2012年3月24日 星期六
雅倫．迪布頓：無神論 2.0
雅倫．迪布頓：無神論 2.0
宗教有何值得無神論者借鏡？雅倫．迪布頓提倡一種「無神論者的宗教」，他稱之為「無神論 2.0」。這理論加入了宗教中的儀式和傳統，以滿足人們對本身對宗教體驗的需要。
-----------------------------
-----------------------------
One of the most common ways of dividing the world is into those who believe and those who don't -- into the religious and the atheists. And for the last decade or so, it's been quite clear what being an atheist means. There have been some very vocal atheistswho've pointed out, not just that religion is wrong, but that it's ridiculous. These people, many of whom have lived in North Oxford, have argued -- they've argued that believing in God is akin to believing in fairies and essentially that the whole thing is a childish game.
Now I think it's too easy. I think it's too easy to dismiss the whole of religion that way. And it's as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. And what I'd like to inaugurate today is a new way of being an atheist -- if you like, a new version of atheism we could call Atheism 2.0. Now what is Atheism 2.0? Well it starts from a very basic premise: of course, there's no God. Of course, there are no deities or supernatural spirits or angels, etc. Now let's move on; that's not the end of the story, that's the very, very beginning.
I'm interested in the kind of constituency that thinks something along these lines: that thinks, "I can't believe in any of this stuff. I can't believe in the doctrines. I don't think these doctrines are right. But," a very important but, "I love Christmas carols. I really like the art of Mantegna. I really like looking at old churches. I really like turning the pages of the Old Testament." Whatever it may be, you know the kind of thing I'm talking about -- people who are attracted to the ritualistic side, the moralistic, communal side of religion, but can't bear the doctrine. Until now, these people have faced a rather unpleasant choice. It's almost as though either you accept the doctrine and then you can have all the nice stuff, or you reject the doctrine and you're living in some kind of spiritual wasteland under the guidance of CNN and Walmart.
So that's a sort of tough choice. I don't think we have to make that choice. I think there is an alternative. I think there are ways -- and I'm being both very respectful and completely impious -- of stealing from religions. If you don't believe in a religion, there's nothing wrong with picking and mixing, with taking out the best sides of religion. And for me, atheism 2.0 is about both, as I say, a respectful and an impious way of going through religions and saying, "What here could we use?" The secular world is full of holes. We have secularized badly, I would argue. And a thorough study of religion could give us all sorts of insights into areas of life that are not going too well. And I'd like to run through a few of these today.
I'd like to kick off by looking at education. Now education is a field the secular world really believes in. When we think about how we're going to make the world a better place, we think education; that's where we put a lot of money. Education is going to give us, not only commercial skills, industrial skills, it's also going to make us better people. You know the kind of thing a commencement address is, and graduation ceremonies, those lyrical claims that education, the process of education -- particularly higher education -- will make us into nobler and better human beings. That's a lovely idea. Interesting where it came from.
In the early 19th century, church attendance in Western Europe started sliding down very, very sharply, and people panicked. They asked themselves the following question. They said, where are people going to find the morality, where are they going to find guidance,and where are they going to find sources of consolation? And influential voices came up with one answer. They said culture. It's to culture that we should look for guidance, for consolation, for morality. Let's look to the plays of Shakespeare, the dialogues of Plato, the novels of Jane Austen. In there, we'll find a lot of the truths that we might previously have found in the Gospel of Saint John. Now I think that's a very beautiful idea and a very true idea. They wanted to replace scripture with culture. And that's a very plausible idea.It's also an idea that we have forgotten.
If you went to a top university -- let's say you went to Harvard or Oxford or Cambridge -- and you said, "I've come here because I'm in search of morality, guidance and consolation; I want to know how to live," they would show you the way to the insane asylum. This is simply not what our grandest and best institutes of higher learning are in the business of.Why? They don't think we need it. They don't think we are in an urgent need of assistance.They see us as adults, rational adults. What we need is information. We need data, we don't need help.
