Compare Scientific Models and Religious Myths Essay

comparison Scientific Models and Religious Myths - Essay ExampleThe ideas in defense of religion, on the other hand, atomic number 18 stemma from causation and argument from values.A myriad of scientific models have been invented and adopted in the realm of processed science and applied sciences, which gave a strong attachment of science to scientific observation and scientific methods. Objectivity, accuracy, and verifiability are of prime importance of scientific inquiry, and are the characteristics of science. These dimensions are said not to be possessed by religion, whose central configuration is faith. The locus of science being based on material objectivity through with(predicate) scientific methods is said to be a far cry from that of religion, which to some people, is perceived to be a locus of mythology, false and science-unaided beliefs, and fanaticism. Thus, the debate about science and religion has a history that dates back to the commencement ceremony of modern sci ence.Naturalism, a scientific model that defends science with its stance of reality being material, and is therefore sphere to scientific scrutiny, poses that any considerations that ideas not relying in scientific investigations are foolish (Baker, 2006). The search for truth is assemble in the material reality - in the natural world - which can be measured and canvas according to scientific investigations. Religion, having no scientific tools to aid such investigation, is taken as a myth. scientific discipline was able to maintain such confinement to the natural world on the basis of its ability to phthisis testable and reproducible material data that passed through scientific methods, in which explanations lie in the domains of the natural world. It goes on to say that non-natural explanations, like the realm of religion, are non-testable and non-reproducible and are therefore non-scientific. Anything non-scientific is considered a myth or an monstrous belief by some scienc e geeks. However, the exclusion of non-scientific explanations from understanding the natural world does not