Religion comes from the Latin “religion” meaning “good faith.” Follows a system of belief and worship, and is very concerned with ethics, morals, and principles. Relies on prayer, ritual, and meditation. Has a way of life or life stance held with ardor and, most importantly, faith.
Science is derived from the Latin “scientia” meaning “knowledge.” Follows an empirical rational system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific methods supported by research. Involved in a continuing effort to increase human understanding involving collecting observable concrete evidence. Seeks to understand the universe using logic and reason.
The conflict is self-evident. Science is ultimately based on reason. Religion is largely based on faith. Science assumes that things occur because of natural causes. Religion assumes that things occur because of a higher power. Because Religion is based on faith, any compromise with Science would require Religion to reject deeply held beliefs. Because Science relies on concrete facts, any compromise requires Science to reject hard evidence. Throughout history, this battle has reached stagnation, and neither side can easily convince the other of their truth.
The mediator is Robert Langdon, a person whose position on both religious and scientific matters is unbiased.
Mediator’s Opening Statement
Good morning, my name is Robert Langdon. My purpose here today is to act as a mediator in this case and to assist you in the resolution of the dispute that brings us here today. I want to thank and commend both parties for your willingness to participate in this process, which has repeatedly been proven to be successful.
To begin, I want to state that I am here to neither represent any side nor take any particular position. My only goal in this mediation is to assist both parties in reaching a mutually acceptable agreement on the issue. Thus, I have no authority to impose a decision on you or decide how this matter should be settled. I’m not a judge or decision-maker; rather my role is to facilitate communication between both parties.
In addition, as a mediator, I’m obliged to disclose any potential conflicts of interest. I believe I am very knowledgeable as to the issues and subject matter involved. However, if you have any concerns about my impartiality, you are free to discuss these openly before the commencement of the mediation process.
To promote open communication during the process, confidentiality is an essential part of process. If either party tells me anything in private and asks me to keep it confidential, I am bound by the law not to disclose this information.
I would greatly appreciate it if both parties keep certain things in mind. During this process, it is most beneficial if both parties treat each other with courtesy and respect. I realize that emotions may run high; nevertheless, to facilitate a resolution, the parties should attempt to focus on the problem. Both parties should come to see themselves as working side-by-side, attacking the problem, not each other.
Before we commence, let me explain the procedure we will use. When I complete these preliminary statements, each of you will have the opportunity to make an opening statement to describe the problem as you see it. When both parties have had that opportunity, we’ll begin a joint discussion centering our focus on possible solutions. At some point, I may meet with each of you separately. This is called a caucus. As in the rest of the process, the information you share during the caucus is also confidential and will not share during open discussion unless the party specifically gives consent.
Are there any questions at this point? If not, since Religion has brought this grievance, we will proceed with Religion’s opening statement.
Religion: My main concern is that Science is corrupting the world. Science has been turning people into cold beings unmoved by important emotions, such as love, compassion, and hope. Human beings are not machines; they thrive on creativity, inspiration, and connection to each other. Science does nothing, if not the contrary, to facilitate this. Science believes it is all-knowing and the only way to understand and live in our world. Science doesn’t have any limits or bounds, it doesn’t adhere to any ethical parameters. Science is completely unaware of the serious consequences its ways may bring. Using its methods, Science has made people more skeptical, casting doubt on their beliefs and their faith.
Mediator: Thank you, Religion, for your honesty and openness. I would now like to invite Science to share its point of view of the issues. Remember, we are not reaching any conclusions at this point or making any decisions. We are only attempting to shed light on the conflict at hand.
Science: The main problem is the fact that Religion is stuck in the past. Religion is close-minded and intolerant, which is evidenced by the fact that Religion rejects any form of innovation or movement forward. Religion cannot provide the world with the answers it deserves or needs. In a sense, it is useless and pointless. Thus, Religion does not help the world; it only slows progress and any advancement. If it were up to Religion, we would still be living in tribes without such comforts of modern life as electricity, technology, and medicine. I provide people with the knowledge and understanding they need to make an informed decision about their lives, which is unquestionably more beneficial than going through life taking blind leaps of faith with unpredictable outcomes.
NOTE: Each party views the world through different lenses. This situation is similar to how a child perceives the world versus an adult. A child is awed without looking for an explanation, while an adult is more jaded and needs to know the how the evidence. For example, in magic shows, children just accept the existence of magic and are awed by the tricks, whereas the adults are analyzing and thinking “how did he do that?”
The mediator should try to encourage the parties to attempt to see the world as the other sees it. This could initiate some empathy for the parties. In this situation, especially for religion, it is very critical that the parties focus on the issues without attacking each other. The way one views the world is very closely tied with one’s identity. When a person is certain of their view of the world, this provides them with a sense of security and illusory control over their lives. The trick is how to challenge those views without triggering their defenses because this may result in denial or in moving them more firmly into their view.
