I'm planning here to resolve the dispute between science and religion. This dispute has preoccupied us for too long. It has seemed unresolvable. Scientists don't want to give an inch to religion. Likewise, theists don't want to give in to science. I have thought that in this case, the solution is not to show that science answers all our questions about meaning. Nor does religion tell us what we want to know about the world so we need not listen to science. In this case, I want to appeal to "Ramsey's Maxim," (1) that, in the case where there is a seemingly unresolvable dispute, a resolution may be possible by looking for and rejecting a hitherto unrecognized assumption held by both sides in the dispute. By challenging and, if possible, rejecting that assumption, one should thereby show that there is a solution that does not involve the stereotypical parties to the dispute. The resolution, instead, involves some third possibility.
The difficulty in making this argument about this dispute is in thinking that anyone would agree to reject their commitments to science or religion. People have a lot invested in both science and religion.
The problem is that there is a lot at stake in this dispute. That is, there is also a great deal that is lost, and that we stand to lose, by our continued commitments to what we understand as science and religion. If we fail to resolve this argument, we all stand to suffer. I contend that as our leaders are committed to being lead by either science or religion, we will follow wherever these arguments direct us. I believe they are leading us right over a cliff into an abyss. The argument about the Apocalypse was developed as a warning about where these arguments would eventually lead. Because of where they begin, they will lead us to violent all-consuming self destruction.
We should be careful and diligent in evaluating what we are doing because of the dangers involved, because of the dangers involved in our commitments.