What the Machine Cannot Know: Reclaiming Education as Spiritual Formation in an Age of AI

Education is not what it once was. The centers of learning that gave rise to the university were, from their beginnings, centers of intellectual and spiritual formation—places where to learn something true about the world was simultaneously to become someone different. That unity has dissolved. Today the university functions largely as a machine for the production, certification, and distribution of information, while spiritual transformation has been exiled to the private sphere—anywhere but the classroom, where it is presumed to have no business.

I have long held that the divorce between theology and spirituality was a mistake. I have come to realize that education on the whole and spiritual transformation belong together; knowing, in any deep sense, is a transformation of the knower. Sever the two and you do not get a more rigorous education purged of soft religious residue. You get information without wisdom, credentials without formation, and communities that fill the vacuum left by abandoned transformation with the enforced conformity of a shared worldview. There is a word—half joke, half lament—for the condition afflicting modern higher education: academentia. The term names a kind of institutional dementia, a forgetting so profound that the institution no longer remembers what it was for. The university once understood itself as a community ordered toward wisdom; today it trades in information alone. The two are not the same, and the confusion between them is the root pathology from which many other symptoms flow.

That confusion has now met its reckoning. We are the first generation to teach alongside machines that do information almost perfectly—AI teaching assistants, adaptive software, large language models that retrieve, summarize, and generate without limit and without fatigue. If knowing really were the accumulation of information, such tools would not merely assist education; they would replace it, and academentia would have found its final form: an institution that so thoroughly mistook information for knowledge that it succeeded in automating itself out of a reason to exist. The machine, then, does not create this crisis. It exposes one already well advanced, and it presses the question I seek to address. Is it possible to return spiritual formation to education in an age of AI—to begin once again with consciousness and experience rather than information, and to trust that experience ripens into insight, and that insight shifts the inner horizons of the knower?

Theodore Roszak once wrote that information does not create ideas; ideas create information. Ideas are integrating patterns, and they derive not from data but from experience. When we mistake the accumulation of information for the growth of knowledge, we produce graduates who are, in Thomas Merton’s savage phrase, mass-produced and uneducated—fit only to take part in an elaborate artificial charade they call “life.” Knowledge has advanced without soul, becoming power without aim. Universities have become fragmented silos where no two people speak the same language on any given day; departments are mini-fiefdoms, walled off to secure their cultic beliefs. Students are encouraged to succeed rather than to contemplate truth. Instead of educating for the flourishing of life’s wholeness, we educate to disconnect. This is not to say that the academy is a lost cause: many scholars work in good faith, and universities remain home to a great deal of genuine inquiry. But the pattern is real, and it turns on a single feature: acceptance becomes conditional on conformity of assumption, language, and thought. Such a system has, without ever admitting it, most of the apparatus of a closed faith.

Human beings do not stop needing meaning, identity, and belonging simply because their institutions stop offering these explicitly. When education abandons the work of transformation, it does not become neutral; it becomes a site where worldviews are transmitted without acknowledgment, and where belonging is quietly purchased at the price of conformity.

Such a system has foundational assumptions treated as self-evident rather than as hypotheses—premises about human nature, society, and moral truth that shape the interpretation of all evidence yet are never themselves examined. Once established, they become invisible, functioning like the water fish swim in; graduate students absorb them through training without recognizing them as assumptions. It has canonical texts whose inclusions and exclusions reflect ideological as much as intellectual considerations: works that challenge fundamental premises quietly vanish from syllabi, while works that flatter them achieve authoritative status. It has a specialized vocabulary that embeds frameworks predetermining conclusions, so that contrary evidence can be dismissed with a single label rather than engaged on its merits. And it has an immunity system: challengers are screened out through ostensibly neutral processes—peer review, hiring, promotion—so that enforcement never has to announce itself. Candidates are assessed for “fit,” which in practice means the right schools, the right advisors, the right orientations; a brilliant autodidact need not apply, and a practitioner with decades of experience but no publications will be dismissed. Sociologists call the dynamic homophily—like seeking like—and its result is intellectual monoculture maintained by people who sincerely believe they are practicing open inquiry. As Stephen Hawking warned, the greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge.

