Epigraph:

Allah takes away the souls of human beings at the time of their death; and of those also that are not yet dead, during their sleep. And then He retains those against which He has decreed death, and sends back the others till an appointed term. In that surely are Signs for a people who reflect. (Al Quran 39:42)

Written and collected by Zia H Shah MD, Chief Editor of the Muslim Times

A Muslim reader could think of this article as a possible commentary of the verse quoted above as epigraph.

Stephen M. Barr, a physicist and president of the Society of Catholic Scientists, is a prominent critic of physicalism—the view that everything, including consciousness and the mind, can be fully explained by physical processes. His critique spans philosophical, scientific, and metaphysical domains, drawing attention to the limitations of physicalism in accounting for subjective experiences and consciousness.

---

1. Physicalism and Its Foundations

Physicalism rests on the assumption that the universe is a closed system of physical causes and effects, and that everything, including mental phenomena, can ultimately be reduced to physical explanations. This perspective was bolstered by Newtonian mechanics and later by advances in neuroscience, leading thinkers like Carl Sagan and Francis Crick to assert reductionist views:

• Carl Sagan described humans as “collections of water, calcium, and organic molecules called by different labels.”
• Francis Crick provocatively stated, “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons,” in his book The Astonishing Hypothesis.

---

2. Consciousness as the Challenge to Physicalism

Barr identifies consciousness as the “datum of experience” that defies reduction to physical processes. Drawing on the work of philosophers and physicists, he argues that:

• Subjective Experience: Conscious states, or qualia, such as the feeling of pain or the perception of the color green, cannot be fully described using the equations of physics. The philosopher Andrei Linde highlights, “Our knowledge of the world begins not with matter but with perceptions.”
• Frank Jackson’s Mary Argument: This famous thought experiment demonstrates that knowing all the physical facts about color perception would not prepare someone for the subjective experience of seeing color for the first time. This underscores the non-physical dimension of consciousness.

---

3. Quantum Mechanics and the Limits of Physical Explanation

Barr delves into quantum mechanics to illustrate the incompleteness of physicalist explanations:

• Von Neumann’s Measurement Problem: Quantum mechanics distinguishes between systems (measurable entities) and observers. The “observer problem” suggests that consciousness itself may not be reducible to physical processes.
• Eugene Wigner’s View: Wigner argued, “Materialism is not consistent with present quantum mechanics,” proposing that consciousness might be an “ultimate reality.”
• Erwin Schrödinger’s Insight: Schrödinger, one of the founders of quantum mechanics, asserted, “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms.”

These views challenge the idea that the physical world is a closed system of cause and effect, pointing instead to the irreducible role of consciousness.

---

4. The Illusion of a Unified Theory

While physics has made tremendous strides toward unifying natural phenomena under comprehensive theories, Barr warns against overextending this unity to include consciousness:

• Einstein’s Perspective: “The supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple as possible without surrendering the adequate representation of a single datum of experience.”
• Incompleteness of Reductionism: Barr contends that physicalism “surrenders” consciousness—an essential datum of human experience—to achieve an overly simplistic worldview.

---

5. The Philosophical Case Against Physicalism

Barr draws on a range of philosophical arguments to critique physicalism:

• Thomas Nagel’s Argument: In Mind and Cosmos, Nagel posits that a purely physicalist framework cannot adequately explain the emergence of subjective experience.
• David Chalmers’ Zombies Thought Experiment: Chalmers suggests that one can imagine beings identical to humans in physical composition but lacking consciousness, highlighting that physical structure does not necessarily entail subjective experience.

---

6. Implications for Religion and Worldview

While Barr’s critique is rooted in scientific and philosophical reasoning, it carries significant implications for religious belief:

• Rejection of Materialism: If physicalism is false, the existence of non-material realities, such as God or the soul, becomes more plausible.
• Consciousness as Evidence: The inability of physicalism to explain consciousness undermines the view that science necessitates atheism.

Barr states, “Nothing is more unscientific than physicalism,” emphasizing that science begins with empirical facts, and consciousness is the most basic and undeniable of these facts.

---

7. Conclusion: A Call for a Broader Understanding

Stephen Barr’s critique of physicalism invites a reevaluation of the scope of science and the nature of reality. By demonstrating the limitations of physical explanations in accounting for consciousness, he opens the door to a more integrated understanding of the universe—one that respects both its physical and non-physical dimensions.

In Barr’s words, “There is no empirical fact more basic or evident than that we are conscious, a fact that physical science, by its very way of proceeding, is powerless to explain.”

This enriched understanding highlights the interdisciplinary nature of Barr’s critique, combining insights from physics, philosophy, and theology to challenge one of the most entrenched assumptions of modern thought.

---

References

1. Sagan, Carl. Cosmos. Random House, 1980.
2. Crick, Francis. The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul. Scribner’s, 1994.
3. Jackson, Frank. “Epiphenomenal Qualia,” The Philosophical Quarterly, 1982.
4. Nagel, Thomas. Mind and Cosmos. Oxford University Press, 2012.
5. Wigner, Eugene. “Remarks on the Mind-Body Question,” in Symmetries and Reflections. Oxbow Press, 1979.
6. https://catholicscientists.org/articles/can-physics-explain-consciousness/?utm_source=chatgpt.com