Mediator: So I see that the conflict is mainly over the value of each other’s view, and the concerns involve the repercussions that each other’s action or inaction may bring.
Religion: Yes, I am trying to aid the world. Provide it with something Science cannot do. In adhering to a system of morals and principles, the world becomes a safer and happier place.
Science: You claim to want to help the world. But I simply don’t believe this. You have caused many wars and battles. Many lives have been taken in your name. You don’t bring people together, you alienate them.
Religion: You are corrupting everything I stand for. You have done more harm than good to this world. You gave the world the ability to create weapons that have taken countless innocent lives. Knowledge without moral limits is equally as dangerous.
NOTE: The discussion has gone from productive to simple name-calling. Each party is simply finding more and more reasons to stick to their position. The mediator should provide time for cooling off.
Mediator: To gain so more perspective, I would now like to meet with both parties individually. I will first start with Religion after which I will meet with Science. Anything you share during these private sessions is confidential and I will not reveal anything that was spoken without that party’s consent.
NOTE: In approaching Religion, the mediator should keep in mind that Religion by its very nature relies on steadfast conviction and is resistant to change. Religion survives by holding on to beliefs no matter what occurs. Thus, the technique the mediator should utilize is to bring Religion to believe that acknowledging any value in Science does not signify betraying its beliefs. Such a technique emphasizes the point that it is not one or the other but instead one and another.
Mediator: Hello, Religion, I would like to take this opportunity to ask you what your concerns are and more importantly, what outcome you are hoping for.
Religion: I would like to ensure the future of our humanity. I do not want the world to disregard what has guided us for so many centuries. What differentiates us from savages is our conscience. We should not lose touch with what is right or wrong. 90% of the world’s population has faith. It is instinctual to look for hope and comfort in times of need. I want to ensure that future generations have this.
Mediator: That is a noble cause. What about Science making you believe that this is not possible?
Religion: Science is not guided by morals or principles. It can be said that Science believes that the ends justify the means, and this is unacceptable. Mankind must have its limits and I am the only one capable of providing Mankind with this moral compass.
Mediator: I understand your concerns, but is it possible that both you and Science can work together to achieve both your goals? Science stated that it wishes to provide humanity with better lives. Isn’t this in essence what you wish to give people as well? Science through progress in technology and medicine, and you by providing hope and maintaining the balance.
Religion: Yes, but Science is arrogant. It believes it is all-knowing without acknowledging its shortcomings. It has been wrong before. It does not believe in the possibility that my views are also valid.
Mediator: Religion, I would like you to remember that we are not discussing the truthfulness of either view. We are not trying to decide which one is false and which one is true. Both have something valuable to contribute to this world, and we are only trying to find a compromise in which both you and Science can co-exist so that the world would not be deprived of what both of you have to offer.
Religion: I can concede that Science may have something of worth and importance to offer this world. Something that Religion alone cannot give. But I am willing to sacrifice any benefits Science may provide if it means maintaining humanity safe.
Mediator: So what I am hearing is that you are willing to allow Science to operate in its area of expertise as long as it agrees to some moral limits?
Religion: Perhaps.
Mediator: Thank you, Religion, for your willingness. I believe we are making progress. If you have no other concerns at this moment, I will invite you to visit our lounge for some refreshments and snacks?
NOTE: To open Science up to compromise, the mediator should remember that Science is more open to discoveries and new information which may change the current understanding. However, Science relies on evidence and logic, so the mediator should attempt to see the world as Science perceives it.
Mediator: Hello, Science, I would now invite you to share what you hope to gain from this process, what outcome are you hoping for?
Science: I am interested in promoting better life in the world. I aim to provide a vehicle for knowledge. My progress saves lives and makes lives easier. Times are changing and the world must adapt to new circumstances. Religion is hindering this process. Religion’s only purpose is to brainwash people, making them close-minded and reluctant to face new possibilities.
Mediator: I see your point and I understand your concerns. However, is it not possible that Religion also provides answers and guides people in the same way you do.
Science: Maybe, but Religion leaves more questions than answers, it is filled with mysteries that serve no purpose. I am capable of giving the world answers to these difficult questions and offering solutions to the world’s problems. In addition, Religion claims to give hope and peace, but it does the contrary.
Mediator: Science, as a scientist, I know that you are open to new possibilities and discoveries. In the past, you have adapted to new information. For example, at one time it was believed that the earth was flat and the sun goes around the earth, but new evidence has changed this.
Science: This is true. I am not perfect, and at times I have committed errors. But what Religion teaches is inconceivable. It cannot be proved.
