The nature of consciousness is generally considered to be a big mystery. Is it the result of only physical, material processes, or is there something immaterial involved? Many experiments show a strong relationship between material and mental processes and a common viewpoint is that these correlations indicate that the material processes cause the mental processes. In other words, there is an implicit assumption that material processes are sufficient for generating the mind, that nothing else is needed beyond the material.

Of course, it’s well known that correlations do not mean causation – just because two items seem highly related, that does not mean that one must be causing the other. One reason for this is that the same thing can occur when one item is necessary for the system to function, even if it is not sufficient.

For example, almost any change to a telescope will cause the image one sees to change, generally degrading it, perhaps even eliminating it altogether. This is because the telescope is necessary to make the image, but it is not sufficient – there also must be something to view through the device. So, even though the telescope’s construction is highly correlated to the image, it is not sufficient to cause the image.

Similarly, it may be that a material brain is necessary for a mind to exist, but that does not mean that it is sufficient, that nothing is needed beyond the brain.

To date, there does not seem to be enough information to conclusively settle the question, even though most researchers have strong opinions. In other words, many believe that the mind is the result of only material elements and processes. Often, this is based on the underlying assumption that nothing exists in the universe other than the material. Anything else is considered the province of religion, and so rejected out of hand.

This is not a new attitude, of course. Einstein famously did not like quantum entanglement, one of the strange results of quantum physics, calling it “spooky action at a distance”, as if to deprecate it through association with the supernatural.

In another example, some physicists rejected the initial idea of the Big Bang and its implication that the universe had a beginning. For them, that idea sounded too much like something contrived to support the idea of a supernatural creator.

Likewise, when a massive glacial flood was proposed to explain some geological features observed in eastern Washington, the idea was rejected by some because it sounded too much like Noah’s flood from the Bible.

Similar to these examples, it seems that, once again, people’s biases are driving them to conclusions that go beyond what can actually be known from the data when they reject any immaterial aspect to consciousness.

This viewpoint is particularly surprising given the uncertainty that still exists regarding reality’s fundamental nature. Although many believe in a strictly material universe, questions still exist that challenge that view: What existed before the Big Bang? What is the nature of mathematics and its relationship to the natural world? What’s going on with quantum wave collapse (the measurement problem)?

Accepting the possibility that something about the mind is immaterial doesn’t necessarily mean accepting religion, but it may make it harder to dismiss religious claims out of hand. Once one accepts the possibility of something immaterial being a vital part of reality, it’s difficult to see how religious claims of the immaterial should be dismissed – a clear rationale is needed to support that distinction.

Perhaps this is why it is so common to preemptively reject the immaterial, because allowing even the possibility of religious claims is a step that many are unwilling to take regardless of evidence or rational argument.

However, given the current level of uncertainty, it seems premature to claim complete certainty about the nature of the mind. Instead, it’s likely that this question can only be answered in the context of deeper understanding of the nature of reality, such as the questions above. As long as that uncertainty exists, then we cannot rule out religious claims.

Instead, we should continue to allow religious perspectives as a possibility – that we are somehow different in ways that those traditions may inform, such as being created in the image of deity.