A tip for all of you who wants some additional swedish reading by yours truly, at the intersection of politics and religion.

Enjoy
/Jonatan

Just wanted to touch base with everyone out there who is thinking:

- Well, all this theology is good and well, but Jonatan, are you planning on releasing any records?

Yes, I am, in fact. I am working on new songs, and although there is no deadline set in stone, there should be a new album out, before the end of this year. I don’t want to give away too much, but one of the singles will be with talanted US producer Joel Corelitz aka Waveplant.

Keep an eye out folks!
/Jonatan

A popular spin-off-perception of science is that we, by trading the biblical creationmyth and order against an evolutionary one, can say something about the human condition. Today we have theories  built on observation on humans and animals, which bares withness to how these reacts to threats and stimuli. Through who we are today, we venture to a qualified guess about what we’ve been or where we came from. But can science say something about where we are going? Can it say something about how we ought to live?

To think that the sollution is within reach through scientific theories, is to put ones hope in a metaphysic of science, an eschatological hope of science. Exactly the ugly in wishing for a hope, an eschatology, which can explain life’s predicament, is something that christendom has been severly criticized about, i.e. from Marx and Freud. But to imagine that a christian worldview can be replaced with a scientific one is only a project made possible if one accepts science as a system of meaning, and one that proclaims a strictly materialistic purpose with the human condition.

Furthermore it seems ironic that Marx (and even more so Lenin) suggests that christianity’s eschatological hope is one of the core points to criticize and at the same time suggest that this view should be replaced with a materialist eschatology; an idea about a society where everyone has a little more things, money and status. This seems to be an incredibly dull hope, that we will all acquire more stuff in the future, and that this is what we all should hope for. This gives no pointers as to what either love nor thought or empathy is (or what these cateogories should be filled with), other than that it can be expressed through a formula where these emotions and experiences is equated with a precise measurement of things/stuff. This is a surprisingly dry eschatology and therefor an equally dry metaphysic.

Don’t get me wrong, things are not unimportant. There is a provertyline because it’s terrible having to live under it. But I ask myself, if I live under the calculated existential minimum, what means the most for me; belongings or love and a sense of belonging?