I am not an economist though I have an interest in how things work in the economy. That doesn't mean that I completely (or even partly) understand interviews and articles that cover emerging or current problems or why one thing is linked to another. It is a far bigger and more complex picture than the oft-alluded to household economy.

But having watched a few programs recently, I do get the worry about the global economy, though I often forget about half of what is said. It seems that, as I recall, a financial crisis may be brewing, principally because of three factors - a bond market squeeze, high government debt, and the AI infrastructure boom. I am a bit sceptical when I hear about something or other being a 'perfect storm', another way of saying how multiple problems may converge to create something much larger than themselves, but I'll sit with it this time.

Apparently, if the storm clouds do indeed become the deluge, then, um, I don't really know what happens. But there will be 'wailing and gashing of teeth.' The Biblical metaphor is quite apt really, because a lot of people, especially small ones, will be hurt. The rich, I guess might suffer the slings of a small part of their vast fortunes, or the arrows of a luxury yacht or two. Poorer folk might really be in shtuck for lost houses, cars and businesses, if the worst outcome prevails.

I hope that they are all wrong and that we muddle through to an unsatisfactory conclusion, that being the likely least bad option.

 Speaking of literacy, I watched an old BBC doco from the early 1960's in which some of the adults who were interviewed bemoaned their lack of education, relative to that of their children. Many had left school quite young and felt that had they had the same chance as their kids, their incomes who be significantly higher. It was interesting how strongly they attached educational background to earnings (valid as that is) and so little to intellectual striving or personal fulfilment. Then again, they didn't really have much choice and their limited vision, stunted by their educational lack, made such remarks perfectly reasonable.

Another aspect of the program (which was highlighting changes in nature of South London after WW2) was the common response to 'are you happier now?' inquiry. While most said that they were undoubtedly better off than their parents were, the increase in living standards and new high-rise housing had diminished their sense of community. Things were not so neighbourly as they once were.

Such an atomisation continues apace. The folk from the sixties cited TV as a major cause of the decline of local camaraderie. Today a similar argument is made with smart phones. Doubtless we are also far more affluent than the people in the documentary. When I am on the train, I often just watch my fellow commuters, most of whom are deeply engaged with all-in-one entertainment machines. The only voices I hear are those who are talking into those machines. This is not a criticism, just an observation. I am not sure where it is all leading.

I hadn't realised until yesterday what a wonderful philanthropist the late Dolly Parton was. We read an article from the The Conversation on 2RPH's Features Forum which talked about her program, Imagination Library, which she started in 1995. This delivers age-appropriate books monthly and freely to children from birth to their fifth birthday. In this country alone, 50,000 kids get a monthly book. Having books read to you and being able to read them yourself, irrespective of your circumstances, is a blessing for both literacy and the imagination.

Dolly is best known for her music, costumes and wigs. She was an outstanding and influential performer. But her generous contribution to literacy (her own father could not read) will have ripple effects for generations to come, things unseen and yet moving on the spirit of the written and spoken word.

Pursuant to my last post, it seems that modern commentators think that the times we live in now are morally superior to the past, and that people who say otherwise are afflicted by the 'rose-coloured glasses on the past' syndrome.

I always have a good think about criticism like this and the point made can apply in many cases. The 'good old days' posts that regularly pop up on social media are undoubtedly looking back through a biased lens, one that confirms the prejudices already held. Posters comments reinforce this. I have spent a good part of my life fighting such skewed views of the world. Moreover I don't think the time of my youth was any kind of halcyon period.

The key thing about views of moral good or evil is the metric by which it is measured. It came as a surprise to me then that contemporary analysts (philosophers, sociologists etc) are on quite a different page to me. For whereas I am looking at the moral from the point of view of a more ancient aspect (murder, lying, sexual misconduct, avarice, jealousy, pride, love of neighbour etc) they are more inclined to consider the greater good, progress in medicine and hygiene, a reduction in prejudice, increased compassion, access to clean water, a reduction in suffering and so forth. These are all very noble goals and I support them heartily. Who wouldn't?

