Bags of Bran

Apologia 22: The Big Red Button and Why You Shouldn’t Push It
April 30, 2012, 8:23 pm
Filed under: Apologioi

From: Curt Ames []
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 3:37 AM
To: Christopher Ames
Subject: Re: MD20

Yes, it’s ‘Crocodile.’ Some PhDs can’t spell… and it could be a symptom of a disordered mind, or it could be a learning disability which I guess is kind of the same thing. Many very intelligent people have been wrong on one or more points (Newton being foremost in my mind) or bad at particular aspects of life. Einstein, I’ve recently discovered, couldn’t hold his marriage together in any sort of loving way.

Okay… that’s enough. You don’t get to insinuate that I haven’t got a ‘morally ordered worldview.’ That’s insulting and it’s absolute garbage, and I am very, very highly offended by it.  You know what it proves? That you DON’T KNOW ME. Maybe talk to some of the people with whom I interact on a nearly-to-daily basis before you start slinging that kind of malarkey around. Just because I don’t have my morals handed to me from some supposed magical sky being doesn’t mean that they are any less ordered than any others, in fact I find it’s quite nice not to get my “morals” from a book that was written by people who thought it was okay to own slaves as long as they didn’t come from the same country you live in, and you didn’t beat them ALL THE WAY to death, or that it was okay to ransack cities and kill everyone except the virgin females who were to be taken home as trophies. I am sorry, but I refuse this as an example of ‘morality’ and excuse it from being used as such.

I have explained the ‘order’ that drives my morals and it is one that is very consistent. Do what provides the greatest certainty of doing the most good for the most people for the longest time, and do it without taking anyone’s dignity if at all possible.

As far as my ‘not having any ground to stand upon’ when I speak of significance, I find that sort of rhetoric about as useful as the ‘what if the world was created 5 minutes ago with our memories intact,’ splashing-about-in-the-shallow-end-of-the-pool-of-philosophy refuse that you find bubbling frothily forth from pseudointellectual, half-braindead N.A. kids at every hipster coffee shop in America.  You want to believe it? Fine. It is not going to be a problem… because somehow I have stopped caring about trying to explain my worldview to you. I guess if you want to tell yourself that you know about my own paradigm (for which I might add there is no central dogma to be clung to and therefore very little in the way of reference material to consult- the only reliable source is myself) then you can straw man away to your heart’s content, but alas, as hard as you want to believe it it will not be true.

This conversation is finished, Chris. You have proven yourself in multiple ways to be unwilling to understand where I am coming from, and further shown a willingness to take things in the worst way possible in order to assume some sort of “righteous” indignation and thus form a pretense at having the moral high ground. It seems unlikely that you will even concede the (valid) point that my own worldview has come to me by a long process of studying many kinds of belief structures, deep thought about the nature of thought itself, and sometimes-painful self reflection, both unguided and otherwise- which is a far cry from admitting that I am right, might I add. Heck, I know for a fact that I might be wrong about any one of my beliefs, though I have degrees of certainty based on the available evidence- but in the absence of evidence I won’t just assume whatever I want to be true. I will say, “I don’t know- but this is what I think and these are the rules I used to get there.”

I have, I believe, thus far fairly well kept my emotions from interfering with the process of exchange of ideas, as I don’t think emotions have any bearing on the truth of an idea and can often lead people to dismiss an argument just because it makes them feel a way they don’t like, or accept it because it gives them warm fuzzies. But that horse can only take you so far- and now I’m afraid it has died and I am unwilling to spend any energy beating it.

Thank you for your time. For the most part our interchange was, for me, quite a pleasant one and I hope that you were at least in some way challenged and/or engaged by it.

With continued love (and hope that this has not ruined your day- sorry man, but these things needed to be said)



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


"Action often eliminates the need for reflection as well as the opportunity." - Antonia Fraser

%d bloggers like this: