Bags of Bran

Apologia #8
April 1, 2012, 10:08 pm
Filed under: Apologioi
Curt Ames
Mar 7

to me
All fairly accurate as I understand it. That’s why they don’t use it on things like metamorphic rock- basically it goes like this: “Ah, this method won’t work on this rock. Let’s find another one- or date some different rocks.” They don’t use it in cases where it won’t do any good- and there are clear signs of reheating or water contact. Usually a sample is taken from the inside of the rock to avoid things like rainwater leaching, etc. and the samples are isolated from outside gases during testing. Not sure how this works but they could use nitrogen or, more likely, some non-Argon noble gas.

The soup is coming along beautifully- but I gotta get the bread from the oven!
Chris Ames
10:07 PM (0 minutes ago)

to Curt
You said this:

I disagree that a search for truth must necessarily be religious in nature and that in particular mine is such. I think (correct me if I am wrong) that part of your worldview at least tends to frame things in a religious context, and the concept of a different kind of scaffolding, a different means of understanding, is slightly alien and is more easily comprehended within your own framework.

 I don’t think religion has a monopoly on personal growth, self-searching, or a quest for the essential nature of the universe (or at least a reasonably close approximation, as close as this emergent property of a brain we call a ‘mind’ will allow us to get) and I don’t think attempting to label it as such is very helpful. It could in a way be interpreted as ‘spiritual’ in the loosest sense of the word (I take it to mean things that have a profound connection with our sense of self and our relationship with the universe) and could be said to involve what I metaphorically refer to as a ‘soul’ (the deeper sense of self, beyond our physical form and actions).

My experience on the train ride in the Highlands met my definition of ‘Spiritual’ because it struck me to the very core of my being, leaving me absolutely dumbfounded and in awe of the beauty of existence and with a greater and deeper sense of my place in existence. Something within me just said ‘yes, yes, this is it!’ and that is the best I can explain it. I think that experience is probably what all of mankind’s dabbling with mind-affecting substances (from Soma to Salvia) was about, trying to reach that- and let me tell you, nothing touches it. Not even close.

I welcome changes to my worldview, Chris. I don’t expect you to spend your time studying so as just to convince me, but welcome any evidence to challenge my paradigm.  I do, however, have strict standards for what constitutes ‘evidence’ and it happens to be about the same as what a reputable legal court would require.

First, I have to apologize: I have misused the word “religious,” so now I propose a new one: metaphysical. “Religion” is what a person does as a result of convictions about spiritual ideas; metaphysics is “what’s behind the things.” I meant that you act according to your metaphysical notions about the universe. Religion is not a good word for that, so please forgive me.
Oh, I absolutely have a framework for interpreting reality: it’s a theological framework. I reference the Maker’s notes frequently, and have spent years learning how to read them in their original languages. Yes, absolutely everything in the world points to God: I am not ashamed of my framework. It is consistent, non-contradictory, and satisfactory. It is also based on a personal relationship: this God loves, values, expresses, provides, and has dealt with the problem of evil in the world decisively. It was His problem, after all, and He solved it.
It was His handiwork there in Scotland. Please don’t be offended when I say it. He has places like that here and there, where it resonates in your soul. It calls with the ancient call.
You may not have a religion per se, but you do have a metaphysic: you believe in laws that cannot be questioned, and that no human being or no flood of consensus enacted. Gravity, for example, or laws of logic. Even decay rates.
One problem your thinking runs into is that material origins make all appeals to the noumenal or the metaphysical meaningless. There can be no transcendent laws if the world is only material. You have opinions: do other masses of molecules have the same opinions at the same temperature and pressure? You cannot account for opinions based on chemestry, physics, or any of the hard sciences. Not even astrology!
By the way, what evidence do you have that you exist? Could you prove it in a court of law? 😉

Leave a Comment so far
Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


Celebrating Revivalism and Other Noxious Pieties


\"If I am immoderate, I am immoderate to God.\" - Bengel


Like sawdust, but edible.

Broad Meadow

I have spoken the truth coldly; who cares for the truth? To be useful, one must be charming, and my pen has lost that art.

Planting churches with the Baptist Confession in one hand and Tolkien in the other

Orchard Keeper

Plucking fruit from the grove of biblical and theological studies

Jubilate Deo

Music in the service of the church


Theology, apologetics, ramblings

Towards Conservative Christianity

Promoting true conservative Christianity


"a changeless sword, By pen and paper lies, That it may moralise My days out of their aimlessness." - Yeats

%d bloggers like this: