Complementarity: Borrowing Bohr's Framework for Science and Spirituality
- Kathy Postelle Rixon
- 21 hours ago
- 9 min read
Niels Bohr, one of the founders of quantum mechanics, faced a problem: Light behaves like a wave in some experiments and like a particle in others. These descriptions seem contradictory. So which is light really?
His answer, the principle of complementarity, was radical: Light is both. Wave and particle aren't contradictor, but they're complementary descriptions that are both necessary and both valid, depending on the experimental context.
You can't observe both aspects simultaneously, but you need both to have a complete understanding.
I think this framework of complementarity is exactly what we need for thinking about science and spirituality.
Not that they're saying the same thing (they're not). Not that they're both partial truths pointing to some higher synthesis (too simplistic). But that they're complementary ways of engaging reality, each valid in its domain, both necessary for complete understanding, yet fundamentally incompatible when applied simultaneously.
Let me explain what I mean.
What Complementarity Actually Is
First, let me be precise about Bohr's principle, because it's often misunderstood.
The quantum problem: Light exhibits wave properties (interference, diffraction) in some experiments and particle properties (photoelectric effect, discrete impacts) in others.
Classical thinking says: Something is either a wave or a particle. It can't be both. So we need to figure out which it really is.
Bohr's complementarity: Wave and particle are both valid descriptions. Which one applies depends on the experimental setup and how you choose to observe the system.
Key points:
Both descriptions are real and necessary. Neither is more fundamental or more true.
They're mutually exclusive in any single observation. You can't measure wave properties and particle properties simultaneously because the experimental setup that reveals one obscures the other.
Both are needed for complete understanding. A full account of light requires both wave and particle descriptions, even though they can't both apply at once.
The measurement context matters. What you observe depends on how you choose to observe. Observer and observed aren't completely separable.
What complementarity is NOT:
It's not saying wave and particle are the same thing.
It's not saying there's a deeper reality that reconciles them.
It's not saying the contradiction doesn't exist.
It's not relativism (everything is true depending on perspective).
It's saying: Some aspects of reality require mutually incompatible but equally valid descriptions. That's just how reality is.
The Science-Spirituality Problem
Now consider the relationship between scientific and spiritual understanding:
Scientific description:
Third-person objective observation
Quantitative measurement
Repeatable experiments
Causal mechanisms
Material processes
Reductionist analysis
Spiritual description:
First-person subjective experience
Qualitative meaning
Unique transformative events
Synchronicity and acausal connections
Consciousness and spirit
Holistic intuition
The usual approaches:
Reductionism: Spirituality is really just neuroscience we don't understand yet. Scientific description is fundamental; spiritual description is epiphenomenal.
Mysticism: Science is really just scratching the surface. Spiritual understanding is deeper; scientific description is limited and superficial.
Integration: Science and spirituality are both paths to the same truth, just using different languages. We need to synthesise them.
Conflict: Science and spirituality contradict each other. One must be right, the other wrong.
What if all these are wrong? What if science and spirituality are complementary in Bohr's sense?
Science and Spirituality as Complementary
Here's the framework I'm proposing:
Thesis: Scientific and spiritual ways of engaging reality are complementary, are both valid, are both necessary, are mutually incompatible in simultaneous application, yet both are required for complete understanding.
1. Both Are Valid in Their Domains
Science is valid for:
Understanding mechanisms
Making predictions
Building technologies
Studying third-person observable phenomena
Finding patterns in material processes
Spirituality is valid for:
Understanding meaning
Navigating transformation
Accessing altered states
Exploring first-person consciousness
Finding significance in experience
Neither is more 'true'. They're addressing different questions using different methods.
2. They're Mutually Exclusive in Application
When I'm doing physics research, I adopt the scientific stance:
Objective detachment
Measurement and quantification
Reproducibility
Skepticism about subjective reports
Materialist methodology
When I'm doing shamanic journey, I adopt the spiritual stance:
Participatory engagement
Symbolic interpretation
Unique encounter
Trust in direct experience
Consciousness-first phenomenology
I can't do both simultaneously. The stance required for one interferes with the stance required for the other.
Just as you can't simultaneously measure position and momentum with arbitrary precision (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle), you can't simultaneously engage reality scientifically and spiritually with full depth. (But I keep trying!)
3. Both Are Needed for Complete Understanding
Science alone is incomplete. It can tell you about neural correlates of consciousness but not what it's like to be conscious. It can explain mechanisms but not meaning. It can predict behaviour but not address existential questions.
Spirituality alone is incomplete. It can provide meaning but not mechanism. It can transform experience but not predict material outcomes. It can reveal subjective truth but can't verify claims about external reality.