Now religions start from a very different place indeed. All religions, all major religions, at various points call us children. And like children, they believe that we are in severe need of assistance. We're only just holding it together. Perhaps this is just me, maybe you. But anyway, we're only just holding it together. And we need help. Of course, we need help.And so we need guidance and we need didactic learning.
You know, in the 18th century in the U.K., the greatest preacher, greatest religious preacher, was a man called John Wesley, who went up and down this country delivering sermons, advising people how they could live. He delivered sermons on the duties of parents to their children and children to their parents, the duties of the rich to the poor and the poor to the rich. He was trying to tell people how they should live through the medium of sermons, the classic medium of delivery of religions.
Now we've given up with the idea of sermons. If you said to a modern liberal individualist,"Hey, how about a sermon?" they'd go, "No, no. I don't need one of those. I'm an independent, individual person." What's the difference between a sermon and our modern, secular mode of delivery, the lecture? Well a sermon wants to change your lifeand a lecture wants to give you a bit of information. And I think we need to get back to that sermon tradition. The tradition of sermonizing is hugely valuable, because we are in need of guidance, morality and consolation -- and religions know that.
Another point about education: we tend to believe in the modern secular world that if you tell someone something once, they'll remember it. Sit them in a classroom, tell them about Plato at the age of 20, send them out for a career in management consultancy for 40 years, and that lesson will stick with them. Religions go, "Nonsense. You need to keep repeating the lesson 10 times a day. So get on your knees and repeat it." That's what all religions tell us: "Get on you knees and repeat it 10 or 20 or 15 times a day." Otherwise our minds are like sieves.
So religions are cultures of repetition. They circle the great truths again and again and again. We associate repetition with boredom. "Give us the new," we're always saying."The new is better than the old." If I said to you, "Okay, we're not going to have new TED.We're just going to run through all the old ones and watch them five times because they're so true. We're going to watch Elizabeth Gilbert five times because what she says is so clever," you'd feel cheated. Not so if you're adopting a religious mindset.
The other things that religions do is to arrange time. All the major religions give us calendars. What is a calendar? A calendar is a way of making sure that across the yearyou will bump into certain very important ideas. In the Catholic chronology, Catholic calendar, at the end of March you will think about St. Jerome and his qualities of humility and goodness and his generosity to the poor. You won't do that by accident; you will do that because you are guided to do that. Now we don't think that way. In the secular world we think, "If an idea is important, I'll bump into it. I'll just come across it." Nonsense, says the religious world view. Religious view says we need calendars, we need to structure time, we need to synchronize encounters. This comes across also in the way in which religions set up rituals around important feelings.
Take the Moon. It's really important to look at the Moon. You know, when you look at the Moon, you think, "I'm really small. What are my problems?" It sets things into perspective, etc., etc. We should all look at the Moon a bit more often. We don't. Why don't we? Well there's nothing to tell us, "Look at the Moon." But if you're a Zen Buddhist in the middle of September, you will be ordered out of your home, made to stand on a canonical platformand made to celebrate the festival of Tsukimi, where you will be given poems to read in honor of the Moon and the passage of time and the frailty of life that it should remind us of.You'll be handed rice cakes. And the Moon and the reflection on the Moon will have a secure place in your heart. That's very good.
The other thing that religions are really aware of is: speak well -- I'm not doing a very good job of this here -- but oratory, oratory is absolutely key to religions. In the secular world, you can come through the university system and be a lousy speaker and still have a great career. But the religious world doesn't think that way. What you're saying needs to be backed up by a really convincing way of saying it.
So if you go to an African American Pentecostalist church in the American South and you listen to how they talk, my goodness, they talk well. After every convincing point, people will go, "Amen, amen, amen." At the end of a really rousing paragraph, they'll all stand up, and they'll go, "Thank you Jesus, thank you Christ, thank you Savior." If we were doing it like they do it -- let's not do it, but if we were to do it -- I would tell you something like, "Culture should replace scripture." And you would go, "Amen, amen, amen." And at the end of my talk, you would all stand up and you would go, "Thank you Plato, thank you Shakespeare, thank you Jane Austen." And we'd know that we had a real rhythm going. All right, all right. We're getting there. We're getting there.
