Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Buddhist
Perception, Wisdom, and Wonder: Closing the Rift Between the Rational and Spiritual

Perception, Wisdom, and Wonder: Closing the Rift Between the Rational and Spiritual

Last updated on: January 31, 2023 at 6:42 am by James Ford

0 Comments

Perception, Wisdom, and Wonder: Closing the Rift Between the Rational and Spiritual 2023-01-31T06:42:32-08:00 James Ford

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Perception, Wisdom, and Wonder

Closing the Rift Between the Rational and Spiritual

Danaan Deneve Weeks

Delivered as a sermon at the

First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles

January 22, 2023

I want to talk about wonder. This isn’t going to start like I’m talking about wonder, but I swear that’s where this is going.

First, a little context: I am an evolutionary ecologist, and I am also an animist. As an evolutionary ecologist, I study how organisms interact with their environments, and I’m particularly interested in how organisms and environments shape each other through their interactions. As an animist, I believe that all things have life, that every thing is animate, and that the divine, the numinous, whatever name you know that presence by, is us and surrounds us, as it is a function of the whole of life being greater than the sum of its parts.

A lot of people are surprised to hear that I am both of these things. They seem to expect that since I am a scientist, I should be “entirely rational” and have no conception or experience of the divine. Or that, as a person with a deeply felt, and very embodied, earthly spirituality, I must find the rationalistic strictures of research difficult. Some people from both sides of this divide even question whether I can really be “a good scientist” and maintain any form of belief at all.

People tend to assume that I must have to do some sort of complex mental gymnastics to reconcile these apparently incompatible ways of being with each other. The thing is, I’ve always found this perspective a bit strange because for me, not only is there no conflict, but ecology and animism imply each other. I am an ecologist because I am an animist, and I am an animist because I am an ecologist. How can one step into the forest and not perceive the divine in the complex interplays between members of an ecosystem? On perceiving it, how can one not want to get to know them better?

My point here is that the conflict between the scientific perspective and the spiritual perspective is a construction, and it is one that is institutionally reified on both sides of the apparent argument (that is, this conflict is ‘made real’ by scientific institutions and by churches) for the sake of protecting their respective positions of power.

The arguments are framed through an emotional lens that then becomes internalized by nearly all of us, and has a profound impact on how we perceive our world, breaking the complex nuances of reality and human perception of reality into two simplistic and proscribed, and most importantly, polarized categories, roughly, logic, empiricism, and rationalism, on one side vs. intuition, emotion, and faith on the other.

We’ll get into this more in a minute, but essentially through a strict empirical-logical view, everything is ultimately comprehensible. Everything is open to being studied and theoretically understood. Through a strict intuition-faith view, nothing is. The vast complexity of existence is too broad to even begin to comprehend. The truth, of course, lies somewhere in between, as does something else.

So the trouble here isn’t actually empirical thinking, and it’s not intuitive thinking. The trouble is letting someone sell you on the idea that you are actually physically capable of taking one and leaving the other, when both of these modes of perception, of looking at the world, are absolutely critical to our ability to understand and relate to reality. Organized science and organized religion would have us attempt to do one in favor of the other, as if you can be entirely rational or entirely emotional. Trying to do this deprives us of a holistic and complex model of reality, as well as forcing us to deeply alienate parts of ourselves and our experiences by trying to identify with only one part of the human experience.

If you try to experience reality through what we’ll call a strictly scientific lens, all things are subject to examination and comprehension. So, science used to do this thing that I refer to as pinning butterflies. We still do it to an extent (research is just beginning to emerge from its butterfly-pinning days of understanding reality, into the time of understanding that everything, really everything, is ecology (it’s not like I’m not biased or anything :p )).

So. I think we all know what a butterfly is. A butterfly is a sort of insect with big, beautiful wings, and huge compound eyes. It undergoes this incredible transformation from a super squishy adorable little guy to something that basically looks like a floating jewel. Butterflies have been ridiculously elegant vastly longer than we’ve been around to observe them, and whatever we think we understand, butterflies know what they’re about.