Mediator: It is not always that we can give answers to some questions. But some things cannot be explained even by Science. For example, the placebo effect in experimental groups. There is no evidence to explain this phenomenon but this does not change the fact that it occurs. In addition, as a man of logic, I understand that if something can’t be proven, it is not necessarily false.
Science: I admit that there exist things that lack scientific explanation, but this is because it has not been found yet. This explanation exists and it has to be searched for. Otherwise, it will be not interesting to live. The placebo phenomenon does have a scientific explanation: it takes place due to certain processes in the patients’ brains. Calling the placebo effect non-scientific is the same as calling hypnosis non-scientific. They both are the mysteries of the human brain with hypnosis having been studied for years and thus almost completely explained. The same is expected to happen with a placebo.
Mediator: I’d like to welcome both of you back to our joint discussion. I believe we have become very keen on what the problem is. However, we have not jointly discussed any possible compromises or solutions which would serve both your interests and concerns. Does either party have any suggestions or at least an idea about what an acceptable solution would look like to you? Religion, do you have any thoughts as to how to end this conflict between you and Science?
Religion: My suggestion is that moral limits should be imposed on Science’s inventions for they are often destructive. There are certainly ethical considerations that have to be taken into account. Science has no value for human life; all it cares about is the power of new inventions. Consider cloning for instance. How come that something created by humans can have heavenly powers? It is God’s prerogative to give lives, as well as it is His right to take them away for He is responsible for the balance in nature, and cloning upsets this balance. However, I am concerned not only with Science’s overtaking God’s rights. I care about the welfare of society, the normal existence of which is hardly possible with clones, robots, nuclear weapons, etc. There have to be limited to this.
Mediator:Science, do you agree that your inventions need moral restrictions? Being a scientist, I understand the value of cloning. It contributes greatly to medical research and may be used in fighting diseases curing which was impossible earlier. But is cloning safe? Is it under sufficient control?
Science: I might agree that some of my inventions sometimes go out of control. But isn’t that often the case that Religion’s influence destroys people’s lives? Should I give concrete examples of how terrorists brainwashed by religion committed suicides and took the lives of innocent people at this? Or should I tell about those cases when religious parents easily accepted the death of their child when the medicine could save this child? Cloning is just one of those few arguments which Religion can bring against me.
Mediator: Please, let me interrupt you here again. What is taking place now is a mere continuation of the argument which took place before the individual conversations. Instead, we need solutions to the problem. Accusing each other can hardly help you. I know that controversies between you have been lasting for a long time, but now it is time to stop them. We are here to reach an agreement. Both of you will have to give up at least some of the beliefs. Persistence is good quality, but it will lead us nowhere.
Note: The Mediator should remember that Science is more powerful than Religion, though the latter may deny this. In this case, Science might demand Religion to name the reasons why Science should agree to the proposed conditions. The Mediator is expected to avoid this slowly leading the conversation into agreeing to certain conditions rather than determining who is stronger.
Mediator: It often happens that the idea is good, but, once it is implemented, it turns out to have certain flaws. Science, do you admit that some of your inventions are not as good as you thought them to be?
Science: My primary purpose is to take care of the welfare of society and each of my inventions is a contribution to fulfilling this purpose. The claim that my inventions bring harm to society is senseless. It is just that each invention has negative and positive aspects. There is nothing on this Earth that can bring only good. Even the sun can bring both benefits and harm. It can warm you or it can burn you. Here is a question then: Who is to blame if the sun burns you? Is it you who abuses it or is it the sun that was just performing its function? The same is about my inventions. I make the lives of people more comfortable, I make it possible to cure diseases, I help people to learn, and I give them the agents which facilitate all these processes. At this, I never express my superiority over them and I share my powers without any intention of getting something back. And it is not my fault if the inventions are misused or overused for my responsibility is to provide society with the means to improve its life.
Mediator: Your view is easy to understand. So far I have noticed that you and Religion have the same interests, but your ways to accomplish them are different. Wouldn’t it be easier if each of you agreed to the terms of the other after a corresponding discussion of these terms?
Religion: I will consider Science’s terms if they do not reduce to denying God or depriving people of faith in God. This would be an unfair bargain because faith is all that religious people have. Most of them will lose their sense of life if faith is taken away from them.
Mediator: Science, Religion have offered certain conditions under which agreeing to compromise is possible. Before discussing whether you wish to agree to the terms proposed, I am willing to ask you whether you have any solution to our problem and whether you expect anything from Religion for this solution to work.