Complete understanding requires both. You need scientific understanding of how things work AND spiritual understanding of what it's like to be alive, what matters, how to live well.
4. The Context Determines Which Applies
In the lab: Scientific description applies. I don't invoke spirits to explain plasma dynamics. I use equations, measurements, repeatable experiments.
In meditation: Spiritual description applies. I don't measure the biochemistry of my brain during journey. I engage with symbols, spirits, meaning.
The key: Recognising which context you're in and using the appropriate mode.
What This Resolves
The complementarity framework resolves several tensions:
The Evidence Problem
The conflict: Science demands empirical evidence. Spiritual experience is subjective and unrepeatable. How do we resolve this?
Complementarity answer: They're different kinds of evidence appropriate to different domains. Scientific evidence is for scientific claims. Experiential evidence is for spiritual claims. The conflict only arises if you try to use one kind of evidence for the other's domain.
Example: I don't try to prove shamanic journey scientifically. I investigate it phenomenologically. And I don't try to derive physics from spiritual insight. Different questions, different methods, different standards.
The Truth Problem
The conflict: Science says consciousness is brain-produced. Spirituality says consciousness is fundamental. Both can't be true.
Complementarity answer: These aren't contradictory; they're different descriptions from different stances. From the scientific stance (third-person, materialist methodology), consciousness appears produced by brains. From the spiritual stance (first-person, participatory), consciousness appears fundamental. Both are valid in their contexts.
The Mechanism vs. Meaning Problem
The conflict: Science explains how things work. Spirituality provides meaning. Are mechanisms real and meaning illusory? Or is meaning real and mechanisms superficial?
Complementarity answer: Both are real in different senses. Mechanisms are real at the level of causal description. Meaning is real at the level of lived experience. You need both. Neither is reducible to the other.
The Reductionism Problem
The conflict: Science reduces complex phenomena to simpler components. Spirituality insists on holistic understanding. Which is right?
Complementarity answer: Reductionist analysis is appropriate for understanding mechanisms. Holistic apprehension is appropriate for understanding significance. Different purposes, different approaches, both valid.
Where the Analogy Breaks Down
I need to be honest about where this analogy isn't perfect:
Quantum complementarity is more precise. We have mathematical formalism for wave-particle duality. Science-spirituality complementarity is more conceptual.
Quantum complementarity is empirically demonstrated. We can show experimentally that wave and particle descriptions are both necessary. Science-spirituality complementarity is more philosophical.
Quantum complementarity is less controversial. Physicists accept wave-particle duality (even if they disagree about interpretation). Science-spirituality complementarity will be rejected by both sides.
The domains aren't as cleanly separated. In quantum mechanics, the experimental setup clearly determines which description applies. In life, the boundaries between scientific and spiritual contexts are fuzzier.
But despite these limitations, I think the framework is useful.
Objections and Responses
Let me address likely objections:
Objection 1: This is just relativism
The criticism: You're saying everything is true from some perspective. That's intellectual laziness.
Response: No. Complementarity isn't 'everything is true'. It's 'different questions require different methods'. I'm not saying spiritual claims about material mechanisms are true. I'm saying spiritual ways of engaging reality reveal aspects that scientific methods miss.
Objection 2: Science should be able to explain everything eventually
The criticism: Given enough time, neuroscience will explain consciousness, evolution will explain meaning, physics will explain everything. We don't need spirituality.
Response: This assumes all valid questions are scientific questions. But 'What does it feel like to be conscious?' isn't the same question as 'What are the neural correlates of consciousness?' The first is phenomenological; the second is empirical. Both are valid, neither reduces to the other.
Objection 3: Spirituality makes claims about reality that contradict science
The criticism: Many spiritual traditions claim souls exist, consciousness survives death, healing works through energy, etc. These contradict science.
Response: Then those specific claims should be held tentatively or abandoned if they're empirical claims that science refutes. But the spiritual stance of engaging reality through meaning, transformation, and first-person experience doesn't require these specific beliefs.
Objection 4: You're protecting spirituality from scientific scrutiny
The criticism: By saying spirituality is a different domain, you're making it immune to criticism. That's intellectually dishonest.
Response: Not immune, just evaluated by appropriate standards. Scientific claims get scientific scrutiny. Spiritual practices get evaluated by whether they produce transformation, meaning, and lived wisdom. Those are different standards, not no standards.
How I Actually Live This
In practice, here's how complementarity plays out:
In Research
When I'm doing plasma physics:
I use scientific methodology exclusively
I don't invoke shamanic insights
I require empirical evidence and mathematical rigour
I remain skeptical of subjective claims
I assume materialist methodology (even if I don't believe philosophical materialism)
The stance: Detached, objective, quantitative, skeptical.