The other thing that religions know is we're not just brains, we are also bodies. And when they teach us a lesson, they do it via the body. So for example, take the Jewish idea of forgiveness. Jews are very interested in forgiveness and how we should start anew and start afresh. They don't just deliver us sermons on this. They don't just give us books or words about this. They tell us to have a bath. So in Orthodox Jewish communities, every Friday you go to a Mikveh. You immerse yourself in the water, and a physical action backs up a philosophical idea. We don't tend to do that. Our ideas are in one area and our behavior with our bodies is in another. Religions are fascinating in the way they try and combine the two.
Let's look at art now. Now art is something that in the secular world, we think very highly of. We think art is really, really important. A lot of our surplus wealth goes to museums, etc. We sometimes hear it said that museums are our new cathedrals, or our new churches. You've heard that saying. Now I think that the potential is there, but we've completely let ourselves down. And the reason we've let ourselves down is that we're not properly studying how religions handle art.
The two really bad ideas that are hovering in the modern world that inhibit our capacity to draw strength from art: The first idea is that art should be for art's sake -- a ridiculous idea -- an idea that art should live in a hermetic bubble and should not try to do anything with this troubled world. I couldn't disagree more. The other thing that we believe is that art shouldn't explain itself, that artists shouldn't say what they're up to, because if they said it, it might destroy the spell and we might find it too easy. That's why a very common feeling when you're in a museum -- let's admit it -- is, "I don't know what this is about." But if we're serious people, we don't admit to that. But that feeling of puzzlement is structural to contemporary art.
Now religions have a much saner attitude to art. They have no trouble telling us what art is about. Art is about two things in all the major faiths. Firstly, it's trying to remind you of what there is to love. And secondly, it's trying to remind you of what there is to fear and to hate.And that's what art is. Art is a visceral encounter with the most important ideas of your faith. So as you walk around a church, or a mosque or a cathedral, what you're trying to imbibe, what you're imbibing is, through your eyes, through your senses, truths that have otherwise come to you through your mind.
Essentially it's propaganda. Rembrandt is a propagandist in the Christian view. Now the word "propaganda" sets off alarm bells. We think of Hitler, we think of Stalin. Don't, necessarily. Propaganda is a manner of being didactic in honor of something. And if that thing is good, there's no problem with it at all.
My view is that museums should take a leaf out of the book of religions. And they should make sure that when you walk into a museum -- if I was a museum curator, I would make a room for love, a room for generosity. All works of art are talking to us about things. And if we were able to arrange spaces where we could come across works where we would be told, use these works of art to cement these ideas in your mind, we would get a lot more out of art. Art would pick up the duty that it used to have and that we've neglected because of certain mis-founded ideas. Art should be one of the tools by which we improve our society. Art should be didactic.
Let's think of something else. The people in the modern world, in the secular world, who are interested in matters of the spirit, in matters of the mind, in higher soul-like concerns,tend to be isolated individuals. They're poets, they're philosophers, they're photographers, they're filmmakers. And they tend to be on their own. They're our cottage industries. They are vulnerable, single people. And they get depressed and they get sad on their own. And they don't really change much.
Now think about religions, think about organized religions. What do organized religions do? They group together, they form institutions. And that has all sorts of advantages. First of all, scale, might. The Catholic Church pulled in 97 billion dollars last year according to the Wall Street Journal. These are massive machines. They're collaborative, they're branded, they're multinational, and they're highly disciplined.
