The Pursuit of Knowledge vs. The Pursuit of Wisdom

[PureX]

I have been noticing, lately, how often and stridently most of the atheists that come here dislike the idea that they are being denied knowledge. It seems that no matter what someone else's opinion might be on whatever subject, they will demand to know how the other person presumes to know this. Even though the other person was only offering an opinion, and was not necessarily presuming or claiming to know anything. And in fact most of the atheists here base their atheism almost entirely on the idea that they cannot KNOW that God exists, and because they can't know it, they resent and reject the whole proposition.

I see this all the time in their constant demands for "evidence" (which for them means proof) and I am realizing that what they are really demanding is a way to KNOW that what someone else is proposing, is correct. They equate knowing with correctness, and not knowing with incorrectness. Thus, not knowing that God exists means that God's existing is incorrect.

Until now, I have been thinking that this obsession with "evidence" was just blind egotism. And I nick-named it the "kangaroo court" syndrome. Wherein the ego drives the mind to see itself as the indisputable judge of every other mind it encounters. And of course it bases all it's judgments on the presumption of it's on righteousness. Like the judge in a "kangaroo court".

And this was not an entirely wrong presumption on my part.

But it was not entirely a right presumption, either. As I am now realizing that this phenomena is not just an ego manifestation. It's also a manifestation of the idea that knowledge = truth (or at least ascertains 'correctness'). And those who are constantly demanding "evidence" (proof) are really demanding the knowledge that will allow them to accept whatever they are hearing from someone else as being correct (and therefor, true).

Knowledge, for them, is the currency of reality and of truth.

And yet I am not among them in this pursuit. So am I against knowledge, and truth?

No, but I do not believe, think, or feel that knowledge is the currency of reality or truth. I think WISDOM is. And wisdom does not come primarily from knowledge. Wisdom comes from experience and applied intelligence. Wisdom doesn't come from the facts, or the evidence, or the biggest data base and the strictest adherence to logic. Wisdom comes from how clearly we can we 'see' all that data and how creatively and adeptly we can assemble it, and disassemble it, and reassemble it differently, as needed. Knowledge is practical, but wisdom is 'meta-practical'. Wisdom IS 'meta'. It exists beyond the "evidence" and the "proof" and our pretensions of 'correctness'.

So I apologize to all those atheists for my presuming they were simply succumbed to their own intellectual egos. As I can now see that what they have succumbed to is the idea that knowledge = correctness, and correctness = reality/truth.

It's not that they are wrong about this. It's that they are chasing after the wrong Grail.

 

[Jimmy]

I have been noticing, lately, how often and stridently most of the atheists that come here dislike the idea that they are being denied knowledge. It seems that no matter what someone else's opinion might be on whatever subject, they will demand to know how the other person presumes to know this. Even though the other person was only offering an opinion, and was not necessarily presuming or claiming to know anything. And in fact most of the atheists here base their atheism almost entirely on the idea that they cannot KNOW that God exists, and because they cant know it, they resent and reject the whole proposition.

I see this all the time in their constant demands for "evidence" (which for them means proof) and I am realizing that what they are really demanding is a way to KNOW that what someone else is proposing, is correct. They equate knowing with correctness, and not knowing with incorrectness. Thus, not knowing that God exists means that God's existing is incorrect.

Until now, I have been thinking that this obsession with "evidence" was just blind egotism. And I nick-named it the "kangaroo court" syndrome. Wherein the ego drives the mind to see itself as the indisputable judge of every other mind it encounters. And of course it bases all it's judgments on the presumption of it's on righteousness. Like the judge in a "kangaroo court".

And this was not an entirely wrong presumption on my part.

But it was not entirely a right assumption, either. As I am now realizing that this phenomena is not just an ego manifestation. It's also a manifestation of the idea that knowledge = truth (or at least ascertains 'correctness'). And those who are constantly demanding "evidence" (proof) are really demanding the knowledge that will allow them to accept whatever they are hearing from someone else as being correct (and therefor, true).

