Wonder: From Emotion to Spirituality

4. Adaptation and Humanity's Appetite for Wonder

4. Adaptation and Humanity’s Appetite for Wonder We have an appetite for wonder. . . . It is my thesis that the spirit of wonder . . . is the very same spirit that moves great scientists . . . [and] might inspire still greater poetry. —richard dawkins, evolutionary biologist J ohn muir’s life was shaped by recurring experiences of wonder. He responded to displays of natural beauty by becoming relatively quiescent and by organizing his perceptions in ways that led to a basically pantheistic view of the relatedness and sacredness of all being. It is not surprising that both the natural and social sciences have shied away from the study of emotional experiences such as these. Wonder, after all, does not display the ‘‘prototypical characteristics’’ associated with the evolutionaryadaptive model underlying most contemporary discussions of the emotions. Experiences of wonder do not, for example, ordinarily lead to the kinds of facial and physiological expressions found in the primary emotions studied by most researchers. Nor do they contribute to the survival tasks closely linked with hunting and gathering. Indeed, the experience of wonder has relatively little adaptive significance for single individuals in the short run. Yet, as we have seen in the case of John Muir, experiences of wonder may prompt individ- adaptation 55 uals over time to develop moods and attitudes that serve the adaptive needs of the wider community. They can also give rise to religiously charged philosophical orientations that might possibly serve the long-term survival of the human species. The study of wonder thus prompts reflection on the fairly narrow understandings of ‘‘useful’’ and ‘‘adaptive’’ that the sciences traditionally bring to their study of emotional experience. Seen in wider anthropological context, experiences of wonder evoke moods and attitudes that lead to what may well be humanity’s highest levels of fulfillment and well-being. The Mind as Adaptive Agent Darwin’s interest in the biological question concerning why humans display emotions launched the academic discipline of evolutionary psychology. He organized his study of how the mind works around the assumption that the natural environment poses survival problems that must be successfully resolved if the organism is to survive and to produce viable o√spring. It follows that natural selection shaped the human mind to solve these problems and guide our adaptation to the environment. Darwin was consequently less interested in what emotions are than in what they do. Emotions, like all other mental states, are part of human nature because they perform functions essential to adaptation and survival. This was certainly the case in Darwin’s account of the emotions of surprise, astonishment, and amazement (the closest he came to studying wonder). According to Darwin, astonishment or amazement occurs when we are suddenly startled: ‘‘Now when we start at any sudden sound or sight, almost all the muscles of the body are involuntarily and momentarily thrown into strong action, for the sake of guarding ourselves against or jumping away from the danger.’’∞ From an evolutionary perspective, the mind exists for the sake of guiding adaptation. Several years ago Steven Pinker, a psychologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote a book entitled How the Mind Works. From the standpoint of evolutionary science, he explained, ‘‘the mind is a naturally selected neural computer.’’ Genes build the 56 adaptation mind to ensure their own survival. For Pinker, as for Darwin, a properly scientific account of the mind focuses on what the mind does rather than on what it is: ‘‘The mind is what the brain does. . . . The mind is organized into modules . . . their operation was shaped by natural selection to solve the problem of the hunting and gathering lives led by our ancestors.’’≤ Natural selection progressively shaped our minds to solve problems that were life-and-death matters to our ancestors. We have thus inherited mental capacities that correspond to ‘‘the key features of encounters among objects and forces, and the features of other consequential themes of the human condition such as fighting, food, and health.’’≥ Pinker contends that the logical implication of this fact is that our minds were built solely for the purpose of understanding objects and events in the physical world. They were not designed to answer abstract questions. Pinker concludes that philosophy, moral theory, and religion are futile endeavors. Our minds lack the cognitive equipment to answer the questions they raise. Pinker readily admits that the natural world evokes wonder and awe in us. He...