Breaking down the question
The question asks for the nature of the relationship between science and religion in modern society — not a history of their conflict, but a sociological reading of how the two coexist today. The instruction to analyze with suitable examples means each claim must be earned with a concrete illustration.
The key is to resist a single verdict. The relationship is not simply one of conflict; sociologically it is multi-dimensional — sometimes opposition, sometimes separation, sometimes accommodation. A short 10-mark answer should name these dimensions crisply and illustrate each.
For the wider context of belief, rationalisation and secularisation, draw on the note on religion in modern society.
How to approach it
Open with a one-line framing: modernity brought the rise of science and the rationalisation of worldviews, reshaping but not erasing religion. Then set out two or three models of the relationship — conflict, independence, and complementarity or dialogue — giving one vivid example each.
Bring in Weber's disenchantment and the secularisation thesis, but balance it with evidence of religious persistence and revival, which shows the relationship is not a straight march from faith to reason. Close with a synthesising line: the two occupy different domains of human need and increasingly coexist.
Keep it tight. At 10 marks the examiner wants a clear thesis, a few well-chosen examples, and no padding.
Model answer
The relationship between science and religion in modern society is best understood not as a single fixed pattern but as a shifting, multi-dimensional one, ranging from conflict to peaceful coexistence.
The conflict dimension. The rise of modern science challenged religious authority over the natural world. The classic instances — Galileo's confrontation with the Church, and the resistance to Darwin's theory of evolution — illustrate direct opposition, where scientific claims contradicted scriptural cosmology. This dimension persists in contemporary debates, such as opposition to teaching evolution in some school systems or religious objections to certain biomedical technologies.
The rationalisation and secularisation dimension. Max Weber argued that science drives the disenchantment of the world — the retreat of magical and supernatural explanation before rational, empirical knowledge. The secularisation thesis extended this, predicting the declining social significance of religion as science, technology and bureaucratic rationality expand. The authority once vested in priests over health, weather or misfortune has increasingly passed to doctors, meteorologists and engineers.
The independence and complementarity dimension. Yet science has not abolished religion. Many thinkers hold that the two occupy separate domains: science answers questions of how the empirical world works, while religion addresses questions of meaning, morality and purpose that science does not settle. Numerous scientists remain believers, and religious institutions have accommodated scientific findings — for example, the acceptance of evolutionary and cosmological science by several mainstream religious bodies. In India, deep engagement with modern science and technology coexists with widespread religious observance, showing that the two can occupy the same social life without contradiction.
Persistence and revival. Contrary to a simple secularisation forecast, the modern world has also seen religious revival and fundamentalism, sometimes precisely as a reaction to the perceived coldness of scientific rationalism. Peter Berger, once a proponent of secularisation, later acknowledged that much of the world remains vigorously religious.
In sum, modern society does not display a straightforward triumph of science over religion. The relationship is dynamic — marked by episodes of conflict, a broad rationalisation of everyday life, and a growing tendency towards mutual accommodation, with each addressing distinct human needs.
Examiner's perspective
The trap in this question is the one-sided conflict narrative — treating science and religion as locked in permanent war. Higher marks go to candidates who show the relationship is multi-dimensional and back each dimension with an example.
Examiners look for the correct use of secularisation and rationalisation, ideally tied to Weber, alongside recognition that religion has persisted rather than vanished. A short answer that names conflict, separation and accommodation, and closes with balanced synthesis, comfortably meets the 10-mark expectation.