The Pursuit of Knowledge vs. The Pursuit of Wisdom

[plodding inarticulateness]

plodding inarticulateness said:
“'Wisdom', what constitutes or merits the label, is completely subjective and relative. "

Yep. Why you think this is some sort of problem

Because at the end of the day, given that it is completely subjective and relative, you still have to have some means reconciling conflicting and/or competing "wisdoms" within a mutually interacting society.

I get that your are all-in regarding your imaginings of what "wisdom" is, but to me, ill defined and nebulous notions of it being informed by "intelligence" (a complicated and controversial concept) and "creativity" just sound like very unspecific and unhelpful woo.

This is just my take on it. I'm sure you and others may completely disagree.

 

[PureX]

Because at the end of the day, given that it is completely subjective and relative, you still have to have some means reconciling conflicting and/or competing "wisdoms" within a mutually interacting society.

Wisdom would avoid competition as competition is a wasteful and ineffective methodology. When it cannot be avoided it would be dealt with as a specific instance (subjective and relative). Which is an advantage of wisdom, not a flaw.

I get that your are all-in regarding your imaginings of what "wisdom" is, but to me, ill defined and nebulous notions of it being informed by "intelligence" (a complicated and controversial concept) and "creativity" just sound like very unspecific and unhelpful woo.

It is clear that you do not like "nebulous notions". You want to KNOW that you are RIGHT. Just as the opening posts states. In fact, there is no being right in your mind unless it can be known (proven via the evidence/facts). Am I right?

This is just my take on it. I'm sure you and others may completely disagree.

It's a discussion worth considering, I think.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

“Never must the church tire of reminding men that they have a moral responsibility to be intelligent.”​

― Martin Luther King Jr., Strength to Love

 

[Dimi95]

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.

When you see the world around and take much of that staff on scale , you would do the exact same thing.I don't doubt what you say in the same way as they do , because i don't see it in the same way they do , but i would argue many things that you write here.
So you have some 'unique' way of saying things , but they sound 'silly' because you use your own set of words which someone may not understand it as you want it.The basic for me is mutual ground and to understand each one's point.I don't find many issues on talking with Atheists , i accept some rules and play the "game".
Not that it's a game , but it means just showing 'formal' respect and finding mutual understanding.
'Attacking' someone's world view in that way is unimaginable for me.
It's not the way i am taught.

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.

I would have started a conversation with an Atheist with something formally like :
What does Theism mean and what does Atheism mean.
Just to start...

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.

Well , yes but the word for knowledge comes from the ancient world , or not?
Knowledge comes from the word 'to know'.
And that is correct , we are born with the ability to learn and to know things.


On 'what' and 'who' to know i would accept that to be 'reality and truth'.
Why not?
Are we not all seeking that?

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.

Wisdom comes from knowledge,if you want it to be that way.But that just another missed step.
I think that we differ on where we find the source of Wisdom.

And wisdom does not come primarily from knowledge. Wisdom comes from experience and applied intelligence.

Which by definition is a certain way of knowledge.
Wisdom is much more then that...

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.

The true source of wisdom is God.
That short was the answer and you chose your own set of words.
Do you understand what is my critic and why 'your way' probably does not work ?

Is it they that refuse to see it?
Or is it that we just want it to be the way it is the easiest to us?

I think that people discipline themselfs in the way of being slaves and not Masters.
That's wrong, to me at least.

Discipline to me is the integration into a higher form of freedom.
So the question that comes with that is :
As what , as a 'slave' or as a 'Master'?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I get that your are all-in regarding your imaginings of what "wisdom" is, but to me, ill defined and nebulous notions of it being informed by "intelligence" (a complicated and controversial concept) and "creativity" just sound like very unspecific and unhelpful woo.

I agree that words like "Wisdom is the application of intelligence and creativity" add nothing. Creativity is a type of intelligence, and intelligence isn't wisdom. If it were, we wouldn't need both words, and sentence like "He was very intelligent but lived unwisely" would be self-contradictory.

We needn't make this complicated, and if we do, we generate something less clear and less useful.

Knowledge is the collection of demonstrably correct ideas we accumulate to effect desired outcomes, like how to bake a cake. It is acquired using intelligence but is not intelligence itself. Other kinds of beliefs don't rise to the level of knowledge.

And though intelligence generates knowledge, they are not the same thing. Intelligence relates to problem solving using knowledge and at times, creativity. These two are sometimes called crystalline and fluid intelligence:

"Fluid intelligence refers to cognitive abilities that do not depend on prior knowledge, such as solving novel problems and processing new information. Crystallized intelligence, on the other hand, relies on accumulated knowledge and is involved in tasks like crossword puzzles and Scrabble."

