God and science not an easy mix for many






Some phi­loso­phers, sci­en­tists and the­olo­gians have ar­gued that re­li­gion and sci­ence have no fun­da­men­tal con­flict.

But many peo­ple seem to feel oth­er­wise, if a new study is to be be­lieved: un­con­scious at­ti­tudes to­ward sci­ence and God are of­ten op­posed.

The sci­en­tists found that af­ter us­ing sci­ence or God to try to ex­plain ques­tions such as the or­i­gins of the uni­verse and life, most peo­ple in their tests dis­played a pref­er­ence for one type of ex­plan­ationand a neu­tral or neg­a­tive at­ti­tude to­ward the oth­er.

This ef­fect ap­pears to be in­de­pend­ent of a per­sons re­li­gious back­ground or views, said Uni­ver­s­ity of Il­li­nois psy­chol­o­gy pro­fes­sor Jes­se Pres­ton, who led the re­search. The study ap­pears in the Jour­nal of Ex­pe­ri­men­tal So­cial Psy­chol­o­gy.

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/081215_religion

When I have one view, it is difficult to hold another.

Typically what I have seen is that people can only hold one model of the universe at a time. This model is so ingrained in the psyche that it is difficult to form another model.

When a neural network is trained to view a universal model, it takes retraining of the neural network to evaluate another universal model. Neural networks work to review a single model over and over. They show error (disdain) for another model. This is true for the scientist or the theologian.

We see this here. When a new model of the universe is presented that is not of that which conforms to standard, it is attacked. It may be that the "Newtonian Light bending: Boscovich II" fails in this category. It seem that the author did not provide enough evidence to allow other neural networks to evaluate the problem correctly.

Here this model of light does not allow the other neural networks to evaluate the predictions as described. If the author wanted to describe how the Pythagorean theorem was not used correctly, the author should have described it mathematically. What resulted is that other readers attacked the author for not correctly describing the problem in detail.

So when a neural network describes God or Science, they need to describe their universal model in a way that others would easily resolve the issues. So of course there is difficulty in mixing God or Science. They are antithetical to each other.

Aaron

Aaron>>We see this here. When a new model of the universe is presented that is not of that which conforms to standard, it is attacked. It may be that the "Newtonian Light bending: Boscovich II" fails in this category. It seem that the author did not provide enough evidence to allow other neural networks to evaluate the problem correctly.
Here this model of light does not allow the other neural networks to evaluate the predictions as described. If the author wanted to describe how the Pythagorean theorem was not used correctly, the author should have described it mathematically. What resulted is that other readers attacked the author for not correctly describing the problem in detail.



That's cheek.

That posting was part 2 hence why called "Boscovich II". I provided the links to the maths. But when it came down to it - people just can't be bothered to put the time into reading it, so its just straight in with attack, no background reading.

Re: Stanley 16, God and science not an easy mix for many December 19 2008 at 7:03 PM

Stanley 16,
"Some phi­loso­phers, sci­en­tists and the­olo­gians have argued that re­li­gion and sci­ence have no fun­da­men­tal conflict."

I agree. But I think that each tend to oppress rather than oppose each other.

bob s

The story of physics, is like any other story. F=-gm1m2/r^2; Until proven by data. When the model is supported by the data, only then it looses its story title and becomes truth.

Gravity is a story that is told to young physicist. But the story of density is told to young chemists. The helium balloon supports the chemist's story, thus is the truth, that should be taught to the young physicist.

I only want to work with reasonable people. Reasonable people will be able to look a someone else's model as if it a fiction. Read the story(presentation) and respectfully critique it.

I have a new model of the universe and I would like reasonable people to read it and show me where it lacks. I have many predictions in it and would like reasonable people to evaluate my predictions. JAXA and the Lunar Prospector are shining light on some parts of my model. To my surprise, they are validating it. That is cool.

I know I need to rewrite it so it is easier to read. Right now it is a stream of consciousness blog. I need to see if its major points hold to scrutiny, then write them as a better presentation.

Many thanks
Aaron
http://aaronsreality.blogspot.com

I agree that God and Science is not an easy mix for many. And it funny, both areas require a lot of study. I did my best to put the pieces together in my two books (both a $5 download) to understand Physics in one book and relate to the first chapter of Genesis in the other book (the first page of the General Science Journal cover page and then click on my name).

Very interesting!

Waiting for Godot:
http://samuel-beckett.net/Waiting_for_Godot_Part1.html

God has revealed the truth to man many times. Man is too sure of his own ideas to consider the truth, so it will remain safely hidden out in the open.

Until man's ideas correspond with reality, his ideas will conflict internally, and eternally.