Knowledge, for them, is the currency of reality and of truth.

And yet I am not among them in this pursuit. So am I against knowledge, and truth?

No, but I do not believe, think, or feel that knowledge is the currency of reality or truth. I think WISDOM is. And wisdom does not come primarily from knowledge. Wisdom comes from experience and applied intelligence. Wisdom doesn't come from the facts, or the evidence, or the biggest data base and the strictest adherence to logic. Wisdom comes from how clearly we can we 'see' all that data and how creatively and adeptly we can assemble it, and disassemble it, and reassemble it differently, as needed. Knowledge is practical, but wisdom is 'meta-practical'. Wisdom IS 'meta'. It exists beyond the "evidence" and the "proof" and our pretensions of 'correctness'.

So I apologize to all those atheists for my presuming they were simply succumbed to their own intellectual egos. As I can now see that what they have succumbed to is the idea that knowledge = correctness, and correctness = reality/truth.

It's not that they are wrong about this. It's that they are chasing after the wrong Grail.

Most will never change their grail. Most will die as atheists.

 

[Quintessence]

With all due respect - as someone who generally finds merit in the points you make - I would caution against this sort of presumptive psychoanalysis of perspectives. Not just because it is overgeneralizing about a population of humans who come to arrive at their position for diverse reasons that are not adequately addressed by the preceding analysis, but because I question the appropriateness of speaking on their behalf as if you have more intimate knowledge of why they do what they do than they themselves do.

 

[PureX]

With all due respect - as someone who generally finds merit in the points you make - I would caution against this sort of presumptive psychoanalysis of perspectives. Not just because it is overgeneralizing about a population of humans who come to arrive at their position for diverse reasons that are not adequately addressed by the preceding analysis, but because I question the appropriateness of speaking on their behalf as if you have more intimate knowledge of why they do what they do than they themselves do.

I speak on no one's behalf, ever.

I simply point out what I see, and what I think about it, in response. Or in this case, what I have thought about it in the past, and how this is changing in the present.

 

[Quintessence]

I speak on no one's behalf, ever.

I simply point out what I see, and what I think about it, in response. Or in this case, what I have thought about it in the past, and how this is changing in the present.

That's not how the tone came across to me - pardon for the misread, then.

 

[Heyo]

I have been noticing, lately, how often and stridently most of the atheists that come here dislike the idea that they are being denied knowledge. It seems that no matter what someone else's opinion might be on whatever subject, they will demand to know how the other person presumes to know this. Even though the other person was only offering an opinion, and was not necessarily presuming or claiming to know anything. And in fact most of the atheists here base their atheism almost entirely on the idea that they cannot KNOW that God exists, and because they can't know it, they resent and reject the whole proposition.

I see this all the time in their constant demands for "evidence" (which for them means proof) and I am realizing that what they are really demanding is a way to KNOW that what someone else is proposing, is correct. They equate knowing with correctness, and not knowing with incorrectness. Thus, not knowing that God exists means that God's existing is incorrect.

Until now, I have been thinking that this obsession with "evidence" was just blind egotism. And I nick-named it the "kangaroo court" syndrome. Wherein the ego drives the mind to see itself as the indisputable judge of every other mind it encounters. And of course it bases all it's judgments on the presumption of it's on righteousness. Like the judge in a "kangaroo court".

And this was not an entirely wrong presumption on my part.

But it was not entirely a right presumption, either. As I am now realizing that this phenomena is not just an ego manifestation. It's also a manifestation of the idea that knowledge = truth (or at least ascertains 'correctness'). And those who are constantly demanding "evidence" (proof) are really demanding the knowledge that will allow them to accept whatever they are hearing from someone else as being correct (and therefor, true).

Knowledge, for them, is the currency of reality and of truth.

And yet I am not among them in this pursuit. So am I against knowledge, and truth?