Science: After listening to you and Religion I got convinced that cooperation may help to solve the problem. I will not accept the claim that my inventions are harmful to society, nor will I become a supporter of creationism. Here is what I propose to Religion: I will consider the idea of moral limits if Religion stops denying the fact that Science can help where Religion is powerless. I can save numerous human lives if Religion draws back. Here I mean those people who can be treated with the help of modern medicine which Religion denies. Some of the believers refuse to take medicine putting themselves in the hands of God and eventually lose their lives to flu, pneumonia, and cancer which modern medicine can treat at present. Therefore, I propose Religion expand the bounds of religious loyalty and commitment in exchange for moral limits which will be imposed on me.
Mediator: Religion, are the terms which you have already mentioned the only ones which you make?
Religion: I see that Science, just like me, cares about people. But I would also like to admit that it cannot replace me. People can live without modern technologies for they did it before the powers of Science were realized, but living without faith is impossible. This term can be considered as a part of that regarding moral limits because it presupposes that Science’s inventions should not be aimed at assuring people that they can do everything without God’s help.
Mediator: So, both of you have aired the terms under which you agree to come to a compromise. Now I would like to invite each of you to share your expectations about these terms during a personal conversation with me.
Note: The value of individual conversation at this stage consists in convincing Science and Religion that their bargain is not a mere idea, but the first step to their co-existence. They should understand that they are not mutually exclusive and that the significance of both of them for the world is immense.
Mediator: Hello, Religion, I know that agreeing to the terms which Science made is not easy for you. However, what Science proposes instead is also of great importance to society. Do you agree that such an agreement is equally beneficial for both of you?
Religion: Living in peace under any conditions is better than the centuries of the ardent fight for who is right. It would be difficult for me to expand the bounds of religious commitment. When Science proposed this at first, it seemed impossible to me because that was almost equal to weaken people’s faith. Science is insidious and I am afraid that the proposed condition presupposes several other ones. As soon as people become less religiously committed, Science will have them. Some of them may start thinking that Science is more powerful than me.
Mediator: You should not be afraid of this. People who have been committed to you for years will never abandon you. I think what Science proposes is just offering these people a possibility to cognize something apart from you. In this way, they will believe in you and Science equally. Besides, Science is also offering much in exchange. Just imagine how difficult it will be to restrict the inventions, especially now that society got used to them so much.
Religion: Perhaps, you are right. This bargain does not present me as a weaker party. I am more of an ally to Science now.
Mediator: This is exactly what I meant! Thank you, Religion, for your agreeableness. I think this is where our conversation is going to end. Now, let me talk to Science.
Note: The mediator should be especially cautious when talking to Science due to the latter’s fighting mood. Science seems rather categorical and the main task of the mediator is to eliminate this categoricalness.
Mediator: Hello, Science, now I would like to discuss your concerns regarding the agreement with Religion if any.
Science: The only thing I want is for Religion to stop treating people like possession. Religion demands complete commitment from the believers and their faith is so strong that they reject all other possibilities. The term that I offered to Religion will make these people more opportunity-oriented and this will make their lives better.
Mediator: In the course of our conversations we understood that you both wish to aid society. This agreement demands great sacrifice from you and Religion. It is difficult for Religion to weaken the religious commitment of its believers, as well as it is not easy for you to restrict your inventions. Don’t you think that such an agreement is fair enough?
Science: I know that I demand much from Religion, but now I concede that Religion has good intentions. Each of us has a certain power over people and we both are willing to use this power to help them. I think it would be better if we united and acted together. For there is nothing more valuable than human lives and our fight does not help to preserve them in any way. I hope Religion will be honest when observing our treaty. I, for my part, will try to do everything possible to cooperate with Religion.
Mediator: Thank you, Science, for making this bargain successful. I believe you and Religion will make great partners!
Conclusion
Since the creation of the Earth Science and Religion have been arguing which of them was more powerful. Neither Science nor Religion accepted the validity of each other’s views. At present, Religion still considers miracles as the evidence of God’s existence, while Science keeps to an idea that any miracle has an explanation. This conflict between faith and reason did not let the parties promote the good in the society to the fullest extent, or at least as much as their powers allow. In the course of the debate concerning this issue, Science and Religion were trying to find ways of conciliation and partially succeeded in this.
Thus, each party offered certain terms of the agreement. Religion demanded Science put moral limits on its inventions and Science offered Religion to expand the bounds of the believers’ commitment to faith and allow them to use the opportunities which Science gives them. Though Science did not become a supporter of creationism and Religion still refused to accept that Science is more powerful, the parties reached a mutual agreement. This agreement is oriented towards mutual support, rather than exclusion. Therefore, during the latest individual conversations both the parties were convinced that co-existing was better and, though each of them had its reasoning behind agreeing to certain conditions, they both admitted that by cooperation they would be able to aid the society, which is their primary goal.