kristiešu kultūras,

and when they arrived in a new place,

un, ierodoties jaunā vietā,

they noticed that some people didn't have Christianity,

viņi ievēroja, ka daļa cilvēku nepazina kristietību.

and so they asked themselves the following question:

Tādēļ viņi uzdeva sev jautājumu:

what have they got instead of Christianity?

„Kas tad viņiem ir, ja ne kristietība?”

And that list was essentially constructed.

Būtībā šo sarakstu izveidoja.

It consists of the things that other people had

Tas ietver to, kas citiem cilvēkiem bija

instead of Christianity.

kristietības vietā.

Now there's a difficulty with proceeding in that way,

Rodas grūtības turpināt šajā virzienā,

which is that Christianity is extremely,

jo kristietība ir ārkārtīgi,

even on that list, it's an extremely specific tradition.

pat šajā sarakstā, tā ir ārkārtīgi specifiska tradīcija.

It has all kinds of things in it

Tā ietver visdažādākās lietas,

that are very, very particular

kas ir ļoti, ļoti specifiskas,

that are the results of the specifics

kas ir kristietības vēstures īpatnību rezultāts.

of Christian history,

and one thing that's at the heart of it,

Viena lieta tās pamatā,

one thing that's at the heart of most understandings of Christianity,

viena lieta, kas ir pamatā vairumam kristietības izpratņu,

which is the result of the specific history of Christianity,

kas ir īpašās kristietības vēstures rezultāts —

is that it's an extremely creedal religion.

proti, tā ir reliģija, kas cieši saistīta ar ticību.

It's a religion in which people are really concerned

Šīs reliģijas cilvēkiem ļoti rūp,

about whether you believe the right things.

vai tu tici pareizajam.

The history of Christianity, the internal history of Christianity,

Kristietības vēsture, iekšējā kristietības vēsture,

is largely the history of people killing each other

lielā mērā ir cilvēku savstarpējas nogalināšanas vēsture,

because they believed the wrong thing,

jo viņi ticēja nepareizajam.

and it's also involved in

Tā ir iesaistīta arī

struggles with other religions,

cīņās ar citām reliģijām,

obviously starting in the Middle Ages,

protams, sākot ar viduslaikiem,

a struggle with Islam,

cīņu ar islāmu,

in which, again, it was the infidelity,

kurā atkal neticība,

the fact that they didn't believe the right things,

fakts, ka viņi neticēja pareizajam,

that seemed so offensive to the Christian world.

bija tas, kas kristiešu pasaulei šķita tik aizvainojošs.

Now that's a very specific and particular history

Kristietībai ir ļoti specifiska un īpatnēja vēsture,

that Christianity has,

and not everywhere is everything

un ne viss, kas reiz ir iekļauts šajā sarakstā, ir tāds.

that has ever been put on this sort of list like it.

Here's another problem, I think.

Man šķiet ir vēl viena problēma.

A very specific thing happened.

Notika kas ļoti īpašs,

It was actually adverted to earlier,

ko pieminēju jau iepriekš —

but a very specific thing happened

kaut kas īpašs notika

in the history of the kind of Christianity

tās kristietības vēsturē,

that we see around us

kāda sastopama

mostly in the United States today,

lielākoties ASV mūsdienās,

and it happened in the late 19th century,

un tas notika 19. gadsimta beigās.

and that specific thing that happened

Šī specifiskā lieta, kas notika

in the late 19th century

19. gadsimta beigās,

was a kind of deal that was cut

bija tāds kā darījums, ko noslēdza

between science,

starp zinātni,

this new way of organizing intellectual authority,

šo jauno intelektuālās autoritātes organizēšanas veidu,

and religion.

un reliģiju.

If you think about the 18th century, say,

Ja iedomājamies 18. gadsimtu, piemēram,

if you think about intellectual life

ja iedomājamies intelektuālo dzīvi

before the late 19th century,

pirms 19. gadsimta beigām,

anything you did, anything you thought about,

viss, ko darīji, viss, par ko domāji,

whether it was the physical world,

vienalga, vai tā bija fiziskā pasaule,

the human world,

cilvēka pasaule,

the natural world apart from the human world,

dabas pasaule bez cilvēka pasaules, vai morāle,

or morality, anything you did

viss, ko darīji,

would have been framed against the background

visu pielāgoja

of a set of assumptions that were religious,

reliģisku pieņēmumu kopumam,

Christian assumptions.

kristiešu pieņēmumiem.

You couldn't give an account

Tu nevarēji runāt

of the natural world

par dabas pasauli,

that didn't say something about its relationship,

nepieminot tās saistību,

for example, to the creation story

piemēram, ar stāstu par pasaules radīšanu

in the Abrahamic tradition,

Ābrahāma tradīcijā,

the creation story in the first book of the Torah.

pasaules radīšanas stāstu pirmajā Tora grāmatā.

So everything was framed in that way.

Viss tika likts šādā te ietvarā.

But this changes in the late 19th century,

Bet 19. gadsimta beigās tas mainījās,

and for the first time, it's possible for people

un pirmo reizi cilvēkiem bija iespējams

to develop serious intellectual careers

veidot nopietnas, intelektuālas karjeras

as natural historians like Darwin.

kā dabas vēsturniekiem, kā piemēram, Darvins.

Darwin worried about the relationship between

Darvinu satrauca attiecības starp

what he said and the truths of religion,

viņa teikto un reliģijas patiesībām,

but he could proceed, he could write books

bet viņš varēja turpināt rakstīt grāmatas

about his subject

par savu tematu,

without having to say what the relationship was

bez vajadzības norādīt, kāda bija šī saikne

to the religious claims,

ar reliģiju.

and similarly, geologists increasingly could talk about it.

Līdzīgi par to arvien vairāk varēja runāt ģeologi.

In the early 19th century, if you were a geologist

Ja ģeologs 19. gs. sākumā

izteica apgalvojumus par Zemes vecumu,

and made a claim about the age of the Earth,

you had to explain whether that was consistent

tam bija jāskaidro, vai tas atbilst

or how it was or wasn't consistent

un kā tas atbilst vai neatbilst

with the age of the Earth implied

1. Mozus grāmatā norādītajam Zemes vecumam.

by the account in Genesis.

By the end of the 19th century,

19. gadsimta beigās

you can just write a geology textbook

varēja vienkārši uzrakstīt ģeoloģijas grāmatu

un izteikt apgalvojumus par Zemes vecumu.

in which you make arguments about how old the Earth is.

So there's a big change, and that division,

Tā ir pamatīga pārmaiņa, un rodas šis sadalījums

that intellectual division of labor occurs as I say, I think,

šī intelektuālā darba dalīšana, kā es to saucu,

un tā nostiprinās, līdz beidzot

and it sort of solidifies so that by the end

19. gadsimta beigās Eiropā

of the 19th century in Europe,

notiek īsta intelektuālā darba dalīšana,

there's a real intellectual division of labor,

and you can do all sorts of serious things,

un ir iespēja pievērsties dažādām nopietnām lietām,

including, increasingly, even philosophy,

tostarp, arvien vairāk pat filozofijai,

neļaujot sevi ierobežot domai:

without being constrained by the thought,

„Manis teiktajam ir jābūt saskaņā

"Well, what I have to say has to be consistent

with the deep truths that are given to me

ar dziļajām patiesībām, ko man sniedz

by our religious tradition."

mūsu reliģija.”

So imagine someone who's coming out

Iedomājieties kādu, kurš nokļūst

of that world, that late-19th-century world,

no tās pasaules, 19. gadsimta beigu pasaules,

coming into the country that I grew up in, Ghana,

valstī, kurā uzaugu es, Ganā,

the society that I grew up in, Asante,

sabiedrībā, kurā es uzaugu, Asantē,

coming into that world

ienākot šajā pasaulē

at the turn of the 20th century

20. gadsmita mijā

with this question that made the list:

ar jautājumu, kurš radīja sarakstu:

what have they got instead of Christianity?

„Kas viņiem ir kristietības vietā?”

Well, here's one thing he would have noticed,

Lūk, viena lieta, ko viņš pamanītu,

and by the way, there was a person who actually did this.

un, starp citu, bija cilvēks, kurš tiešām to izdarīja.

His name was Captain Rattray,

Tas bija kapteinis Retrijs,

he was sent as the British government anthropologist,

britu valdības sūtīts antropologs,

and he wrote a book about Asante religion.

kurš uzrakstīja grāmatu par Asantes reliģiju.

This is a soul disc.

Šis ir dvēseles disks.

Britu muzejā tādu ir daudz.

There are many of them in the British Museum.

I could give you an interesting, different history

Es varētu pastāstīt interesantu, citādāku stāstu,

of how it comes about that many of the things

kā tas gadījās, ka tik daudz lietu

from my society ended up in the British Museum,

no manas sabiedrības nonāca Britu muzejā,

bet tam mums nav laika.

but we don't have time for that.