No, but I do not believe, think, or feel that knowledge is the currency of reality or truth. I think WISDOM is. And wisdom does not come primarily from knowledge. Wisdom comes from experience and applied intelligence. Wisdom doesn't come from the facts, or the evidence, or the biggest data base and the strictest adherence to logic. Wisdom comes from how clearly we can we 'see' all that data and how creatively and adeptly we can assemble it, and disassemble it, and reassemble it differently, as needed. Knowledge is practical, but wisdom is 'meta-practical'. Wisdom IS 'meta'. It exists beyond the "evidence" and the "proof" and our pretensions of 'correctness'.

So I apologize to all those atheists for my presuming they were simply succumbed to their own intellectual egos. As I can now see that what they have succumbed to is the idea that knowledge = correctness, and correctness = reality/truth.

It's not that they are wrong about this. It's that they are chasing after the wrong Grail.

I may be not be your typical atheist, as I'm only one by definition, not by conviction, but I think you misinterpret our demands for evidence or proof. You clearly misinterpret my demands.
Assertions require evidence.
Extraordinary assertions require extraordinary evidence. (Sagan)
What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. (Hitch)
To me, you don't have to prove your belief.
You say, "I believe there is a god", I say, "I don't". End of conversation, let's go drink a beer.
But when you say, "there is a god" or "I know there is a god", I want to know your definition, your epistemology and I want proof or evidence.
I won't let you assert something that, by assertion, is intended to establish a fact. Once you have established a fact, "there is a god (and it is my god)", you can make demands, "therefore it should be taught in school, I should get privileges, etc."
You can't make demands on your belief or opinion.

So, as long as you recognize that you have no evidence or proof for your belief, we're good.

 

[Koldo]

I have been noticing, lately, how often and stridently most of the atheists that come here dislike the idea that they are being denied knowledge. It seems that no matter what someone else's opinion might be on whatever subject, they will demand to know how the other person presumes to know this. Even though the other person was only offering an opinion, and was not necessarily presuming or claiming to know anything. And in fact most of the atheists here base their atheism almost entirely on the idea that they cannot KNOW that God exists, and because they can't know it, they resent and reject the whole proposition.

I see this all the time in their constant demands for "evidence" (which for them means proof) and I am realizing that what they are really demanding is a way to KNOW that what someone else is proposing, is correct. They equate knowing with correctness, and not knowing with incorrectness. Thus, not knowing that God exists means that God's existing is incorrect.

Until now, I have been thinking that this obsession with "evidence" was just blind egotism. And I nick-named it the "kangaroo court" syndrome. Wherein the ego drives the mind to see itself as the indisputable judge of every other mind it encounters. And of course it bases all it's judgments on the presumption of it's on righteousness. Like the judge in a "kangaroo court".

And this was not an entirely wrong presumption on my part.

But it was not entirely a right presumption, either. As I am now realizing that this phenomena is not just an ego manifestation. It's also a manifestation of the idea that knowledge = truth (or at least ascertains 'correctness'). And those who are constantly demanding "evidence" (proof) are really demanding the knowledge that will allow them to accept whatever they are hearing from someone else as being correct (and therefor, true).

Knowledge, for them, is the currency of reality and of truth.

And yet I am not among them in this pursuit. So am I against knowledge, and truth?

No, but I do not believe, think, or feel that knowledge is the currency of reality or truth. I think WISDOM is. And wisdom does not come primarily from knowledge. Wisdom comes from experience and applied intelligence. Wisdom doesn't come from the facts, or the evidence, or the biggest data base and the strictest adherence to logic. Wisdom comes from how clearly we can we 'see' all that data and how creatively and adeptly we can assemble it, and disassemble it, and reassemble it differently, as needed. Knowledge is practical, but wisdom is 'meta-practical'. Wisdom IS 'meta'. It exists beyond the "evidence" and the "proof" and our pretensions of 'correctness'.

So I apologize to all those atheists for my presuming they were simply succumbed to their own intellectual egos. As I can now see that what they have succumbed to is the idea that knowledge = correctness, and correctness = reality/truth.

