Mush

No reason for the title.  Just like the word mush.  It means so many things.  A term usually used to describe unappealing useless slop.  It also means go.

It occurred to me today that the claim that science has explained much of what was previously attributed to God and religion is a load of crap.  I remember reading it somewhere on Facebook... it was in a thread that someone started on that "Bill Gates sharing his fortune" group that so many people I know joined.

It's a funny group and a weird way to evangelize.

I don't know if I think it's the most effective, but it's funny.

Sure, we know why it rains now and where it comes from and the whole water cycle and all that stuff.  Sure we know why earthquakes happen, and what causes the wind to blow, and why a bird has a gizzard, and that lightning is not some thing thrown from the sky by a tempermental, promiscuous, and bored deity.

But do we REALLY know WHY?  We know how it happens.  We can observe the natural processes by which it occurs.  But how much about those processes do we really actually know?  As far as I know, the further out the astronomers look, the harder it gets to find scientific explanations for all the weird crap they can see.  It is also my understanding that the smaller physicists look, the same thing occurs.  (Makes me think of that Simpsons opening where the camera zooms out so far it loops back around out of Homer's head.  Didn't make sense?  I don't feel like explaining :P)

So how can anyone claim that our understanding of natural processes has "explained" God out of the picture?  What has science really "explained" to us other than the fact that the world is even more complicated than we first realized?  How does this then logically lead us to the conclusion that therefore God does not exist?  It puzzles me... as I'm sure my belief in God puzzles the athiest.

Alas a conundrum and problem that will run in circles for the years and ages to come (while time still exists and the Earth is still in turmoil anyway.)

Some time has also been spent contemplating on what it means to feel wronged by someone.  In feeling wronged, when you lash out, you also do wrong and so it is then not really unfair that you apologize and the other party does not.  After all, the decision to form and speak an apology is one's own responsibility... you can only force a child to speak an apology, and then not even can you make them mean it.

And yet, when you feel wronged and that party apparently thinks they've done nothing wrong, how does one go about letting the other party know that you feel wronged?  What if after the confrontation, they still refuse to acknowledge that they committed a wrong and you are thus forced to break off the conversation with the metaphorical bad taste in your mouth?

Obviously this situation is not hypothetical.  I'm not going to insult your intelligence by making any such insinuations.  However, breaking off the relationship is not an option.  Not in this case.

When you learn to handle situations such as this, is that what it means to become older and wiser?

I wonder.