So this object is a soul disc.

Tātad šis objekts ir dvēseles disks.

What is a soul disc?

Kas ir dvēseles disks?

It was worn around the necks

To nēsāja ap kaklu

of the soul-washers of the Asante king.

Asantes karaļa dvēseļu mazgātāji.

What was their job? To wash the king's soul.

Kāds bija viņu darbs? Mazgāt karaļa dvēseli.

It would take a long while

Tas prasītu daudz laika —

to explain how a soul could be the kind of thing

paskaidrot, kā dvēsele varēja būt mazgājama.

that could be washed,

but Rattray knew that this was religion

Bet Retrijs zināja, ka tā ir reliģija,

because souls were in play.

jo bija iesaistītas dvēseles.

And similarly,

Līdzīgā kārtā

there were many other things, many other practices.

bija daudz citu lietu un paradumu.

For example, every time anybody had a drink, more or less,

Piemēram, iedzerot, gandrīz ik reizi

they poured a little bit on the ground

viņi mazliet izlēja uz zemes,

in what's called the libation,

ziedojot dieviem

and they gave some to the ancestors.

un iedodot mazliet senčiem.

My father did this. Every time he opened a bottle of whiskey,

Mans tēvs tā darīja. Ikreiz, atverot viskija pudeli,

which I'm glad to say was very often,

— ar prieku varu teikt, tas bija ļoti bieži —

he would take the top off and pour off just a little on the ground,

viņš to atkorķēja un mazliet izlēja uz zemes,

and he would talk to,

un viņš runāja

ar Akroma-Ampimu, mūsu ciltstēvu,

he would say to Akroma-Ampim, the founder of our line,

or Yao Antony, my great uncle,

vai Jao Antoniju, mana vectēva brāli.

he would talk to them,

Viņš ar tiem sarunājās,

offer them a little bit of this.

piedāvāja viņiem mazliet no tā.

And finally, there were these huge public ceremonials.

Visbeidzot bija milzīgas publiskās ceremonijas.

This is an early-19th-century drawing

Šis ir 19. gadsimta sākuma zīmējums,

by another British military officer

ko zīmējis cits britu militārā virsnieks —

of such a ceremonial,

no ceremonijas,

where the king was involved,

kurā bija iesaistīts karalis.

Karaļa darbs,

and the king's job,

one of the large parts of his job,

liela daļa no viņa darba,

apart from organizing warfare and things like that,

neskaitot karagājienus u. tml. lietas,

was to look after the tombs of his ancestors,

bija rūpēties par savu priekšteču kapenēm.

and when a king died,

Kad karalis nomira,

the stool that he sat on was blackened

krēslu, uz kura viņš sēdēja, nokrāsoja melnu

and put in the royal ancestral temple,

un novietoja karaļa senču templī,

and every 40 days,

un ik pēc 40 dienām

the King of Asante has to go and do cult

Asantes karalim bija jāiet un jāveic rituāls

for his ancestors.

saviem senčiem par godu.

That's a large part of his job,

Tā ir liela daļa viņa darba,

and people think that if he doesn't do it,

un cilvēki domā, ja viņš to nedarīs,

viss saies grīstē.

things will fall apart.

So he's a religious figure,

Tātad viņš ir reliģiska figūra,

kā teiktu Retrijs,

as Rattray would have said,

as well as a political figure.

un politiska figūra.

Tātad šis viss Retrija izpratnē būtu reliģija,

So all this would count as religion for Rattray,

but my point is that when you look

taču mana galvenā doma ir, ka, ieskatoties

into the lives of those people,

šo cilvēku dzīvēs,

you also find that every time they do anything,

mēs arī saprotam, ka ikreiz, kaut ko darot,

they're conscious of the ancestors.

viņi apzinās savus priekštečus.

Every morning at breakfast,

Katru rītu brokastu laikā

you can go outside the front of the house

tu vari iziet ārā, mājas priekšā,

and make an offering to the god tree, the nyame dua

un ziedot dieva kokam, niamdjuā,

outside your house,

savas mājas ārpusē,

and again, you'll talk to the gods

un atkal runāt ar dieviem,

and the high gods and the low gods

gan augstajiem, gan zemajiem,

and the ancestors and so on.

ar senčiem un citiem.

This is not a world

Šī nav tā pasaule,

in which the separation between religion and science

kurā reliģija un zinātne būtu nodalītas.

has occurred.