These are all very good qualities. We recognize them in relation to corporations. And corporations are very like religions in many ways, except they're right down at the bottom of the pyramid of needs. They're selling us shoes and cars. Whereas the people who are selling us the higher stuff -- the therapists, the poets -- are on their own and they have no power, they have no might. So religions are the foremost example of an institution that is fighting for the things of the mind. Now we may not agree with what religions are trying to teach us, but we can admire the institutional way in which they're doing it.
Books alone, books written by lone individuals, are not going to change anything. We need to group together. If you want to change the world, you have to group together, you have to be collaborative. And that's what religions do. They are multinational, as I say, they are branded, they have a clear identity, so they don't get lost in a busy world. That's something we can learn from.
I want to conclude. Really what I want to say is for many of you who are operating in a range of different fields, there is something to learn from the example of religion -- even if you don't believe any of it. If you're involved in anything that's communal, that involves lots of people getting together, there are things for you in religion. If you're involved, say, in a travel industry in any way, look at pilgrimage. Look very closely at pilgrimage. We haven't begun to scratch the surface of what travel could be because we haven't looked at what religions do with travel. If you're in the art world, look at the example of what religions are doing with art. And if you're an educator in any way, again, look at how religions are spreading ideas. You may not agree with the ideas, but my goodness, they're highly effective mechanisms for doing so.
So really my concluding point is you may not agree with religion, but at the end of the day,religions are so subtle, so complicated, so intelligent in many ways that they're not fit to be abandoned to the religious alone; they're for all of us.
Chris Anderson: Now this is actually a courageous talk, because you're kind of setting up yourself in some ways to be ridiculed in some quarters.
AB: You can get shot by both sides. You can get shot by the hard-headed atheists, and you can get shot by those who fully believe.
CA: But you left out one aspect of religion that a lot of people might say your agenda could borrow from, which is this sense -- that's actually probably the most important thing to anyone who's religious -- of spiritual experience, of some kind of connection with something that's bigger than you are. Is there any room for that experience in Atheism 2.0?
AB: Absolutely. I, like many of you, meet people who say things like, "But isn't there something bigger than us, something else?" And I say, "Of course." And they say, "So aren't you sort of religious?" And I go, "No." Why does that sense of mystery, that sense of the dizzying scale of the universe, need to be accompanied by a mystical feeling? Science and just observation gives us that feeling without it, so I don't feel the need. The universe is large and we are tiny, without the need for further religious superstructure. So one can have so-called spiritual moments without belief in the spirit.
CA: Actually, let me just ask a question. How many people here would say that religion is important to them? Is there an equivalent process by which there's a sort of bridgebetween what you're talking about and what you would say to them?
AB: I would say that there are many, many gaps in secular life and these can be plugged.It's not as though, as I try to suggest, it's not as though either you have religion and then you have to accept all sorts of things, or you don't have religion and then you're cut off from all these very good things. It's so sad that we constantly say, "I don't believe so I can't have community, so I'm cut off from morality, so I can't go on a pilgrimage." One wants to say, "Nonsense. Why not?" And that's really the spirit of my talk. There's so much we can absorb. Atheism shouldn't cut itself off from the rich sources of religion.
CA: It seems to me that there's plenty of people in the TED community who are atheists.But probably most people in the community certainly don't think that religion is going away any time soon and want to find the language to have a constructive dialogue and to feel like we can actually talk to each other and at least share some things in common. Are we foolish to be optimistic about the possibility of a world where, instead of religion being the great rallying cry of divide and war, that there could be bridging?
AB: No, we need to be polite about differences. Politeness is a much-overlooked virtue.It's seen as hypocrisy. But we need to get to a stage when you're an atheist and someone says, "Well you know, I did pray the other day," you politely ignore it. You move on.Because you've agreed on 90 percent of things, because you have a shared view on so many things, and you politely differ. And I think that's what the religious wars of late have ignored. They've ignored the possibility of harmonious disagreement.
CA: And finally, does this new thing that you're proposing that's not a religion but something else, does it need a leader, and are you volunteering to be the pope?