Butterfly pinning is where you capture an organism or a phenomenon, in this case a butterfly, and since the full complexity of life is impossible to articulate you pin the butterfly and dissect it and say that if you can diagram the structure of its heart and the anatomy of its wings, that you understand the butterfly. Obviously you do not. Now, logically if we continue this process we understand all the pieces of the butterfly and how they fit together. We have insight into the butterfly, and this is incredibly valuable, but we still do not “understand” the butterfly.

In order to truly understand the butterfly we would have to understand where it lives, how it lives, the circumstances that brought the butterfly into existence, fully make sense of all the butterfly’s behaviors, and, at that point, we would still be missing the absolutely crucial step of perceiving and interacting with the world as a butterfly. The good news is that statistically, in the long run, you are very likely to become a butterfly. Or at least, parts of you will because the matter and energy that comprise you will eventually make up bits and pieces of all kinds of other things. The bad news is that perfect information, perfect knowing, is impossible, and even if it were you simply cannot know the butterfly from the inside and the outside at the same time. You cannot fully comprehend the butterfly.

The bad news is, you cannot ever perfectly comprehend all of the circumstances that came together even just to create that specific butterfly. As Carl Sagan observes, “If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.” Basically, in order to fully, actually, completely understand the butterfly we would have to be able to be god. We cannot invent the universe. We cannot even get our conception of the universe past the point of the big bang to answer very obvious, and very hard, questions like: where did all that matter and energy come from in the first place?

So. Looking at reality from this angle, some kinds of questions are allowed and other kinds, the kinds we can’t create an experiment to test, are not. The only things that matter are things that can be broken down into their component parts and explained mechanistically. Everything that is incomprehensible or strange or too complex is neatly swept under the rug after being carefully labeled: not worth knowing. All mystery is eliminated, not in that it is solved, but that the light of what we can know and measure is so bright that it washes out the beauty of the complexity, and blinds you to the very obvious, very dark, shadows that remain. When we take this as our only mode of perception, we conflate having information with knowing what to do with it, and thus we mistake knowledge for wisdom.

If, however, we try to experience the butterfly through a strictly emotional or religious lens, the butterfly becomes unknowable, its movements mysterious. The butterfly becomes a vehicle for meaning, the profound loveliness of its wings, the grace of its flight each taking on their own significances, but our view of the creature itself risks becoming untethered from the fact that this is a living organism with its own experience. From this angle too, some questions are addressable and others are not. Preservation of the mystery becomes so holy that it is not even to be looked upon. Any attempt to learn, to understand, is met with fear of piercing the veil, of glimpsing the mechanisms of creation. Or it is dismissed as being ultimately unimportant, because what is the use of attempting to comprehend anything if we cannot become ourselves like god? But is a mystery that cannot stand to be examined really that mysterious? Conversely, do you think there any real risks of actually “solving reality?” I refer you again to the apple pie.

Without any attempt to comprehend, there can be no attempt to relate. We turn our faces from the light of what we can know and what might be worth knowing, and all is drenched in darkness. When we take this as our only mode of perception, we mistake understanding that the profound is all around us as the whole of wisdom, and we remain in the dark.

So if the trouble isn’t empirical-logical thinking, or intuitive-emotional thinking, but believing there is some sort of battle between them, how do we reconcile these notions to make peace in a world that insists on conflict?

We do it by periodically reminding ourselves to stop mistaking reality itself for the boxes we fit it into.

Reality is complicated. Even the fraction of it most of us deal with on a regular basis is infinitely complicated. So much so that we cannot physically take in all of the information we are receiving at any given time, let alone do that and think. So we generalize. Science and religion/spirituality are both ways of making sense of our experiences of Reality. Both are limited in perspective because they are both models. We need these models to be able to reduce complexity to the point we can deal with it, and we need multiple models because none of them are perfect. We need to be able to see the butterfly both ways because we need to be able to perceive meaning and do problem solving.

One of my favorite examples of this is species concepts. In biology, there are several ways to define what a species is. The most commonly used one, the biological species concept, identifies two creatures as members of the same species when they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. The ecological species concept identifies two creatures as members of the same species when they have the same ecological niche, essentially, the same function. When I’m teaching, a common question from my students is which species concept is “the correct one,” and I have to inform them, much to their distress, that we have several definitions because no definition works in all cases.

