Consciousness: a link between science and religion

Chris Clarke

Introduction
Science and religion (along with business) are among the most influential strands of global
culture. Like all human endeavours, science and religion are often misdirected; but, to make
matters worse, they are often at loggerheads with each other. How can this tension be
diffused, so that science and religion can support, rather than hinder, each other? One
response to this question has been the doctrine developed by Steven Jay Gould (1999) 1 of
‘non-overlapping magisteria’, NOMA for short, which holds that these two ways of thinking
should be seen as dealing with entirely separate areas having no connections between each
other. I would agree that there are essential differences between the approaches of science
and religion, but I will argue that we can do better than the mutual avoidance of NOMA, and
that there are grounds on which these ‘magisteria’ can actively co-operate.
The basis for this optimistic view is a proposal that there are important connections between
science and religion arising from the nature of consciousness. Because of this, science and
reilgion can be seen not as independent, and certainly not as contradictory, but rather as
complementary. Consequently, their relationship could be a source of mutual support for
the good of humanity and of the whole planetary community.
There are two main planks to my argument for this. First, I will propose that the vital core
of religion is spirituality. Second, I will argue that consciousness plays a vital role in both
spirituality and in science (especially in quantum theory). This will require the clarification,
as the argument proceeds, of the terms ‘spirituality’, ‘consciousness’ and ‘quantum theory’.
Finally, in order to see the possible extent of a true dialogue between religion and science,
we will need to look at the extent to which the situation goes beyond NOMA, examining
whether or not science and religion might actually overlap, rather than just being
connected.

Spirituality
To begin this discussion, I will give a rough explanation of what I mean ‘spirituality’. I see it as
the development of our deepest connections: namely the inner connections of our
relationship with ourselves, and the outer connections that we have with the totality of the
cosmos. In developing this idea, however, we encounter an obstacle. When we starts to pin
down the nature of the connections that underlie spirituality, we realise that spirituality is
takes very many forms. To illustrate this here I will take just two very different quotations as
examples. The first is from Alan Wallace, a physicist and a liberal, contemporary writer from
the Madhyamaka Buddhist tradition (a branch of the Eastern family of religions). The second
1
See the bibliography at the end for these citations
quotation is from Meister Eckhart, a religious teacher, mystic and philosopher from the
scholastic tradition of the Western Christian church, writing in the 13th – 14th centuries.
Wallace (2007) explains that:
“[One can] so profoundly settle the mind that virtually all thoughts and other mental
constructs become dormant. ...the culmination of this meditative process ... is
characterized by three essential traits: bliss, luminosity and non-conceptuality.”
Meister Eckhart (Quint, 1955) proposes that:
“God must become utterly I, and I utterly God, so fully one that this ‘he’ and this ‘I’
become and are one ‘essential is’, and in this essence eternally work one work.”
Taken at face value, these statements seem very different; but we must proceed carefully,
because in this area words need to taken with a pinch of salt: words here are merely
pointers to what is indescribable. In both traditions the essential point is the existence of
unity between what is within us and what is outside us. This is explicit in Eckhart’s use of
‘God’ and ‘I’ , but Wallace’s words are more ambiguous. His description of the goal of
mediation could be regarded simply as a matter of refining a subjective experience; but the
context of Madhyamaka Buddhism suggests instead an entering into an absolute which
transcends any distinction between what is within and what is outside, between ‘I’ and
‘that’. In Eastern religion the unity of these relationships of within and outside was first
made explicit in the Upanishads by the slogan tat tvam asi, (that art thou); in which ‘that’ is
Brahman, the outer absolute, and ‘thou’ is Atman, the inner absolute.
Crucially, neither Wallace nor Eckhart are describing an isolated experience. Rather, they are
speaking of the progressive deepening of a relationship between inner and outer. As Martin
Buber (1958) stressed, ‘experience’ is the contrary of ‘relationship’: the first is an ‘I-It’
interaction, the second is an ‘I-thou’ unity, and it is on this latter that both Eckhart and
Wallace are reporting.

