Science and religion are seen as irreconcilable perspectives, two staunch rivals whose conclusions are as different as they are contradictory. Those on the side of science keep a tough stance against dogma and acts of faith that require no proof to be considered true. On the other hand, the religion extremists preach blind beliefs to sustain their devotion, overlooking scientific knowledge, and putting the church’s interests above any discovery or breakthrough.
This notion constitutes a fundamental rule within public opinion that serves to differentiate the limits and reach of both faith and reason. The clash between science and religion feeds off of the knowledge-producing institutions from both parties. Temples, churches, universities, and seminaries all seem to agree that there is an irreconcilable divide between what is believed and what can be proven through scientific method.
Heated discussions and controversy can take place between these apparently opposing notions. It seem that the conflict between the negation of dogma and scientific totalizing can only be solved by one side declaring their faith in places of worship and the other in academia and labs.
Not only did Carl Sagan host a television show that changed the life of millions of people around the world. He was also a prominent scientist who was essential to NASA’s space program as a consultant during the Voyager, Viking, and Pathfinder projects.
The astronomer was convinced of the unlikelihood of a democratic society if the public did not comprehend scientific knowledge. Instead of being considered a necessity of life, science was left to classrooms, auditoriums, specialized journals, and conferences, as a privilege that only few could understand. Sagan dedicated his life to his true passion: spreading scientific knowledge in simple terms that did not devalue its worth. His program was aimed at the general public who did have a background in the methods, mysteries, and challenges that scientists face.
Sagan welcomed the Dalai Lama at Cornell University in 1991, where he taught until his death. The encounter (expected by many as a diplomatic visit that would have no deeper meaning than good wishes and a shared desire for world peace) turned into one of the best examples of how science and religion can share the same goals. At the same time, the maximum authority within Tibetan Buddhism gave a lesson to other systems of belief on the importance of recognizing reality through scientific and technical findings:
Sagan: “So let me ask now, if I may, some questions on religion. What happens if the doctrine of religion— Buddhism let’s say— is contradicted by some finding, some discovery—in science let’s say—what does a believer in Buddhism do it that case?”
Dalai Lama: “For Buddhists that is not a problem. The Buddha himself made clear that the important thing is your own investigation. You should know the reality, no matter what the scripture says. In case you find a contradiction—opposite of the scriptures’ explanation—you should rely on that finding rather than scripture.”
The author of A Pale Blue Dot (1994) also asked the religious leader about religion collaborating with science for environmental conservation given the growing problem of global warming (Sagan was a pioneer in warning about this occurrence). The monk’s response could well be seen as the astronomer’s himself:
“This small planet, as far as we know, is the only planet where we humans can live happily. Therefore, this is our only home. So, naturally, taking care of our own planet is like taking care of our own home, our own house.”
After agreeing with the revolutionary Buddhist conclusions that seemed to counteract the dogmatic character of other religions, Sagan asked the Dalai Lama on the similarities between this way of thinking and science.
Dalai Lama: “Yes, that’s right. So I think that the basic Buddhist concept is at the beginning it is worthwhile or better to remain skeptical. Then carry out experiments through external means as internal means. If through investigation things become clear and convincing, then it is time to accept or believe. If, through science, there is proof that after death there is no continuity of human mind, of life, then— theoretically speaking— Buddhists will have to accept that.
The conversation resulted in unexpected conclusions that satisfied Sagan’s desire to show scientific thought as a way to understand reality, as well as the Dalai Lama’s interest in setting apart his methods compared to that of other religions that appear to embrace obscurantism and reject scientific progress.
If you’re interested in reading more of this conversation, you can read the transcript here.