Higher education appears mandatory for a successful life, and it offers what genuine transformation offers—meaning, community, identity, moral seriousness—but delivers these by conformity rather than by conversion of heart, and it terminates in the group rather than in reality. The student chooses a prefabricated self (a “major”) instead of being helped to discover a vocation. The deepest questions go unexplored because they might yield inconvenient results; graduates emerge fluent in an orthodoxy but unpracticed in independent judgment; and, most tragically, students surrender the very curiosity that education exists to awaken, for curiosity is always a risk where belonging depends on agreement. Both pathologies—the reduction of knowledge to information and the substitution of conformity for formation—have the same root. Once we stop believing that education transforms persons, we lose the standard by which to distinguish real formation from its counterfeits. Thomas Berry claimed that the university is one of the greatest obstacles to reconnecting with nature because it substitutes the artificial landscape of neon lights and abstract ideas for the natural universe.

Is it possible to regain the inspiration of the first university? The earliest learning centers were monasteries, out of which the university arose. Merton draws the comparison directly: a university, like a monastery, is at once a microcosm and a paradise. Both are “schools,” and they teach not so much by imparting information as by bringing the clerk or the monk into direct contact with “the beginning,” the archetypal ground of things—the university by scientia, intellectual knowledge, the monastery by sapientia, mystical contemplation, but both aiming at the same participation in hidden and sacred values.

The purpose of education in the ancient world, paideia, was to show individuals how to define themselves authentically in relation to the world—not to impose a prefabricated definition of the world, still less an arbitrary definition of the individual. Learning was a matter of interior freedom, the capacity to find oneself on the deepest possible level and from there to act. At the School of Chartres in the twelfth century this vision took institutional form: scholars studied the natural cosmos alongside grammar and scripture, so that knowledge of the cosmos would lead to knowledge of God. William of Thierry held that divine love is the basis of all that exists—God does not merely love but is love, present in the cosmos as the ontological core of its being.

For the Scholastics, knowledge was never the end of study but the means to love. Bonaventure defined wisdom as knowledge deepened by love and warned against intellectual pursuits divorced from soul-building: Christ goes away when the mind attempts to behold this wisdom through intellectual eyes, since it is not the intellect that can go in there, but the heart. The medievalists spoke of three eyes by which the person sees—the eye of the flesh, the eye of reason, and the eye of contemplation—and insisted that the highest truths become visible only to the third. We will meet this idea again.

Here is the crucial claim, epistemological before it is pious: the knowledge that leads to wisdom is self-involving. Learning is not the acquisition of knowledge, by which we shut ourselves off from the world, but the self-emptying needed to encounter mystery. Knowledge is transformative and performative, for the one who sees the truth of things becomes a revealer of that truth in a life well lived. As Emmanuel Falque states, any strictly theological truth takes on a performative sense that transforms the subject who states it, or it will not exist at all. The goal of the university was to liberate the spark within—the scintilla animae, a self beyond all ego. Knowledge of self, knowledge of cosmos, and knowledge of God were bound together in a harmonious whole, turning as one—and the luminous thread that held all together was love.

If this sounds like an argument available only to believers, the same conclusion arrives from evolution, from cybernetics, and from the study of complexity. Teilhard de Chardin insisted that thinking undergirds evolution, for without real thought the process of amorization (from the Latin, amor or love) cannot go forward. To think is to unify, to make wholes where there are scattered fragments—not merely to record reality but to confer on it a form of unity it would not have had if it had not been thought. Thinking is a spiritual act: not mere information but the synthesizing of information into insight, the work of the spirit—not only the human spirit but God’s Spirit. Each time the mind comprehends something it unites the world in a new way; to discover and to know, Teilhard writes, is to extend the universe ahead and to complete it. He warned that abstract knowledge divorced from physical reality is a faded reality compared to boundless presence, and, isolated in the knower, it leaves the relational world adrift. This is the sterility of an education severed from transformation.

Gregory Bateson reached a convergent insight from anthropology. In Steps to an Ecology of Mind he criticized Western knowledge as too linear, unable to account for the interplay of consciousness and experience, and described individual, society, and ecosystem as part of one large cybernetic system he called Mind. Only when thought and emotion are combined do we obtain real knowledge—a knowledge that belongs as much to the body as to the mind.