Take dogs. If we use the biological species concept, all nine species in the genus Canis: dogs, wolves, coyotes, jackals, all become one species. They’re clearly not, so we have to use the ecological species concept to instead describe the bounds of each species by its way of being, its niche. The difficulty arises because to Nature itself, there are no species. There are groups of organisms that relate to each other in patterned ways. The species concepts are called species concepts because that is exactly what they are– concepts. They are boxes we put around an aspect of nature to simplify and understand it, but because they are constructs, one box doesn’t fit all situations. If we didn’t try to define species, we wouldn’t recognize the red wolf (Canis rufus) as endangered and try to protect it because dogs (canis familiaris) and coyotes are incredibly common, and we would have already lost this beautiful and unique creature.

What, then, lives in between the areas our understanding can reach and the areas we cannot create testable experiments to bring into the light of the Known, the thing we deprive ourselves of when we try to force our reality into one prescriptive box without recognizing that these boxes are imperfect? Oddly enough, the thing both sides of this debate so often accuse the other of killing:

Wonder.

Wonder is the generating impulse for both science and religion and the thing that ultimately they are both reaching towards. True wonder, true magic, in my opinion, lies in the interstices. By not approaching reality as fully comprehensible or fully mysterious, but as something in between, knowable perhaps, as another person is knowable: in parts but never in total. Wonder, by its nature, cannot be boxed, cannot be distilled, it is what happens when the limits of your perception exceed the limits of your comprehension. It’s about trying to understand but not allowing your current understanding to limit what you can experience.

And wonder is accessible to you at all times, in all places. It’s in this church, right now. It’s in your hands, it’s in the floor, it’s in your neighbor, it’s in the plants in the courtyard. Take a moment to feel it.

If you’re having trouble, may I suggest our friend the butterfly? Consider the fact that some of the stuff that makes us in this room will, very likely, barring climate change, someday constitute butterflies? Close your eyes. Imagine it. Imagine what will need to happen for your body, your energy, to someday become the stuff of a butterfly. Imagine being the butterfly. Imagine being a caterpillar, then going into a chrysalis where you turn entirely to goo in order to transform yourself, and emerge as a creature with delicate, expansive wings, and memories of inching along the ground on six stumpy legs, with matter that used to be human. Do you experience a linear progression of facts, of transfer of matter, something else? Do you think about times you have transformed? What do you linger on? What in these great strange magic tricks of time, stand out as wondrous to you?

We could diagram it. Does that make it less extraordinary? Knowledge does not kill wonder, as I have heard people say, because there is never an end to what we can reach to understand. It is the wonder of the world that draws us to study it, and every question reveals ever more deeply unfolding mystery. Science and belief are not incompatible because one operates in the realm of the testable, and the other operates in the realm of the felt. When we hold our wonder consciously, at the intersection of reason and belief, it’s easy to fall in love with the complexity, to appreciate both what we can know, and what we must take on faith.

Instead of trying to view reality as “ultimately comprehensible” or “ultimately mysterious”,

How about, each being and creature and bit of matter and photon gets to have its own totally unique experience, and that, if we were to put the sum of experience in a blender, we would get both the matter of the universe and perhaps, the ultimate comprehension? As limited creatures, as human-shaped and human-sensed creatures, we get to have the experience, comprehension that a creature with a human shape and human senses gets to have. The entirety of reality cannot possibly be comprehensible to us because (while we have and will take infinite forms in time) we cannot have infinite forms and retain consciousness to appreciate them. But we can have a fully embodied human perspective, and that includes our desire to make sense of reality around us. We can’t boil the universe down to ultimately comprehensible or ultimately mysterious because it is both, and neither, and that is ultimately wondrous.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

January 29, 2023

A Note on the Use of Chairs in Zen Meditation

Next Post

February 4, 2023 THIRD PURE PRECEPT: Zen’s Shorthand for the Bodhisattva Vow

Recent Comments

0 | Leave a Comment

"Allowing anger to contaminate one's hard disk can be detrimental to one's holistic well being. ..."

Dr.Cajetan Coelho

Hot Anger: Meeting Anger in Zen ..."

"I love this koan. every which way you turn it bites you, Thirty years on ..."

Mark Strathern

Nanquan Cuts the Cat: A Jesuit ..."

"As a substitute for religion, Zen is probably better than taking drugs. However, it can ..."

Theodore Brandley

The Selling of Zen at the ..."