Consciousness
From this sketchy indication of spirituality, I can start to build the idea of consciousness. Its
basis is the ordinary usage ‘conscious’: I am conscious when I am aware, either awake or
dreaming, and not when I am in dreamless sleep or under anaesthetic. Consciousness is
then the process or essential cause of my being aware. Consciousness is, indeed, ‘me’ –
what I am - from the point of view of my awareness; not what I am as body or as particular
qualities or as what I may be aware of, but my being as it is received by myself. The
philosopher Thomas Nagel (1974) stresses this aspect of consciousness as subjective being
when he writes that:
”an organism has conscious mental states if and only if there is something that it is like to
be that organism—something it is like for the organism.”
So one could characterise consciousness as part of ‘what [my being] is like for me’,
independently of the content of that consciousness.
Clearly in the state of consciousness underlying the spiritual accounts just quoted
consciousness is particularly personal: Wallace talks of “meditation”, Eckhart of the “utterly
I”. This consciousness is non-conceptual: not the factual statement of a discovery, but a
qualitative relationship. It is also a relationship with something that is larger than me:
Eckhart describes it, with dramatic emphasis, as within God and even identical to God. The
quotations have in common a suggestion that human consciousness is a part of a universal
consciousness.
If we move from this fundamentally spiritual mode of consciousness to the consciousness of
our everyday being, we can distinguish the process of consciousness, our own awareness,
from the content of consciousness, what we aware of. And at this everyday level we can give
a conceptual account of what it is that we aware of. But we need to beware of identifying
the process of consciousness itself from this content of consciousness, or of indentifying the
content with our verbal account of it.
The role and nature of consciousness can be elaborated in the light of Isabel Clarke’s
analysis, in her presentation for this meeting, of different “ways of knowing” in terms of the
various cognitive subsystems of Teasdale and Barnard. We are aware (conscious) of things in
two ways: in conceptual terms, and also in “implicational” or “relational” terms. So,
considering consciousness in the abstract, we would say that consciousness is a process that
spans across these main implicational and relational cognitive subsystems – as Barnard
explicitly states. On the other hand, considering how we experience consciousness, we note
that through our propositional subsystem we are exclusively focussed on the content of
consciousness, seen in rational terms, without seeing consciousness itself; whereas through
our implicational subsystem we have an awareness that is reflexive, so that we are
conscious of our consciousness. So from this viewpoint we understand our consciousness
through our relational subsystem.
To summarise: consciousness is a process of awareness that acts through both central
subsystems but which we understand most clearly through our relational subsystem.
This status of consciousness has important consequences for the way in which science
studies consciousness, which takes us to the heart of the science-religion conflict. In science
the goal is objectivity: the withdrawal of the scientist as a person into an ‘observer’ whose
findings can be replicated by any other suitably equipped observer. In the terminology of
Teasdale and Barnard, science sees the world through the propositional subsystem. In view
of the formulation of consciousness made above, this means that orthodox scientific
methods will find it hard to make sense of consciousness. Indeed, some scientists and
scientifically minded philosophers go far as to deny the validity of any way of knowing other
than through the propositional subsystem, ignoring the implicational subsystem. The
philosopher Daniel Dennett (1991), for example, argues that the thing that is given the
special name “consciousness” is just the moment-by-moment way in which the brain links
together sounds, scents, inner talking and so on in a constantly changing series of “drafts”:
organized connections between bits of sensory data and bits of memory that help us
navigate in the world. On this view, the only valid account of either our own subjective
experiences or publically observable phenomena such as the results of experiments is a
propositional account. Reality is propositional.
This brings us to the heart of the conflict between science and religion. Once either side has
taken the position that there is only one way of knowing, namely their own, then debate
becomes impossible because that side has denied from the start the validity of the main
evidence offered by the other side. The result is particularly poignant in situations where the
protagonists for religion do not themselves clearly recognise the essential role of spirituality
and implicational knowing in religion, and so are lured onto the ground of factual argument
on the nature of ‘reality’, where they are inevitably out-manoeuvred by scientists.
From this it might seem that the best that can be hoped for would be a truce in which each
side recognised the internal validity of the others’ position, without there being any
common ground on which the two positions could be compared. This is essentially the
NOMA position of Gould described above. It is as if we inhabited a world that was divided
into two cosmic countries, with different ways of behaving and different languages, and no
way of translating between the two. (Ironically, many traditional cosmologies described the
universe as just like this, with a division into separate layers of underworld and overworld!)
According to Kant, however, the divisions of the world that we know are simply
consequences of the divisions in our ways of knowing. So the world as we know it, with its
spiritual and its scientific aspects, arises from our relational and propositional cognitive
subsystems, respectively.
This recognition shines an optimistic light on the situation. Once we recognise that the two
ways of knowing that are involved here actually coexist in our minds, and that our minds
have sophisticated though neglected processes for integrating them2, then we open up the
possibility of a genuine dialogue between the two areas. It becomes possible to make
connections between the propositional and implicational viewpoints, contrary to the NOMA
position. Note, however, that we cannot stir the two ways of knowing together into a
homogeneous unity. Instead, we can consider how science and the propositional can
understand the spiritual and relational, and vice versa.
A useful metaphor for understanding one way of connecting the two main ways of knowing
is ‘modelling’. A model represents some aspects of a phenomenon that are of current
interest and ignores others that are not. Modelling in this technical sense is closely parallel
to its more colloquial sense of, for example, the construction of a small wooden replica of a
large metal ship. The model is faithful to the original regarding many important aspects,
such as (in the case of the ship) the relative sizes of the main parts of the object. Trying to
2
Teasdale and Barnard call the integration of the propositional and the implicational “the central engine of
cognition” and assign the maintenance of its smooth running to what they call “consciousness”
understand consciousness from a propositional point view is analogous to this sense of
modelling, in that one tries to find a propositional account that reproduces some of the
features of consciousness, without claiming to have grasped its true substance. Science can
understand and investigate consciousness, but within the limitations set by the nature of
this subject. So science can model consciousness and study its action on the world as if
consciousness was carrying out some particular mechanical process. It is in this sense that
many physicists would say, as scientists, that consciousness is able to carry out some
essential process in manipulating quantum mechanical actions in the brain. At the same
time each scientist has the opportunity of authentically understanding consciousness
through their own implicational knowing.