AB: Well, one thing that we're all very suspicious of is individual leaders. It doesn't need it.What I've tried to lay out is a framework and I'm hoping that people can just fill it in. I've sketched a sort of broad framework. But wherever you are, as I say, if you're in the travel industry, do that travel bit. If you're in the communal industry, look at religion and do the communal bit. So it's a wiki project.
----------------------------------------------------
區分世人，其中一種最常見的做法 是把他們分成「信者」 與「不信者」── 即「有神論者」和「無神論者」 近十年來 何謂「無神論者」 一直相當清晰 好些無神論者 直言不諱 說宗教不僅是錯的 而且還是荒謬的 這些無神論者，當中有許多居於牛津北部 他們主張 他們認為，相信上帝存在 無異於相信童話內的仙女存在 究其本質 宗教是幼稚的
但我認為這說法太淺薄 這樣完全否定宗教 過於輕易 輕易如甕中捉鱉 今日，我想說的是 無神論者不必如此 可以說，這是一種嶄新的無神論 我們可稱之為「無神論 2.0」 何謂「無神論 2.0」？ 我們先從最基本的前提說起 是的，世間沒有上帝 而且也沒有甚麼聖靈，或超自然的神明 也沒有天使之類的東西 這不是結論，而是起點 我們繼續說下去
我對某些人的想法很感興趣 他們會想 「我不相信這些東西」 「我不接受那些教條」 「我不認為這些教條是對的」 「可是」這個心理轉折很重要，「我喜歡聖誕歌」 「我很喜歡蒙特納的畫作」 「我欣賞古老的教堂」 「我很喜歡翻閱舊約聖經」 諸如此類 你懂的 有些人會被宗教的某部份吸引，比如是儀式 宗教中的倫理，或是裡面普世共享的東西 但受不了那些教條 直到目前為止，他們總是陷入兩難 要麼，你得一併擁護宗教教條 才能享有宗教美好的部份 要麼，你在否定宗教教條的同時 便讓自己置身空茫的精神世界裡 讓CNN和沃爾瑪作你的精神領袖
二擇其一，真是個困難的選擇 但我不認為我們一定要非此即彼 其實還有另一個可能性 我想我們可以 在非常尊重，但並不崇拜宗教的前提下 從中偷師 如果你不相信宗教 大可萃取並融和宗教裡美好的事物 去蕪存菁 在我而言，無神論2.0 正正是，如我所言 在尊重但不崇拜宗教的前提下 檢視宗教的內容，並思考「這裡面有甚麼值得借鏡的？」 去宗教化的現世是千瘡百孔的 我認為，這個社會的去宗教化，做得並不高明 透徹地考究宗教 能讓人生活各方面 獲得不同的啟發 今天我會挑其中幾樣來說
首先，我們來看看教育 今時今日 我們對教育抱有莫大信心 我們相信它能使世界更好 於是我們向教育投入龐大資金 教育所能作的，不只是授與各項職業技能 它還會導人向善 在開學演辭中，或畢業典禮上 常有這種堂皇動人的說法 指教育，尤其是高等教育 使人變得更好更高尚很美好的構想 值得探究的是，這構思的來源
