One of the things I have to admit I miss about non Anglican worship now is the rhythm of the church year. So it was nice to wake up this morning to a rather good service on Radio 4 from Aberystwyth. It was marking All Saints' Day, and contained a fine explanation of saints drawn from the book of Hebrews in the Bible, as well as a good variety of music - which is sadly more than can be said 'Songs of Praise' this evening. Some dire musical performances which seemed entirely at odds with with the words and of course, by and large, the old stereotyped image of saints as specially good people. Actually they're simply ordinary believers - like the McFadyens who provided the most moving interview.
I came across this in an article today. It seems to me to be germane to what I said about Prof Nutt and the supposed absolutism of science:
'Throughout the report the authors pit the objectivity, rigour and precision of ‘science’ and psychology against the subjectivities of religion and ‘values’. In so doing the report ignores the social, philosophical and value systems that the psychological sciences themselves inhabit,.... The authors seem to believe that the ‘scientific’ evidence over which they preside allows them to police the boundaries of ‘normality’ and their apparent ability to attach values (‘positive’) to psychological observations has a degree of confidence that is breath-taking.' It was in 'Changing Sexual Orientation and Identity? The APA Report' by Andrew Goddard and Glynn Harrison, on the Fulcrum website. We need to keep insisting that even 'science' inhabits social, philosophical and value systems
One of my favourite economists, not himself a religious man, wrote this about science and values: 'Why should one be frightened, I asked, of taking a stand on judgments which are not scientific, if they relate to matters outside the world of science? To recognise the claims of science in fields where scientific method was applicable was one thing; to attempt to claim scientific sanction for judgments of questions not capable of scientific proof was another. The one was an obligation on rational man; the other, the stratagem of spiritual uncertainty. Was it not only the timidity of an age which had lost all confidence in ultimate values which led us to attempt to claim "scientific" justifications for attitudes which in the nature of things could not be justified (or refuted) by appeal to laboratory methods?'
ReplyDeleteYes! It's good, and humbling, when someone says what you were trying to say - so much better! Who's the wise man?
ReplyDeleteIt's Lionel Robbins, one of the more humane practitioners of the science called dismal. I cannot help but think economists might gain a better reputation if they took Robbins' words to heart.
ReplyDeleteCan you explain what you mean by "non Anglican worship" - you've got me worried!
ReplyDeleteI don't think you need to be worried, Brian, but there are other churches out there which have only subliminal liturgy. They miss out in that way, but do allow the Spirit to interrupt man-made constructs if He wishes whereas strict liturgical churches seldom let Him get a word or a breath in edgeways. At the moment we go to a church like that in the morning where we've been made very welcome. In the evening we usually return to our Anglican roots. It's a compromise which suits us. However you know the old saying, if you think you've found the perfect church, don't join it - you'll only spoil it.
ReplyDeletePhew! What a relief!!
ReplyDelete