Consciousness and Quantum Theory

In 1939 the physicists Fritz London and Edmond Bauer (German and French respectively)
published a pamphlet (1939 / 1983) that injected a radical new proposal into science: that
consciousness itself played a role in physics. The proposal has been debated ever since, with
its supporters declining within the physics community but increasing among writers with
interests in spirituality. The background to this proposal was the period between 1905 and
1927, when physics underwent the most radical change in its methods and ideas since the
seventeenth century. From this time on, fundamental physics was understood to be
governed by the system of ‘quantum theory’, which differed radically from its predecessor,
now called ‘classical physics’. There appeared, however, to be a problem with the theory
concerning how quantum theory and classical physics fitted together.
To visualise the problem, imagine an experiment in which electrons are being projected, one
at a time, towards a metal screen with two slits in it. (This is much like what happened in
television tubes before they were replaced by solid state displays.) On the other side of the
screen the experimenter has set up detectors in several positions to record the arrival of an
electron, from which one might find indications as to which slit the electron had gone
though. Notoriously, the result required a description in which each electron went through
both slits and on the far side it behaved as a ‘wave function’ (now usually called a ‘quantum
states’) in which an aspect of the electron going through slit #1 was combined with an
aspect of it going through slit #2 and the presence of the electron was ‘smeared’ over a large
regions of space and time. Despite this extension of the electron in space, once the
experimenter had detected the electron it subsequently behaved as if it had a definite
position at the moment when it was detected. It was as if the act of observing rolled up the
extended quantum state into single point. The weird (i.e. quantum) behaviour at the level of
particles was converted into a normal (i.e. classical) behaviour in the detection apparatus.
There was thus a problem about how to reconcile the quantum and classical behaviours
properly, a problem which could apparently be phrased in two ways.
a. Quantum theory deals with a world full of wave functions (quantum states), each of
which consists of a multitude of intertwined components, each component
 representing a particular situation. But when one performs an experiment to
determine what is the actual situation of some physical system, such as the position
of the electron, one obtains a perfectly definite result. There seems to be a “flip” or
“collapse” of a wave function into a definite position. How is this possible?
Or alternatively ...
b. Quantum theory is needed for small things like electrons, while classical physics is
fine for large things like detecting apparatuses; so there must be some way in which
quantum theory reduces to classical physics when it is scaled up to deal with larger
systems. How does this happen?
The London & Bauer pamphlet tackled question (a). They proposed that the consciousness
of the physicist performing the experiment altered the state of the electron into one that
was well defined:
“We note the essential role played by the consciousness of the observer in this transition
from the mixture to the pure case. ... [the observer] has with himself relations of a very
special character. He possesses a characteristic and quite familiar faculty which we can
call the ‘faculty of introspection.’ He can keep track from moment to moment of his own
state.”
These authors strikingly use the word “conscience” and also allude to the reflexive nature of
consciousness in which we are aware of our awareness
Then in 1970 Heinz-Dieter Zeh proposed a mechanism whereby classical physics could
emerge from quantum theory (question b) without any reference to consciousness. He
noted that every quantum system is affected by its environment, responding to
unpredictable changes of temperature, fluctuations in the gravitational field and so on,
which produce variations in the way that the various components that make up a quantum
state are put together. The energy of these variations increases as the size of the system
increases until they become of the same magnitude as these components themselves.
Because the variations are random and unknown, the only information left in the wave
function in this situation will be the probabilities with which one would expect each
component of the state to be manifest. The quantum state has thus become a classical
statistical state. Its information is of the same nature as the information contained in a dice
that has been shaken and then covered: we know the probabilities for each face of the dice
– each 1/6 if the dice is fair, or varied in a knowable way if the dice is loaded – but we don’t
know which face is actually facing upwards. The system now effectively obeys classical
statistical physics. Physicists had been uncomfortable with London and Bauer’s proposal,
because it seemed to involve woolly and unscientific ideas; while Zeh’s solution relied on
familiar statistical physics. So Zeh’s account was accepted by the majority of the physics
community with sighs of relief.
Unfortunately, questions (a) and (b) are not equivalent. If we could understand how there
can be definite outcomes to quantum processes (question a) then this would explain how
classical physics arises (question b). But the converse doesn’t hold: question (b) does not
explain question (a). So, despite Zeh’s important work, in order to understand quantum
theory we could still need to bring in consciousness, as proposed by London and Bauer, in
order to explain (a). To do this fully, however, would involve us in bringing in the relational
way of knowing, which clashes with the basic propositional approach of science. The conflict
of different ways of knowing that beset the science-religion debate now threatens another
impasse; but this time, with the very specific questions of quantum theory in front of us, we
now have a focus from which to understand the situation. As discussed in the previous
section, we can develop models of the implicational subsystem, testing them against the
requirements of quantum theory, in order to connect the implicational to the propositional.

