Science & Religion

Scientific Models and Religious falsehoodsThe common notion is that science describes the innovation as it is , while religion must(prenominal) use confirmatory methods to describe transcendental truth because it is beyond the powers human linguistic communication . However , a proper examination of the situation reveals that the tout of science to descriptive exactitude is unfounded , and that it too must employ indirect methods . The scientist admits to creating ` amazes to convey the essence of his findings . The scientific ensample is in fact not very different from the phantasmal analogy , and both are employing s that are stringently applicable elsewhere , but apply because of their power of touch . This essay is an attempt to analyze the similarities and differences between the two , with mention to the views of Alister McGrath as expressed in Science and Religion : An insertion , as well as those of Mircea Eliade , found in Myth and RealityMcGrath takes the strictly scientific approach . As a outgrowth he analyses religious myth very much as an extension to the scientific model Rutherford s of the mite is a pictural example of the scientific model . The constituents of the component cannot possibly be seen Yet by the turn of the twentieth carbon a wealth of experimental data had accrued surrounding the atom and its constituents . To explain this data the scientists found themselves exercising the vagary to great degrees than usual , and a number of realistic scenarios sprang up . Rutherford s model proved to be the most meaningful , and has stood the test of metre . He imagined a nucleus at the centre of the atom comprising the protons and neutrons , and the electrons orbiting the nucleus in the manner in which the planets orbit the solarise . Being the most intuitive picture it aided the visual modality , and thus was a great fillip in the tho advance of atomic science . Even at the clipping many scientists realized that such an arrangement was untenable .

If electrons were allowed to wrap in the electric field of the nucleus they were bound to lastly lose energy and collapse into the nucleus (Cayne 1981 ,. 387 . Then over again , the protons are very unlikely to reside to micturateher in a closely packed nucleus due to shared repulsion . Despite these overwhelming objections the model stood with the scientific club . This is only due to the overwhelming power to stimulate the imagination that the solar-system model for the atom held , and this is testimony to the role that imagination plays in scientific reasoningA more graphic example is the model used in the kinetic theory of mess upes In the seventeenth century the Englishman Robert Boyle had empirically determined that the pressure and volume of a gas are inversely proportional to each other , as long as the temperature is kept constant A smaller later the Frenchman Jaques Charles showed that the volume of gas is proportional to the temperature , and long as the pressure is kept constant . Combining the two it is possible to arrive at the ideal gas equationpV kTHere...If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: Orderessay

If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my essay .