Weltanschauung. That's another fancy pancy German word you all saw coming up on this blog, right? The word maailmankatsomus translates it perfectly for the Finns. The International has to settle with two short words: world view.

Nevertheless, I've spared some thoughts on formulating Weltanschauung, building on a kind of an enlightened humanism, that is optimistic, based on reason, is creedless but tolerant and certainly doesn't put mankind on some self-proclaimed pedestal. As I've got reservations about techno-faithful transhumanism, what I'm looking into is probably called post-humanism in general. Too bad the concept of humanism, in English at least, is almost synonymous to atheism. I don't think it's that straightforward.

There have been certain influences and interactions that have led me this far.

I listened to biologist Richard Dawkins' "God Delusion" audiobook halfway through – until I fed up, because I felt the author was putting words into other peoples' mouths and instilling ready thoughts into my head. Categorical atheism isn't exactly a constructive approach. Like, how Karstein said: "What we need, is peaceful co-existence, not militant atheism." Ditto, can't disagree.

Although left unfinished, Dawkins still managed to instill one thought I couldn't shake: agnosticism is for indecisive wussies. You know, Michael Scofield confessed, "I choose to have faith. Because without that, I have nothing. It's the only thing that's keeping me going."

If a strictly secular scientist had little to offer, so seemed the institutions at hand. A Lutheran Easter procession in East Helsinki looked and felt like a gloomy lynch mob – and a jovial, local celebrity Orthodox priest didn't raise much trust having said, that after buying an Alfa Romeo sports car, he was finally relieved of envy.

Luckily the institution hadn't had its last word yet.

I've been listening to the podcast of the programme Merkkituote on Finnish YLE Radio 1. Nothing short of excellent public service. In one recent episode they interviewed Richard Holloway, the retired bishop of Edinburgh. He's got a really convincing accent, a voice with whom he delivered such progressive thoughts, that pushed some stationary waves in my thinking into motion again.

So, I think that people should claim sprituality for themselves – and if they find that religious spirituality helps them do that, then fine. But, if it doesn't, then I don't think they should thereby just give up the spiritual life – because I think it is bigger than the religious expressions of it. Just as I think ethics and morality are far bigger than religious claims about those things.

The bishop leads me to assert, that faith as a spiritual position is bigger than religious definitions of it. But is it just a matter of free will? One simply chooses to have faith?