Modelling consciousness
In the spirit of modelling, let us start by considering the scope of consciousness. What things
are conscious? Of course humans are conscious, by definition; and I can’t deny that other
large mammals – dogs, cats, horses etc. – are conscious; and I’ve got quite a soft spot for
snakes ... The problem is, having accepted Nagel’s definition of consciousness as “what it is
like to be”, then either you are conscious or you are not, but there is no obvious point in the
animal kingdom, or even in the whole tree of life, at which to draw the line between
consciousness and non-consciousness. So I find myself led, along with several other writers,
to the doctrine of ‘panpsychism’: that everything material is conscious; everything is, in and
for itself, albeit in ways that are rationally incomprehensible to us humans. This raises vital
repercussions concerning the way we think about the world. As Freya Mathews (2003) asks,
“Can the dualistic conception of matter be replaced by a reanimated conception, a
conception according to which matter actually matters, morally and spiritually speaking,
suggesting to us a new way of being in the world?”
This presents a problem for any scientific model of consciousness. For if we say that
everything is to be conscious, what counts as a “thing”? Is a living room suite, consisting of a
sofa and two chairs, a conscious “thing”? No, because this example clearly consists of three
things, not one thing. So could each chair and sofa on its own be conscious? Well, when we
think about it this can’t be the case either, because chairs and sofas are really multiple as
well, consisting of bits and pieces nailed and strung together; surely a “thing” that is
conscious has to be homogeneously connected in some way? But then, this argument could
be extended to rule out almost everything. We are at sea in uncharted waters, and we could
speculate indefinitely along these lines.
The focus of modelling the role of consciousness in quantum physics can now sharpen the
discussion, however. We can focus on what we can expect consciousness to do in concrete
situation of physics. Can we identify the situations in which consciousness intervenes within
things so as to produce definite outcomes for conscious processes? This could will give an
indication of the range of different “things” encompassed by panpsychism. That is to say, we
could discover what things have the appropriate structure to generate interventions in their
own processes in the way which would model the action of consciousness?
One salient intervention that might be wrought by a being’s consciousness on itself is
conatus, defined by Spinoza as “the endeavour wherewith everything endeavours to persist
in its own being”. This is interesting, because it precisely describes the action of a conscious
being on itself. It suggests, for instance, that if, as London and Bauer suggested, the role of
consciousness in physics is to hold quantum systems in a well defined state, then conatus
might be an action by a conscious system that maintained its own quantum state. We can
then explore in more detail how this might be done, and what it implies for the nature of the
conscious being itself.
Following up this line of thought suggests that consciousness might achieve this via a
quantum theoretic phenomenon called “the Zeno effect” in which repeatedly observing
something inhibits its making any changes to its state (i.e. a watched pot never boils). So a
starting point might be the idea that anything is conscious if it maintains its existence by
applying the Zeno effect in observing itself.
To cut short a very long story (Clarke, 2013) a likely hypothesis is the following dense and
cryptic statement:
that consciousness is manifest in any region of space in which there is a well defined
quantum state, and which cannot be decomposed into separate parts that
themselves have well defined quantum states.
The model of the action of consciousness on itself is a repeated observation of its own state
that maintains these criteria for consciousness.
In all these physics-oriented accounts of how things can be conscious, we need to keep in
mind that what is being discussed is not consciousness itself, but models of consciousness.
The quantum mechanical account of the action of a thing on itself is no more than a model
of the essence of consciousness, which is simply the act of Being of that thing. But having a
model brings together into a single debate the propositional and the implicational ways of
knowing, as it brings together the people who are most at home with one or the other way
of knowing.