Reliģiju nenodala

Religion has not being separated

from any other areas of life,

no pārējām dzīves jomām.

and in particular,

Lai izprastu šo pasauli,

what's crucial to understand about this world

ir ļoti svarīgi saprast,

is that it's a world in which the job

ka tā ir pasaule, kurā to,

that science does for us

ko mūsu labā dara zinātne,

is done by what Rattray is going to call religion,

tur dara, kā Retrijs to sauktu, reliģija,

because if they want an explanation of something,

jo, ja viņi grib kaut ko izskaidrot,

if they want to know why the crop just failed,

ja viņi grib zināt, kāpēc iznīka raža,

if they want to know why it's raining

ja viņi grib zināt, kāpēc līst,

or not raining, if they need rain,

vai nelīst, ja viņiem vajadzīgs lietus,

if they want to know why

ja viņi grib zināt, kāpēc

their grandfather has died,

nomira viņu vectēvs,

they are going to appeal to the very same entities,

viņi vērsīsies pie tām pašām struktūrām,

the very same language,

tās pašas valodas,

talk to the very same gods about that.

runās ar tiem pašiem dieviem.

This great separation, in other words,

Citiem vārdiem, šī lielā

between religion and science hasn't happened.

zinātnes un reliģijas nodalīšana nav notikusi.

Now, this would be a mere historical curiosity,

Tā būtu tik vien kā vēstures dīvainība,

except that in large parts of the world,

ja neņemam vērā, ka lielā daļā pasaules

this is still the truth.

tā joprojām ir patiesība.

I had the privilege of going to a wedding

Nesen man bija tas gods būt kāzās

the other day in northern Namibia,

ziemeļu Namībijā,

20 miles or so south of the Angolan border

30 km uz dienvidiem no Angolas robežas,

in a village of 200 people.

200 iedzīvotāju ciematā.

These were modern people.

Tie bija mūsdienīgi cilvēki.

We had with us Oona Chaplin,

Tur bija Ūna Čaplina,

who some of you may have heard of,

par kuru varbūt esat dzirdējuši.

and one of the people from this village came up to her,

Kāds ciema iedzīvotājs piegāja pie viņas

and said, "I've seen you in 'Game of Thrones.'"

un teica: „Esmu tevi redzējis „Troņu spēlē”.”

So these were not people who were isolated from our world,

Tie nebija no mūsu pasaules izolēti cilvēki,

bet, lai vai kā, viņiem

but nevertheless, for them,

the gods and the spirits are still very much there,

dievi un gari vēl joprojām pastāv.

and when we were on the bus going back and forth

Kad mēs autobusā braukājām

to the various parts of the [ceremony],

no vienas ceremonijas uz otru,

they prayed not just in a generic way

viņi lūdza ne tikai vispārīgi,

but for the safety of the journey,

bet arī par drošību ceļojuma laikā,

and they meant it,

and when they said to me that my mother,

un viņi to darīja no sirds.

Kad viņi man teica, ka mana māte,

the bridegroom's [grandmother],

līgavaiņa vecmamma,

was with us, they didn't mean it figuratively.

ir ar mums, viņi nedomāja to pārnestā nozīmē.

They meant, even though she was a dead person,

Viņi domāja, lai gan viņa ir mirusi,

they meant that she was still around.

viņuprāt, viņa joprojām ir kopā ar mums.

So in large parts of the world today,

Lielā daļā pasaules mūsdienās —

šī zinātnes un reliģijas nodalīšana

that separation between science and religion

hasn't occurred in large parts of the world today,

lielā daļā mūsdienu pasaules nav notikusi,

and as I say, these are not --

un, kā jau teicu, tie nav...

This guy used to work for Chase and at the World Bank.

Šis puisis reiz strādāja „Chase” un Pasaules Bankā.

These are fellow citizens of the world with you,

Viņi tāpat kā mēs ir pasaules līdzpilsoņi,

but they come from a place in which religion

taču viņi nāk no vietas, kur reliģija

is occupying a very different role.

ieņem pavisam citādu lomu.

So what I want you to think about next time somebody wants

Tāpēc es gribētu, lai nākamreiz, kad kāds grib

to make some vast generalization about religion

izdarīt plašus vispārinājumus par reliģiju,

is that maybe there isn't such a thing

jūs apdomātu, ka varbūt nemaz nepastāv

tāda lieta kā reliģija,

as a religion, such a thing as religion,

and that therefore what they say

un tādēļ viņu teiktais

cannot possibly be true.

nemaz nevar būt taisnība.

(Applause)

(Aplausi)