"Craving and aversion are detrimental to one's peace and happiness. Easter is a wake up ..."

Dr.Cajetan Coelho

Easter: A Zen Buddhist Appreciation

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category A Christmas Carol Abolitionist African-American Ahmadiyya Alan Watts Aldous Huxley Allen Ginsberg Amedkar Jayanti American politics American Zen Anaheim Zen Sangha Anglican Annie Besant April Fool Armageddon Art and Religion artificial intellegence Atheist Awakening B R Ambedkar Barlaam & Josaphat Beatnik Between Bhagavad Gita Bible biography birthday bodhisattva Bodhisattva Precepts Book burning Book of Common Prayer Book of Mormon Brahmo Samaj Buddha Buddhism Buddhist Buddhist Lord's Prayer Butterflies Calendars cartoons cat ChatGPT Chicken Tortilla Soup choices Christian atheism Christian mysticism Christian origins Christian Science Christian Zen Christianity Christianity and Buddhism christmas Christmas Truce Christopher Isherwood Church of Later Day Saints Cinco de Mayo circus covenant critical thinking culture D. T. Suzuki Dalit Buddhism Daniel Defoe Desert Fathers and Mothers dharma talk Dogen Donald Trump Dongshan's Five Ranks Dorothy Day dream Duty Easter ecology Edwin Arnold emptiness Empty Moon Zen Network Episcopal Church Eternal Now Ethics evolution existentialism Faith fantasy Fathers Day film film review fire Five Ranks Folk music food Form and emptiness Four Seals Francis of Assisi Francis Xavier Free thinker friendship George MacDonald Gerald Heard Glenn Taylor Webb God Good Friday Gospel of Gospel of Mark Gospel of Thomas grace Graduate Theological Unioin Graduate Theological Union Guanyin H R Blyth Hakuin Ekaku Hanamatsuri Hanukkah Harada Yasutani Zen Heart Sutra Henry David Thoreau Hermann Hesse Hinduism History and Religion history of religion Holy Spirit home Hospitality Icon Ides of March Isaac Newton Islam Islamic mysticism Jack Kerouac James Luther Adams Jiddu Krishnamurti Joan of Arc Johannes Gutenberg John Donne joke Judaism justice karma kensho King James Bible koan Koun Yamada Kyoto School Lewis Carrol Liberal Christianity Liberal Religion Life Plan Community Liminal literature Literature and Religion Liturgy Lord's Prayer Love Mahatma Gandhi Mahayana Martin Luther King Jr Mary Baker Eddy Mary Magdelene Mary Oliver Mayflower Compact Meditation memories memory metaphor money money and religioin Mormons Mother's Day movie review mysticism mythic Neighborhood Unitarian Universalist Church New Thought Nichiren Buddhism Nonduality not knowing Omar Khayyam Pacific School of Religion pagan Palm Sunday Passover peace Pentecost perennialism Phantastes Philip Kapleau philosophy Pilgrimage poetry Poetry and Religion politics Prayer Precepts Printing Press prophecy prophetic spirituality psychology Pure Land Queer religion queering religion Quietism Ram Mohan Roy rebirth recipe Relationships and religion religion religion and history Religious syncretism Resistance Retirement Retreat review Rissho Kosei Kai Ritual Robert Aitken Roshi Robert Ingersoll Rohatsu Romani religion Rosie the Riveter saints samadhi SanboZen Sangha Satyagraha science science and reigion science and religion science fiction seminary sermon Sesshin Sex and Religion Shinran Sikh Sikh tradition silence Social Justice Socially Engaged Buddhism Society and religion Soto Zen soul spiritual community spiritual practice Spirituality Sufism Suicide superstition Taoism Television Teresa of Avila Thanksgiving theological schools Theosophy Thomas Merton Time Transcendentalism Transcendentalist Trinitarian Trinity Uncategorized unitarian Unitarian Christianity Unitarian Universalist Universalism Vajrayana Vedanta Walking war Willa Cather William Ellery Channing wisdom women and religion women in religion World Teacher Writing zazen Zen Zen Center Zen inspired retriement zen meditation Zen Precepts Zen women

Select a Month September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

True or False: John's Gospel does not record any parables.

Select your answer to see how you score.

TRUE FALSE