Edgar Morin gathered these intuitions into a full epistemology of what he called complex thought. The very word complexus means “that which is woven together,” and Morin’s charge is that modern knowledge systematically unweaves. The reigning paradigm—the paradigm of simplification—proceeds by disjunction and reduction, separating what is connected and reducing what is multiple, and so it mutilates the very realities it means to study. He called the result blind intelligence: a knowledge so expert at isolating its objects that it can no longer see how they hang together, brilliant in the part and helpless before the whole. This is the intellectual signature of academentia. Against it, Morin urged a knowledge that is pertinent, able to grasp its objects in their contexts and to situate the parts within the whole. Education, he argued in his lessons for UNESCO, should cultivate not a well-filled head but a well-made head—furnished not with heaped information but with the aptitude to connect, to contextualize, and to confront the question we are never taught to ask: what is a human being? And because all knowledge is fallible, forever exposed to error and illusion, complex thought builds in humility as a first principle. Here the secular philosopher of complexity and the medieval theologian of love converge: both insist that to know truly is to weave the world into a greater unity, and that a knowledge which only divides is a knowledge that has failed.

Complex thought tells us that knowing must connect. Raimon Panikkar tells us with what we connect, and how many faculties the connecting requires. Panikkar revived the medieval doctrine of the three eyes. There is the eye of the senses, which perceives matter; the eye of reason, which grasps thought and its relations; and the third eye—the eye of contemplation or the spirit—which perceives the depth, freedom, and mystery the other two cannot reach. Genuine experience of reality requires the harmonious interplay of all three. A culture that trusts only the first two will produce prodigious science and technology and remain blind to the dimension that discloses itself only to contemplation. This is not anti-intellectualism; the third eye does not replace the senses or reason but completes them. To open only the eye of reason is to see a true fragment and mistake it for the whole—the precise error of an education that has closed its third eye and forgotten it ever had one.

For Panikkar, mystical knowing is not an exotic capacity reserved for saints. Every person is potentially a mystic, because every person is capable of discovering the whole of reality in each of its parts. Mysticism, in this sense, is simply the fullness of experience—experience in which sense, intellect, and spirit are integrated rather than amputated from one another. And its object is what he called the cosmotheandric intuition: the awareness that reality is constitutively threefold, an interpenetration of the cosmic, the human, and the divine, three irreducible dimensions of one undivided whole. We cannot sense, think, or experience anything at all, Panikkar observed, without matter, logos, and spirit; every act of knowing enacts this cosmotheandric mystery.

This is the very structure the founders of the university already knew: knowledge of cosmos, knowledge of self, and knowledge of God bound together, turning as one. What Panikkar adds is the recognition that this triad is not three subjects to be studied in three departments but three dimensions of every real act of knowing. Education organized on cosmotheandric lines would not add “spirituality” as an elective to an otherwise secular curriculum; it would recognize the spiritual dimension as always already present in the act of understanding anything whatever. Panikkar offers, too, a safeguard against every totalizing scheme, including a naively “holistic” one: to speak of reality as a whole, he cautioned, is not to speak of the whole of reality. He named the opposite error the totalitarian temptation—the impulse of any system to mistake its own partial vision for the complete truth and to enforce it. This is exactly the pathology of academentia, and its cure is not a bigger orthodoxy but the humility built into mystical knowing itself: the recognition that reality always exceeds our grasp, and that the third eye sees precisely by acknowledging what it cannot contain.

If knowing transforms, then the virtues that make knowing possible are spiritual virtues, and the first is humility. Insular systems run on certainty; the illusion of knowledge is their load-bearing wall. Both Morin’s fallibilism and Panikkar’s inexhaustible mystery dissolve that certainty from within, and the tradition understood such humility as the very posture of learning. Merton’s formulation is startling: learning to be oneself means learning to die in order to live—discovering in the ground of one’s being a self which is ultimate and indestructible, which survives the destruction of all more superficial selves and finds its identity clarified by their destruction. Formation by conformity asks the authentic self to yield so that the group-self may live; contemplative learning invites the death of the false selves—including the credentialed, approval-seeking self—so that the true self may emerge.

