Perhaps an indirect connection, in that they arose from the same source? The problem of our time, I'd say, is a problem created by the success of applied reason (science) in leading us to reliable knowledge of our world; and by the incompleteness of that project.

That is, God is dead, and we consequently have no basis for morality, for that has hitherto been explained by the supernatural intercession of the Almighty of one's choice.

That would not matter were it not that applied reason, although awesomely successful in many matters, has hardly begun to understand even the simplest things about ourselves. In particular, we have yet to understand how it is that we can make choices and act in the world. You can't have morality without at least some freedom of action. But we don't understand how freewill is possible, so we don't understand how morality is possible either.

The way is clear for nihilism and "me, me, me" philosophies and religions that eschew morality as square or meaningless. Been there, done that; now we are deep in the religious reaction. Superstition is openly peddled by the makers of TV "documentaries", and politicians alike.

I see no way out of this, except by audaciously pressing forward with the rational agenda. It is not enough that reason has slain God. The rotting corpse must now be buried. We need to demonstrate that our minds and our ability to act are not some meaningless accident, but are simply a part of the way the world works. We have understood that life is just matter, organised in the right way. We will come to see that the same is true of freewill and the consciousness that arises from the exercise of freewill.

That is, consciousness is just something that happens when organised matter gets to choose (to however limited extent) how its own little corner of the universe should unfold. Stuart Hameroff is a major scientist working with this theory. Roger Penrose and others (like the amazing Marvin Minsky) are also involved. For what it's worth, I reckon they are right.