十九世紀初 在西歐，上教會的人 愈來愈少，流失得很快，大家開始不安 大家想知道 從此，人們該從何學習倫理 從何得到指引 從何得到慰藉？ 後來，有人認為答案是 「文化」 我們會從文化獲得 指引、慰藉、和倫理 在莎士比亞的歌劇 柏拉圖《對話錄》和奧斯汀的小說裡 我們可以找到許多真理 許多我們曾經在約翰福音裡找到的真理 從文化中學習真理，我認為是很美好，而且切實的構思 以文化取代宗教 非常可行 但我們早已把這想法拋諸腦後
如果你就讀某頂尖大學 比方說，哈佛、牛津或劍橋 你說：「我來到這兒」 「是為了追尋倫理、指引和慰藉」 「我想知道如果好好生活」 旁人會送你進精神病院 這些尊貴的高等學府並非為幫人追尋真理而設的 為甚麼？他們認定我們不需要幫助 我們沒這逼切需要 我們被視為成人，理智的成人 我們被認為只需要資訊 我們只需要數據，毋須幫忙
宗教的觀點則截然不同 所有宗教，所有主流宗教 總是稱教徒為「孩子」 像小孩一樣 急切地需要扶一把 我們只是勉力維持現狀 也許只有我是這樣想的，也許你也有如此想過 我們只是勉力維持現狀 我們需要幫忙，當然，我們需要幫助 我們需要指引，我們需要教導
你知道，十八世紀英國 曾有一位非常非常偉大的傳教士，名為約翰．衛斯理 他走入鄉郊佈道指導人們如果過活 他向人宣導，講父母對子女應有之義 講子女對父母有何責任 講富人與窮人之間的關係 透過佈道 他教人如何生活 佈道會是傳播宗教的經典形式
但我們已摒棄佈道會 如果你告訴一名自由主義者 「嘿，想去佈道會嗎？」 他會回應道，「不，不用了，我不需要。」 「我是一個獨立的個體。」 佈道會和現世用以傳播思想的講課有何分別？ 佈道會嘗試改變你的生命 而講課向你提供更多資訊 我認為我們應該回到佈道會這傳統 這是一項富有價值的傳統 因為我們的確需要指引 道德觀，和慰藉 宗教懂得人們需要甚麼
還有一點關於教育 我們傾向相信在無神的現世裡 你只須把事情說一遍，大家便會記得 把二十歲的人們留在課室，說說柏拉圖 然後讓他們在顧問公司打拼四十年 他們仍會牢牢記住柏拉圖的一課 宗教會認為這不可能 你得每天向他們重複十遍才行 跪下，然後重複 這就是宗教要求我們做的 「跪下，每日重複十到二十遍。」 否則我們會左耳進右耳出
換言之，宗教是重複的文化 重要的真理，一而再，再而三地流傳 我們會把「重複」和「沈悶」聯想在一起 我們老是說「給點新意」 「新的當然比舊的好」 如果我告訴：「好吧，我們不會再有新的TED 我們只會重看已有的TED 每天看五次，因為它們說得太對了 我們將會每天重複聽伊利莎白．喬伯五次 因為她的演說實在太機智了。」你會感到受騙 但用宗教的角度看，事情便不一樣了
除了重複，宗教還會 安排時間 所有主要宗教都有曆法 甚麼是曆法？ 它是要確保我們在一年中 總有那麼幾天會重溫一些重要的思想 對天主教徒而言 每逢三月最後一天，他們會記起聖葉理諾 記起他的謙卑和善良 還有他對窮人的慷慨 你不會無緣無故想起他，那是因為曆法提醒了你 我們現在不這麼想了 無神的世界裡，我們認為「如果這是一個重要的想法，我終究會遇上的 終究會遇上的。」 不可能，宗教如此認為 宗教認為人們需要曆法，人們需要為此安排時間人們需要同時紀念 同樣道理 宗教為各樣情緒 設立各項儀式
