Abstract

The paper is devoted to the issue of warfare between science and religion. The author describes various positions at this issue, analyzing their faults and merits. He concludes that two most popular ones — of the two books (the Bible, book of Revelation, and the book of Nature), and of complete separated, non-overlapping magisteria (so-called bomb-shelter theology) — are untenable. He proposes a new conception instead of them — the conception of punctuated, or interrupted, discordism — according to which science and religion are predominantly in real conflict which though dangerous is not fatal to both sides of the conflict. It is so because science is ever-changing set of hypothetical claims in comparison to religious claims which are dogmatic and unchangeable