It's not that they are wrong about this. It's that they are chasing after the wrong Grail.

Let me try this way: Speaking from wisdom, rather than knowledge, I assert that God doesn't exist.

 

[Spice]

I find the same assumption, at times, with education. I am fully aware of my prejudice against those spouting higher education as a mark of intelligence. IMV intelligence is a result of heredity, utilization and the proficiency of those two factors. Abraham Lincoln, in example, definitely utilized a healthy inherited IQ. And I'm quite sure there have been better gone to waste, in a manner of speaking, due to lack of opportunity. On the other side, who doesn't know someone holding a degree that oftentimes sounds like Norm Crosby, "The Master of Malaprop"?
In any case, I fully agree there is a clear difference between knowledge and wisdom, as between education and intelligence.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Knowledge, for them, is the currency of reality and of truth.

For me, evidence is the currency of reality and truth. And when the evidence corresponds with reality then it is more likely to be truth and true knowledge. Unfortunately many will dismiss any evidence that doesn't support their beliefs or may misdiagnose their own experiences (mind tricks), hence why we have so many who have rather different beliefs (and fiercely held) and many of these based entirely on their own personal experiences. But then, why would we believe (accept) any one of these over any others (often being contradictory), particularly when one might have lived a life and not experiencing any such? All sounds a bit 'so unworthy' as to why some just don't have such experiences - or a bit religious one-upmanship.

And just speaking for myself, I'm not chasing anything, just trying to be honest as to what information passes into and out of my head.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Let me try this way: Speaking from wisdom, rather than knowledge, I assert that God doesn't exist.

Okay, so will you now support your assertion with reasoned argument supported by evidence?

 

[Koldo]

Okay, so will you now support your assertion with reasoned argument supported by evidence?

As per the OP: "Wisdom comes from experience and applied intelligence. Wisdom doesn't come from the facts, or the evidence, or the biggest data base and the strictest adherence to logic. Wisdom comes from how clearly we can we 'see' all that data and how creatively and adeptly we can assemble it, and disassemble it, and reassemble it differently, as needed. Knowledge is practical, but wisdom is 'meta-practical'. Wisdom IS 'meta'. It exists beyond the "evidence" and the "proof" and our pretensions of 'correctness'."

 

[PureX]

I may be not be your typical atheist, as I'm only one by definition, not by conviction, but I think you misinterpret our demands for evidence or proof. You clearly misinterpret my demands.
Assertions require evidence.

Why? And how are you defining an "assertion" apart from an observation? Or an opinion? Or a belief?

Extraordinary assertions require extraordinary evidence. (Sagan)

Who is deciding what an "extraordinary assertion" is? ... You? Doesn't that just mean an assertion that you donlt currently agree with? And what does "evidence" have to do with it being an accurate assertion?

See, I think YOU think that knowledge (evidence) = accuracy (reality) = truth. And that's why you demand evidence anytime anyone asserts an idea that you do not already accept as accurate/true.

What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. (Hitch)

Anything.

To me, you don't have to prove your belief.
You say, "I believe there is a god", I say, "I don't". End of conversation, let's go drink a beer.
But when you say, "there is a god" or "I know there is a god", I want to know your definition, your epistemology and I want proof or evidence.

But why do you want to know this? Is it because you want to know that your perspective is the right one? Or are you just curious about theirs because it's different?

I won't let you assert something that, by assertion, is intended to establish a fact.

Why. Who made you the universal fact-checker? And what qualifications do you have for this position?

Once you have established a fact, "there is a god (and it is my god)", you can make demands, "therefore it should be taught in school, I should get privileges, etc."
You can't make demands on your belief or opinion.

Facts are both relative and dynamic. They depend on constantly shifting context for their voracity. So they are not the power-brokers that you are insinuating, here. We can each collect a set of facts that will lead us to a different conclusion about the same subject, and we will both still be "correct" in our facts AND or reasoning.

So, as long as you recognize that you have no evidence or proof for your belief, we're good.