比方說月亮。當你看著月亮時 你知道，當你看著它時 你會想，「我是很渺小的，我的困擾算甚麼？」 它使我們用不同觀點看待事物 我們都應該多點看月亮，但我們沒有 為甚麼不？因為沒有人提醒我們，是時候注視月亮了 但如果你是禪宗佛教徒，每年九月中旬 你會受呼召離開家門，站到神壇上 慶祝月見節 你會獲發頌詩 以歌頌月亮，和時間的流浙 並感悟生命的脆弱你會獲發米餅 於是月亮和它的倒影 便印在你心上 這一切都很好
此外，宗教還察覺意到 大家該好好說話 我並不特別擅長說話 但演講，演講絕對是宗教活動的核心 在去宗教化的現世，即使完成大學，你的演講還是可以很糟糕 但還是能找到工作 但宗教世界不然 不管你說甚麼 都得讓人信服
如果你去美國南部的非裔美藉教堂 出席五旬節會 聽聽他們如何演講 天啊，說得真好 說到動人處，會眾會高呼「阿門，阿門，阿門」 在一段振奮人心的演辭，會眾會全體起立 然後說「感謝耶穌，感謝基督，感謝救主」 現在如果我們照辦煮碗 不用真的做，而是，想像我們會這麼做 我說的內容，大概會是「文化應該取代宗教」 你們合該高呼「阿門，阿門，阿門」 在我的演說結束後，你們都會起立 然後說「感謝柏拉圖，感謝莎翁，感謝珍．奧斯汀」 我們有默契，知道一來一回的節奏 好了，好了，快到重點了，快到重點了
還有一點，宗教知道人們不止有理性的腦袋 我們還有肉身 宗教的教義 教徒透過身體學習 舉例說 猶太教中「寬恕」的概念 猶太人對「寬恕」很上心 認為寬恕之後是嶄新的開始 他們不止有文字上的教義 不止是書本或口述 他們會讓你去洗個澡 在信奉正統猶太教的社區，逢星期五，他們會去淨身池 把自己沈沒在水中 用身體行動實踐哲學理念 我們很少這麼做 我們所想，與我們所作，並不一致 宗教引人入勝，因為它能把二者合而為一
現在讓我們來看看藝術 藝術在無神的世界裡 評價很高，我們認為它非常非常重要 許多剩餘財富都進貢到美術館去 有這麼一個講法 說美術館是新式教堂 你聽過的 我認為美術館的確有此潛力 但我們沒把它發揮出來 其原因在於 我們沒有好好研究 宗教如何看待藝術
現世有兩個很差勁的想法 讓我們無法好好發揮藝術的力量 其一，藝術純為藝術而生 荒謬 說藝術應該高深莫測 並毋須回應世界的問題 我不能苟同 其二，藝術不應該不證自明 藝術家不應該讓人知道他想表達甚麼 因為，一旦說穿，藝術品就可能失去它的魅力 讓人覺得不過爾爾逛美術館時，你常有這種感覺 承認吧 你常想「我不知道它想說的是甚麼」 嚴肅認真的人都不願意承認 在當代藝術世界裡，這種困惑是 人人共享的
宗教在這方面比較清醒 挑明題旨，毫不扭捏 在主要宗教的觀念裡，藝術有兩樣功能 首先，它要提醒你 世上有何該愛 其二，它要提醒你 世上有何該懼該厭 藝術便是如此 藝術讓人以視覺接觸信仰 在你逛會堂 或清真寺，或大教堂之時 你正透過雙眼 逐漸吸收 平時在學習的教義
本質上，這是一種鼓吹 在宗教的角度來說 林布蘭會是一名宣傳人員 如今，我們每逢提及「鼓吹」都會惹人警覺 我們會聯想起希特拉和斯大林。但，這是不必要的 這只是一種宣揚理念的手法 如果理念是好的，這手法本身沒有問題
我認為美術館該向宗教學習 館長們應該確保當參觀者進入時── 假設我是一名導遊 我會設立以「愛」，或「慷慨」為主題的展覽廳 把所有主題一致的藝術品放在一起 如果空間充裕 在我們觀賞藝術品的同時 我們可以同時獲知它的意義為何，並用它們 完滿我們對該主題的理解 我們將會獲益良多 藝術將重新負起 那個曾一度因被誤導而被摒棄的責任 藝術應該是一個 改善社會的工具 藝術應該具有教化作用
