Even so, there is new material in the works. I just approved two final versions of songs I’ve done with Drumagick. Keep an eye out.
Cheers
/Jonatan
The only sollution once we decided to limit the application of scepticism to the area of God’s existence or nonexistence, is what the modernist thinkers have been trying to do for about a hundred years by now; explain away the “god-shaped-hole” (to quote U2) with the help of cognitive and social sciences, saying that the term God can be replaced with something else. If that were true, one would think that the people would’ve abandoned their ideas of god, much like the secularization-thesis-scolars predicted. However, after a hundred years of a specificly directed scepticism; here we are - a more (or at least not less) spiritual human race than ever. (I have a laaarge number of booktips and articles on the subject for anyone interested.)
So my question is; isn’t it maybe time to direct the gun on scepticism in someone else’s face? If the universe is x billions years old, I think a gun in its creator’s face for a hundred would be acceptable. But still, maybe that’s about as long as the scolarly gunpoint is viable. At least when no evidence points to the gunpoint’s legitimacy.
/Jonatan
- That means that you must have been ready for being a father, then.
Sometimes it takes a friend to point out what maybe ought to have been blatantly obvious from the start.
/Jonatan
It is my belief that we have to relate to the truth claims of religions as if they were true, rather than veering into the prescribed methodological atheism or agnosticism, because these tends to pathologize just about all religious humans.
If Peter Berger claims that it is our duty, if not as scientists or scholars, but rather as citizens to have state our view, my standpoint and basic sentiment is that humanity does not suffer from a collective decease. If so, this could possibly/only be called “the human condition”, in other words; what it is to be a human.
And a short appendix on pathology. We tend not to diagnose the majority of the population as ill, but rather a minority that doesn’t follow the norm. If this should be the case, then a serious case of atheism is rather pathological, as most people are not strict atheists (most people tend to believe in some sort of transcendence) not even in a western context.
There you have my thought of the day.
Til next time, all the best
/Jonatan
Now University is starting up again, and I’m taking an continuation course in Theology and an indepth one in History of Religion, a subject which should really be named “All major faiths except christianity” (History of Christianity being a separate subject). Last term I got excellent grades and feedback on my coursework from three out of four teachers. I got some coursework back from that fourth guy yesterday. Not happy reading at all. Why? Mainly because he treats “History of Religion” as if it was only the history of the world religions, and not a subject that interacts with the postmodernity in which we live. We should leave behavioural sciences and possibly enlightening positions from various denomination’s theologies outside the door and step into the vacuum that is Hinduism, Buddhism or Shinto.
Without any instructions as to how to approach these (are we talking about Hinduism two thousand years ago or today?) he is taking my approach of two possible ways to read a text as if I were giving a normative pointer as to what direction is the right one.
It is not the religious scolar’s position to point out the direction forward - that is for the theologian, but it is indeed valid to point out that there hermeneutics are to be taken seriously, and that underdog perspectives such as asian feminism is a valid and alive perspective, although feminism is a term initially made up by westeners. However, should this be applicable in general - that a term or practice can only really live in its original context, then sushi should not be eaten outside Japan and christianity should not be practiced outside Israel.
/Jonatan