We would both have valid evidence that we can logically choose as "proof" for our beliefs. It happens all the time.

But you wrongly believe that evidence (knowledge) = accuracy (reality) = truth.

That's what I think is happening, here.

 

[RestlessSoul]

As per the OP: "Wisdom comes from experience and applied intelligence. Wisdom doesn't come from the facts, or the evidence, or the biggest data base and the strictest adherence to logic. Wisdom comes from how clearly we can we 'see' all that data and how creatively and adeptly we can assemble it, and disassemble it, and reassemble it differently, as needed. Knowledge is practical, but wisdom is 'meta-practical'. Wisdom IS 'meta'. It exists beyond the "evidence" and the "proof" and our pretensions of 'correctness'."

Fair enough. But in order for me to take you seriously, you'd first have to demonstrate wisdom.

Wisdom (sapience, sagacity) is the use of one's knowledge and experience to make good judgements.[1][2][3][4] Wisdom is the interpretating and understanding of knowledge that leads to greater insight (e.g., common sense).[5][6][7] Wisdom is a pragmatic kind of "praxis (process)" where one is constantly using metacognition.[8][9]

 

[PureX]

Let me try this way: Speaking from wisdom, rather than knowledge, I assert that God doesn't exist.

What exactly are you "trying"?

 

[Koldo]

Fair enough. But in order for me to take you seriously, you'd first have to demonstrate wisdom.

Wisdom (sapience, sagacity) is the use of one's knowledge and experience to make good judgements.[1][2][3][4] Wisdom is the interpretating and understanding of knowledge that leads to greater insight (e.g., common sense).[5][6][7] Wisdom is a pragmatic kind of "praxis (process)" where one is constantly using metacognition.[8][9]

How would you go about to show your wisdom, @PureX ? Or would you dismiss the request?

 

[Koldo]

What exactly are you "trying"?

To show the issue with your stance.

 

[PureX]

Knowledge, for them, is the currency of reality and of truth.

For me, evidence is the currency of reality and truth. And when the evidence corresponds with reality ...

As YOU experience and understand it ...

... then it is more likely to be truth and true knowledge.

According to your current perception and understanding. Right?

Are you seeing the confirmation bias beginning, here?

Unfortunately many will dismiss any evidence that doesn't support their beliefs ...

As you have just done, systematically.

... or may misdiagnose their own experiences (mind tricks), ...

As any of us can be doing at any time, since our grasp of 'the whole truth' is extremely limited.

... hence why we have so many who have rather different beliefs (and fiercely held) and many of these based entirely on their own personal experiences.

"So many" being all of us.

But then, why would we believe (accept) any one of these over any others (often being contradictory),...

Why indeed! I strongly suspect that most of the time we pick the "true reality" that we're hoping to live in.

... particularly when one might have lived a life and not experiencing any such? All sounds a bit 'so unworthy' as to why some just don't have such experiences - or a bit religious one-upmanship.

Ego certainly does play a role in all of this.

And just speaking for myself, I'm not chasing anything, just trying to be honest as to what information passes into and out of my head.

As is everyone else. Believe it or not. But we are playing cards with a very incomplete and confused deck. And so often resort do plain old personal desire to decide what cards to drop and what cards to keep.

 

[PureX]

How would you go about to show your wisdom, @PureX ? Or would you dismiss the request?

Why would wisdom be something we would want/need to "show"?

 

[PureX]

To show the issue with your stance.

What exactly is your issue with my stance?

 

[Koldo]

Fair enough. But in order for me to take you seriously, you'd first have to demonstrate wisdom.

Wisdom (sapience, sagacity) is the use of one's knowledge and experience to make good judgements.[1][2][3][4] Wisdom is the interpretating and understanding of knowledge that leads to greater insight (e.g., common sense).[5][6][7] Wisdom is a pragmatic kind of "praxis (process)" where one is constantly using metacognition.[8][9]

I am going to use @PureX 's reply:
"Why would wisdom be something we would want/need to "show"?"