讓我們再想多一點別的 在去宗教化的世界裡，有些人 熱衷於精神追求 熱衷於各種思想 熱衷於修養性靈 他們通常是孤身上路 他們寫詩，鑽研哲學，攝影，拍戲 他們傾向獨立行動 他們像小型工作坊，不牢固，獨立於彼此 他們獨自神傷 又無法真正甚麼改變
質素良好 就像大企業一樣 大企業與宗教團體有許多共通點 唯一分別在於企業所供給的，是位於需求金字塔最底層的物質 企業向人兜售鞋履和汽車 而那些滿足我們較高層次需求的人，包括 心理治療師，詩人等等 個個獨自行事，並不強大 他們力量很有限 宗教團體是一個上佳的例子 說明人類可以如何組織起來對抗世界潮流 即使我們不認同宗教的內容 但我們可以欣賞他們如何組織起來 宣揚教義
那些彼此獨立的作家們所寫的 無法改變甚麼 我們必須組織起來 如果你想改變世界，你必須組織起來，與人合作 這正是宗教團體的做法 正如我所說，宗教團體是跨國的 他們出師有名，有明確的定位 不會在繁雜的世界迷失 這是值得借鏡的地方
我想總結 我想說的是 在座來自各行各業的觀眾們 宗教裡有值得借鑑的地方 即使你不信教 假如你活在群體裡 一個包括許多人的群體裡 那麼宗教裡有值得參考的例子 比方說，你在旅遊業工作 你可以參考一下「朝聖」這回事 如果你認真想想 我們幾乎完全沒想過 「朝聖」對旅遊業 可以有甚麼啟示 如果你是藝術工作者 想想看，宗教如何處理藝術 如果你在教育界 想想看，宗教如何教化人 也許你不認同宗教的做法 但是，天啊，宗教的一套實在是太有效了
迪布頓：當然，我也認識不少人 說「難道世上沒有比我們 人類更偉大的存在嗎？」 我說「當然有的」。然後他們說，「那你就是認同宗教囉？」 我接著說「不是的」。為甚麼這種奇異感動 被宇宙的偉大所觸動 不得不與神怪扯上關係？ 科學和精準的觀察 也可以在不談神怪的情況下，觸動人 我不認為有這個必要 宇宙浩瀚，而人類渺小 這不需要宗教的超自然學說 在不相信神怪的前提下 也能有「屬靈體驗」
迪布頓：我認為無神論的世界的而且確是千瘡百孔，充滿缺口的 這些缺口可用宗教填滿 這並不是說 要麼你選擇宗教 同時選擇它的全部 要麼你摒棄宗教 同時拒絕一切可取之處 我們常聽說：「我不信教 於是我沒有社群 於是我脫離道德價值 於是我便不能踏上朝聖之路。」這樣很可憐 有人會問：「無聊。為甚麼不？」 這正正是我演說的中心思想 宗教有太多可取之處 無神論不應該拒絕宗教裡豐富的內涵
安迪臣：在TED群體中，似乎有頗多人 是無神論者 也許大部份人認為 短時間內，宗教是不可能消失的 他們想找到合適的語言 作有建設性的對話 讓人感到彼此之間的確可以溝通 或者最少有些共同點 這樣想是否太傻太樂觀呢？ 這世界是否可以 不讓有神無神之爭 分裂世界 我們是否有彼此溝通了解的可能性呢？
迪布頓：這想法不傻。只要我們懂得和而不同。 我們經常忘記禮儀 它聽起來太虛偽 但到某時候，一個教徒會對你說 「你知道，我那天有祈禱」 而你禮貌地無視之 該幹嘛幹嘛去 因為你們兩個能認同九成以上的事物 你們的世界觀有許多相通之處 故能達致和而不同 我認為近代的有神無神之爭，忽略了這一點 大家忘了其實彼此是可以和而不同的
迪布頓：唔，我們對個人領袖 非常警剔 無神論不需要領袖 我剛才所言，只是一個理論框架我希望大家可以自由發揮，付諸實行 我只是勾勒出一個大概的結構 但不論你是誰，比如說你是旅遊業者，就做旅遊那一塊 如果你活在社群裡，做社群的工作 這其實是個維基百科
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)