But we are talking at cross purposes. When your yardstick is grounded in materialism and the metaphysical is irrelevant, then you are always going to have a different view of whether we are in moral decline. I don't think either side is wrong - we are just talking about different things and how you measure them.

 Greater minds than mine, of which there are many, have considered the question - 'can there be a moral code without God?' - and there have been a lot of well-considered answers. 

Apparently that answer is 'yes', followed by a perfectly reasonable justification. Here is one very common response:

'The truth is, morality doesn't require a belief in God. Secular morality offers a compelling alternative, grounded in reason, empathy and our shared human experience.' (Sacrilegious Discourse)

It is surely possible to build a moral code, one that informs our legal system, one that reflects the grounding elements mentioned above. It may even function well for a period of time.

But Christians (and other people of faith) will argue that without the imprimatur of God, and the sanctions that only a divine creator can employ, such a moral code, good as it is, will eventually decay into relativism. Secularists disagree. Who might be right?

My observations, subjective as they are, suggest that just such a decline into relativism is happening now and has been ongoing for a century or longer. With the decline of faith and belief in God, together with the teaching of moral codes such as the ten commandments, the idea of truth, of what constitutes right and wrong and what this means in practical liveable terms, has been muddied, challenged and undermined. It really is getting worse by the year.

The folks who postulate theories of secular morality are smart, well-educated, decent people, who are actively interested in the well-being of society. They are a tiny minority. I don't know if, outside their virtuous circle, they notice the increasing amorality of many of the citizens around them, the disregard for human life, the decline of public discourse, the normalisation of practises and ideas that are repugnant to human dignity. Do they notice the 'my truth/your truth' brigade as they play out a classic relativistic scenario?

Yes, a moral code is possible without God. It's capacity to maintain itself though, is somewhat in question. Just look around.

 It's easy to worry about things, especially when you don't have all or any of the background information. This is even more so when it involves loved-ones. Incomplete pictures create uncertainty and uncertainty, like it's opposite, security, is decidedly 'mortals chiefest enemy.'

As a Christian, uncertainty is something that we have to live with, trusting that God has matters in hand. Because many of us want to control situations, even micro-manage them, giving up is difficult. Moreover, as soon as we do try, we find ourselves endeavouring to take up the reigns again. It is hard to 'lay it down' and not pick it up again.

I have found this especially so recently. Wondering what is going on, wondering if there is something I can do 'to help', is a challenge. It is a daily challenge - surrendering a situation to God, trusting that whatever the pathway He chooses, will ultimately be for the best.

 Father John's homily today was bang on, a rarity is which both my brain and my faith were fully engaged. He was, in essence, gives us a Cook's Tour of some of the thinking of Pope's over the past 120 years. More narrowly, I suppose, he touched on the manner in which the Papacy has engaged with what was happening in the world around us at that time, including the rise of Marxism, the degrading of the environment and the ascendancy of AI. These of course, are hugely consequential issues. Even Marxism, despite the defeat of communism in the 1990's as a serious socio-economic choice, remains a hot-button topic amongst those who think and those who chatter.

Despite my centre-left origins, I find myself agreeing on just about everything. Today we are in the thrall of a kind of world-wide delusion - that we can go on consuming the way we do, that life is primarily about the material and its uses, that technology will ride to the rescue as the curtain begins to fall. But I sense a panic under the surface, a sidewards glance that knows at some level, these things are not true. I claim no special knowledge in these matters. Moreover, I know nothing about it except what I have read and what I observe around me.

On another note, though related, the Father's weekly column was preceded by this quotation attributed to one Elmer G. Letterman (about whom I can find nothing), which reads:

'A man may fall many times but he won't be a failure until he says someone pushed him.'

There is certainly some truth in that.