As a testament to how lightly Swedish media take religious expressions, Dagens Nyheter (the #1 Swedish newspaper) contained a small and gently derisive notice today about the Norwegian princess Märtha Louise, who recently started a school where primarily women are taught how to listen to angels. Their homepage tells us their courses give you “tools to communicate with your angels and utilise them in your daily life”, for the modest fee of 1,500 euros per half-year.

From a certain point of view the whole concept is obviously made to be ridiculed. And refreshingly, Swedish media seem to treat the whole thing as a bit crazy. Cute, but crazy. Obviously this is because monarchy is involved - otherwise no one would have as much as arched an eyebrow.

superstition, angels, monarchy

Jerker Karlsson over at the Swedish blog Allotetraploid wrote an excellent post on the climate of current Swedish religious debate. I have translated it (rather loosely) with his permission, and added a couple of footnotes.

A column in SvD¹ on August 5 brings up the heated religious debate of the Anglosphere. The question posed is whether the same debate could rise in Sweden. The answer seems to be a definitive no. The role of religion in Sweden is peripheral, and the power of the religious communities is relatively weak. The major media; our national papers, the big tv channels and the national radio are all expressly secular. There simply aren’t any strong religious counterweights to the secular forces. There’s also a lack of numerous religious grassroots organisations that can mobilise the people in a defense of traditional superstition and bronze age morality. A Swedish (or Scandinavian) debate must therefore by necessity have a different tone and focus than the current Anglo-Saxon debate.

So far, the Swedish debate has had rather a unique focus. It has not touched upon the question of truth as much as to what degree society should even tolerate religiously motivated actions and beliefs. The question was never whether intelligent design (ID) is a scientific theory or whether we should accept the theory of evolution. The question was rather whether we should make room in our schools for any religious explanations of the world whatsoever. When homosexuality has been the topic of discussion, focus has not been on the morality aspect (i.e. whether it is an ethically defendable way of life). Instead, the discussion has been about whether religious organisations should be suffered to express their opinions at all, and if so to what degree. Several years ago the American preacher Charles Ndifon, who claimed to be able to heal cancer, was touring southern Sweden, and was accused of quackery. No one took prayer seriously, the question was instead of whether freedom of religion allows for quackery. The answer turned out to be yes and the police investigation was cancelled.

Traditional religions have low credibility in Sweden and they are viewed with skepticism by the average Swede. Obviously there are plenty of other superstitious practices and beliefs, but these are of a private nature and usually not organised. People visit soothsayers, hire exorcists or take an evening course in self healing. However, this curiosity about the supernatural lacks dogma. It’s apolitical and often agnostic. It’s doubtful that these groups should be interested in defending the traditional religions. The debate in Sweden must therefore be of a different nature.

Personally I think it’s a healthy sign that the question of truth is no longer the prominent one, as it was at the time of Hedenius². It’s a sign of progress that we have left primitive myths behind us and instead put more focus on the question of tolerance. To what degree can and should we tolerate religious manifestations in public space? That question is both current and difficult, and actually a lot more interesting and relevant than the question of truth, which we may, with strong justification, view as settled.

¹ Svenska Dagbladet, Sweden’s third biggest national newspaper.

sweden, religion, hedenius, superstition

Over the past week or so, I’ve been watching the amazing 2006 BBC documentary Planet Earth. Surprisingly, I have actually learned a fair few things that I didn’t know before, which is obviously a great plus. That’s not why I watch nature documentaries though. I suspect I do it for much the same reason some people go to church and worship. The sense of wonder and amazement a well done nature film creates in me is truly a natural high.

And Planet Earth has been the most worthwhile experience yet. My eyes ever widening I stared at the screen as a great white shark engulfs a seal, shooting out of the water with incredible speed and force. My heart fluttered in my chest and threatened to explode as I took in the grace of a hunting snow leopard of the Mountains. And the ending of the Caves episode - no spoilers here - actually made me cry.

The idea that all of this exists independently of humans, that this beauty was not made to please us, only increases my wonder. It seems to me absolutely absurd that some think the absence of an intelligent designer in any way diminishes the glory of the supposed creation.

I have only one complaint about the series as such, and that is the same as about every other nature documentary I have watched: The music and sound effects.

Don’t get me wrong, for the most part the music is actually perfect. But sometimes, it is very apparent what it is the makers intend for you to think and feel about certain images, and it doesn’t always agree with what I actually do feel. For instance, most hunts in which something small and cute dies are accompanied by dark, ominous music. Sharks hunting seal are clearly evil, as are lions hunting elephants or wolves hunting pretty much anything.* But river dolphins hunting fish get a happy tune instead. (In my head, I add screams of panicked fear as I watch the fish jump out of the water to get away.)

The sound effects are mostly alright, but sometimes it is just too obvious that they’ve been added. I love sped-up images of flowers opening, but to add sound effects to something that could not possibly make a noise as it takes hours to happen is just ridiculous.

So far I have seen seven out of the eleven episodes. I have heard the last, Ocean Deep, is a masterpiece. Given how much I loved the Blue Planet episode on deep oceans, I doubt I’ll be disappointed.

* Something about all this strikes me as exceptionally odd: Humans tend to love cats and orca, for being intelligent and cute. Crocodiles and sharks and other terrifying animals are treated with fear and loathing. And yet, which of these have a penchant for playing with their food while the food is still alive? It sure isn’t the latter group…

planet earth, nature, bbc

While this video on its own may seem a bit bland, I urge you to go ahead to YouTube and check the responses. Atheists are nodding all over the place! Even a couple of christians showed up.

atheism, youtube

I’ve been part of the swedish blogosphere on and off for a year with my blog furiku. It’s been great fun, if tedious at times, and the audience is rather limited. After all there’s only nine million of us, and only a very small portion is at all interested in secularism/science blogs. In short, the swedish blogosphere is so small that it feels pretty much saturated already.

So, here I am, hoping to create a space for myself in the rather more lively - albeit predominantly US- and UK-centric - english-language blogosphere. I’ll endeavour to focus on what’s going on in Sweden, thus giving me a slightly unique edge. Here’s hoping anyone’s actually interested…

I know at least one person who can comfortably tell me "I told you so!", or something on those lines, now that I have finally decided to go international. I think I can live with that.

Technorati Profile, because I have to claim this blog.

Stay tuned for actual content! 

This is my new blog. At some point in the near future I shall write in it.