In Shamanic Practice
When I'm journeying or working with clients:
I engage spirits as if they're real
I trust symbolic and intuitive knowing
I work with meaning and transformation
I don't demand empirical proof
I assume consciousness-first phenomenology
The stance: Participatory, subjective, qualitative, trusting.
In Philosophical Reflection
When I'm thinking about consciousness, reality, meaning:
I hold both perspectives simultaneously.
I recognise them as complementary, not contradictory.
I ask: which questions require which approach?
I resist collapsing one into the other.
I maintain intellectual honesty about what each can and can't do.
The stance: Integrative but not reductionist, holding tension without resolving it.
In Daily Life
When navigating ordinary life:
I use scientific thinking for practical problems (health, technology, logistics).
I use spiritual perspective for meaning-making (relationships, values, purpose).
I switch between stances as appropriate.
I don't confuse domains.
Example: If I'm sick, I see a doctor (scientific). But I also explore what the illness might be inviting me to understand about my life (spiritual). Both are useful. Neither replaces the other.
What This Doesn't Mean
Let me be very clear about what I'm NOT saying:
I'm NOT saying:
Science and spirituality are the same thing.
All spiritual claims are valid.
Science can't study consciousness.
We should never critique spiritual beliefs.
Integration is impossible or undesirable.
The two can never inform each other.
I AM saying:
They're different modes of engagement that reveal different aspects.
Both are necessary for complete understanding.
Trying to reduce one to the other loses something essential.
Context determines which mode is appropriate.
The tension between them is productive, not a problem to solve.
The Value of Maintaining Tension
Here's what I've learned from living with complementarity:
It prevents reductionism in both directions. I don't try to reduce spirituality to neuroscience OR science to spiritual insight.
It maintains rigour in both domains. Science remains scientifically rigorous. Spiritual practice remains spiritually rigorous. Neither gets sloppy by trying to be the other.
It allows both to be teachers. Science teaches me about mechanisms, causes, patterns. Spirituality teaches me about meaning, transformation, consciousness. I don't have to choose.
It creates intellectual humility. I recognise that my scientific understanding is limited to certain questions. My spiritual understanding is limited to certain questions. Neither is complete.
It preserves mystery. The relationship between these complementary descriptions remains mysterious. That's okay. The mystery is productive.
Bohr's Broader Vision
It's worth noting: Bohr himself thought complementarity had applications beyond quantum mechanics.
He suggested complementary relationships between:
Causality and space-time description
Love and justice
Thoughts and emotions
Different cultures' worldviews
He saw complementarity as a general principle: Some important aspects of reality require mutually exclusive but equally valid descriptions.
I'm extending this: Science and spirituality might be complementary in this deep sense.
An Invitation
Instead of asking 'Is science or spirituality right?', try asking:
"Which questions require scientific investigation?" (mechanisms, causes, predictions, material patterns)
"Which questions require spiritual engagement?" (meaning, transformation, consciousness, values)
"How can I develop facility with both stances?" (practice both rigorously)
"When is each appropriate?" (context determines which applies)
"What's revealed when I hold both perspectives?" (complementary understanding)
This isn't easy. It requires:
Comfort with paradox
Facility with multiple modes
Resistance to premature synthesis
Intellectual humility about limits
Trust in complementary perspectives
But it's more honest than forcing everything into one framework.
My Conclusion (Tentative)
Science and spirituality are complementary in Bohr's sense:
Both valid: Each reveals real aspects of reality in its domain.
Mutually exclusive: The stance required for one interferes with the stance required for the other.
Both necessary: Complete understanding requires both, though they can't be applied simultaneously.
Context-dependent: Which applies depends on what questions you're asking and what stance you're taking.
I practice plasma physics. I practice shamanism. These aren't in conflict because they're complementary ways of engaging reality.
I don't need them to be the same thing. I don't need to choose between them. I need both.
That's the gift of complementarity: permission to engage reality in multiple valid ways without forcing them into false unity.
Wave and particle. Science and spirituality. Mechanism and meaning. Third-person and first-person.
All complementary. All necessary. All true in their domains.
That's enough.
I'm Kathy Postelle Rixon, researcher at Cambridge studying plasma physics, Chair of The Philosophical Society: Oxford, and shamanic practitioner. I live Bohr's complementarity daily, engaging reality through both scientific and spiritual stances. Neither is complete alone; together they provide richer understanding than either could alone. If this resonates, reach out at kathy@magicinharmony.com or visit www.magicinharmony.com.
How do you navigate between scientific and spiritual ways of understanding? Do you try to integrate them, or do you find value in maintaining their distinctness? I'd genuinely love to hear your perspective.
Comments