Science and spirituality

We have travelled a long way from the passionate insights of Eckhart with which I began this
presentation, into a nitty-gritty of physics that seems like the opposite extreme. So I will end
by returning to my favourite mystic, but with a quantum flavour.
Eckhart gives us glimpses of his experience, using language as best he can (and certainly not
consistently) to point to what is non-conceptual, a realm that implicitly includes
consciousness. On seeing a tiny beetle and recognising that it is conscious, he identifies it
with the source of all consciousness, declaring that “there is God”. What Eckhart recognises
in the creature is istigkeit (isness), and for him “isness is God”. A much reduced echo of this
can be found in quantum cosmology, in which the whole universe acts as a single system
with a single quantum state, but composed of the states of individual systems within it, each
of which is “entangled” (non-causally correlated) with each of the others. Many writers have
noted the similarity between this and the Buddhist story of the “Web of Indra” 3: a great net
with a jewel on each of its knots, in which each jewel reflects all the other jewels in itself.
One might draw an analogy between this and Sally McFague’s idea of the cosmos as “The
body of God” (McFague, 1993).
This interconnection of all quantum systems, and of the individual system with the cosmos,
is reflected in Eckhart’s remark that “God must become utterly I, and I utterly God, so fully
one that this ‘he’ and this ‘I’ become and are one ‘essential is’, and in this essence eternally
work one work.” (Quint, 1955, Pr83: DIII, 47, 5f). It is clear from Eckhart’s writings that the
“work” is Being, from which creativity “boils over”. Thus the disclosures that he is describing
are ones where his individuality becomes included in pure Being. This is the actuality of
which the physics language is a model. We might say of this that ‘his’ consciousness
becomes included in a universal consciousness, or we might say it becomes apparent that
consciousness in itself is universal, as well as being individual.
I would like to think that these considerations, or others like them, will draw scientists and
spiritual practitioners into genuine dialogue. But this cannot be done on a basis of business
as usual. The challenge is that participants must be willing at times to set aside their own
assumptions and their own ways of knowing, in order to appreciate the riches of those on a
different path. The reward for this could be a transformation of our one-eyed glimpses of the
world into the fully three-dimensional panorama that is available to humanity.

References
Buber, M. (1958) I and Thou, trans. Ronald Gregor Smith, T & T Clark, 1958 [2nd ed. :
Continuum, 2004]
Clarke, C (2013) Knowing Doing and Being , Imprint Academic
Dennett, D.C. (1991) Consciousness Explained, Allen Lane
Gould, Stephen Jay (1999) Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life,
Ballantine Books

London, F. & Bauer, E. (1939). La théorie de l'observation en mécanique quantique, Paris:

Hermann. / (1983) “The theory of observation in quantum mechanics” (translation of the
above) in Wheeler, J. A. & Zurek , W. H. (Eds) (1983) Quantum Theory and Measurement (pp.
217-259), Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Mathews, F. (2003) For Love of Matter: A Contemporary Panpsychism, New York: SUNY
Press
3
The story is an extensive elaboration by Garma Chang of a passage in the Buddhist “Flower ornament sutra”
McFague (1993), The Body of God, Augsburg Fortress Press

Nagel, T. (1974). “What Is it Like to Be a Bat?” Philosophical Review 83(4), 435– 450

Quint, Josef (1955) Meister Eckhart: Deutsche Predigten und Traktate, Carl Hanser (Pr83:
DIII, 47, 5f)

Wallace, B Alan (2007) Hidden dimensions: the unification of physics and consciousness,
Columbia University Press

Zeh, H. D. (1970) “On the interpretation of measurements in quantum theory” Found. Phys.
1, 69–76