Thus, the concept cannot be taken as true pragmatically. The same critic of James, especially one of a scientific leaning, may then suggest that pragmatism does not solve the debate between science and religion, because religion is itself an irrational model of explanation that conflicts too heavily with science for the disciplines to be able to coexist. However, to counter this criticism, one may once again employ the example of the evolutionism-creationism divided. While it may initially seem that these explanatory models are in direct conflict, one may equally argue that they are not. After all, the Big Bang 's implication of creation out of nothing could be explained as the result of God 's intervention; as no other reason yet exists to explain the Universe 's earliest origins, a divine explanation …show more content…
James proposed that science and religion can coexist harmoniously, because both disciplines play a concrete function in the lives of their followers, and, thus, are simultaneously true systems of meaning. While James ' philosophy of pragmatism was not one that was received without criticism, the fact that he attempted to bridge the divide between science and religion, two disciplines which had been in contention for centuries, is a truly remarkable feat and a testament to James ' lasting legacy as one of the greatest philosophers of the nineteenth