Curiosity is humility in motion: the sense that reality exceeds my current framework and that the excess is inviting rather than threatening. Restoring it means treating foundational assumptions as hypotheses, welcoming the dissenter’s question as a gift, and measuring intellectual seriousness by the capacity to say “I was wrong” and mean it. But humility needs a community that rewards it. The problem is not that learning is communal—it always is—but that communities can become circles of enforcement rather than fellowships of inquiry. A genuine learning community inverts the insular one: where the closed community conditions belonging on conformity, the genuine one conditions it on good faith; where the closed community screens for orthodoxy, the genuine one practices hospitality to dissent, knowing its most valuable member may be the one who sees what everyone else has agreed not to see; where credentials certify belief, the genuine community credentials competence, making room for the autodidact, the practitioner, the seeker of pearls without a diploma. The deepest difference concerns love: a closed community loves itself, while a genuine learning community loves what it studies and the persons who study it.

What would it mean to build education on this foundation? It would mean beginning not with information, and not with doctrine, but with consciousness and experience, and following the movement by which these become insight, and insight shifts the inner horizons of the knower.
We do not first encounter data and then assemble a world; we first find ourselves conscious, embedded, already in relation. Bateson’s ecology of mind, Morin’s woven complexity, Teilhard’s evolutionary universe, and Panikkar’s cosmotheandric whole all agree that knowing happens within a living totality, not from a balcony above it. Experience is consciousness meeting reality with all three eyes open—senses, reason, and spirit together, body and mind together, the long, deep, hard look at what is. This starting point resists capture by any orthodoxy, because experience is irreducibly personal: no committee can have my experience for me.

From experience, attended to honestly and questioned courageously, insight is born. Insight is not one more item added to the pile of information; it is the act of unification Teilhard and Morin both describe—the moment scattered fragments become a whole, the moment the mind weaves the world together in a new way. Ideas create information, not the reverse, because insight is the integrating pattern from which data receive their meaning. And insight does not leave the knower unchanged: every genuine insight enlarges the horizon within which future knowing occurs. This is the precise point at which education becomes spiritual transformation—not because a chaplain has been added to the faculty, but because the structure of knowing is itself a structure of self-transcendence. True knowledge forms an inner wholeness; it is never an end in itself but always a step toward ever deeper, richer love and transforming union.

The shifting of horizons is also where knowing joins personhood, freedom, agency, and choice. A system that fixes its members’ horizons and calls the fixture truth shrinks agency to the execution of a program, leaving the appearance of conviction and the substance of compliance. But if horizons can expand through insight, then I am free in the sense paideia intended: possessed of the interior freedom to find myself on the deepest possible level and from there to act. Choice becomes real because I can see genuine alternatives; agency becomes real because my action flows from understanding I have personally appropriated rather than doctrine I have absorbed. Personhood is not a static endowment but an achievement of ongoing self-transcendence: I become more fully a person—and, in Panikkar’s sense, more fully a mystic—each time an insight breaks open a horizon, and I choose to walk through it.

This is why education and spiritual transformation belong together, and it is the answer to the question with which we began. The machines that now share our classrooms are the apotheosis of information, and if education were only the transfer of information we would have to concede that they can already do it better than we can. But that is precisely the concession this essay refuses. A language model can hold the whole library and never once be changed by a sentence of it; it processes information but has no experience, opens no third eye, undergoes no shift of horizon, because there is no knower there to be transformed. It is the eye of reason vastly amplified and set loose without the eye of the flesh or the eye of contemplation—vision without a self that sees.

Far from making spiritual formation obsolete, then, the age of AI clarifies its irreplaceable place. If machines can carry the informational load, the distinctively human work of education is freed to become what it always should have been: the accompaniment of persons through the self-involving labor by which experience ripens into insight and insight enlarges the soul. Let the model handle the facts; the teacher’s vocation is the horizon. Education that begins with consciousness and experience rather than information is not a nostalgic retreat from technology but the one thing a machine cannot counterfeit—and therefore the one most worth defending. The danger is not that AI will think for us but that, dazzled by its fluency, we will forget there was ever anything more to knowing than the smooth production of information, and quietly outsource the very transformation that made us persons.

To learn deeply is still to be changed; to be changed truly is still to see more. The beginning of a sustainable future must begin with the integral knowledge of God, self, and cosmos—with communities of learning that can implement their powerful new AI tools without mistaking them for the mind, that can open all three eyes, weaving the world back into wholeness, and liberating the spark within rather than outsourcing it. The stakes could not be higher. And the choice, like every real choice, belongs to those whose horizons are open enough to see it. That we can no longer avoid seeing it we owe, of all things, to the machine.”

 View print-friendly version