Back to knowledge, which I defined as "demonstrably correct ideas we accumulate to effect desired outcomes" We can divide it into knowing how to achieve immediate goals such as baking a cake, and achieving ultimate and long-term goals, which for most of us is finding enduring contentment. What are the ingredients for that "cake"? What circumstances will be optimal for us? Answering a question like that requires a special kind of knowledge, which is what I call wisdom.

Thus intelligence leads to knowledge which is information that held us achieve goals whether immediate or long-term, and wisdom is the subset of knowledge that helps us achieve ultimate goals. If you think that wealth will bring happiness, the problem for you is to figure out how to acquire wealth. If you are intelligent, you may acquire the knowledge necessary to accomplish that. If you discover that wealth has not made you happy for long, you have been intelligent but not wise, but intelligence can rescue you here if you are able to notice that and readjust goals to those that might bring a lasting happiness. That's the beginning of wisdom. But you're not there yet. You only know that money doesn't buy happiness. But what will?

Maybe it's time to retire, learn to sail, and live on a boat as you sail around the world. Maybe you discover that that too doesn't make you happy for long - that it gets boring and that by the second year, you'd rather be doing something else.

I discovered that lasting happiness for me comes from having love and beauty in my life, living a simple life with little drama or contention, leisure time, freedom from want such as being bored or lonely, feeling safe and liked, having self-respect and the respect of others which means living an upright life with few regrets, making a difference, and feeling safe.

And I discovered it young enough to have time to create that life for myself. THAT's my definition of wisdom. If intelligence is the path to knowledge and knowledge and creativity the path to problem solving using that intelligence, then wisdom is solving the big problem: what brings lasting satisfaction (a type of knowledge) and how to make that happen (intelligence).

I find these definitions to be simple, clear, and practical. Like I said, we needn't make this complicated, and if we do, we generate something much less meaningful or useful.

Wisdom would avoid competition as competition is a wasteful and ineffective methodology.

Disagree, at least when young. I competed in school for the best grades. I competed for a medical school seat. I competed with other physicians in my specialty for patients. And I competed with other suitors for a specific kind of person to be my wife.

At this point in life, there's nothing to compete for except maybe a table at a restaurant that requires one to make reservations.

 

[Dimi95]

If anyone can assert anything out of a self-proclaimed wisdom

Why do you think that this 'wisdom' is self-proclaimed?
Can you please give one example.

, how is this wisdom the currency of truth when two people can be asserting two completely opposite things that could not be true at the same time?

I would also like to answer this,if you don't mind.
I would need an example, so we can get to the end of it.
Or maybe try if you want.

I am getting the feeling that you are questioning the meaning of what wisdom is and its source , i would ask in the first place , why is that?
So you think that is so , because most people have self-proclaimed Wisdom?
You miss the examples
And we can see if this stands.
I can also claim things , but no use if i cannot explain them.

 

[Heyo]

“Never must the church tire of reminding men that they have a moral responsibility to be intelligent.”​

― Martin Luther King Jr., Strength to Love

Totally contradicting his namesake:

 

[Heyo]

Facts are true or false relative to other fact sets. Lies are only true to the degree necessary to complete the desired deception.

Relative to other fact sets. The train whistle is blowing a D#, the train whistle is blowing a C, the train whistle is blowing a B flat. The train whistle is ascending in pitch, the train whistle is descending in pitch. All five facts are true and correct, and all five facts are false and incorrect relative to the adjacent facts (motion, direction, perspective location, etc.).

Your example (and your thinking?) doesn't deal with facts, but with perceptions. Fact is that the train whistle blows a C, constantly (under standardized conditions). Everything else is a distortion effected by relative movement. And we are able to filter the distortions by using science and reasoning.
That also applies to other perceptions. When we filter out the distortions, there is only one truth.

 

[Alien826]

Your example (and your thinking?) doesn't deal with facts, but with perceptions. Fact is that the train whistle blows a C, constantly (under standardized conditions). Everything else is a distortion effected by relative movement. And we are able to filter the distortions by using science and reasoning.
That also applies to other perceptions. When we filter out the distortions, there is only one truth.

I disagree. The note that your brain "hears" is indeed a perception, but the frequency of the vibration of the air that hits your ear drum is truly different in each case. I may be open to correction, but I would say that a given note has the same wave form whether it was formed that way by an instrument or "compressed" by motion. In any case the wave form differs between the the examples, and we are in fact talking about separate and differing things, not some weird idea of there being three things that are both the same and different at the same time.

Much of this discussion, I believe, can be resolved by better definitions. If wisdom differs from intelligence, it may just mean that the "wise" person is including more data into his calculation.

 

[Dimi95]

I disagree. The note that your brain "hears" is indeed a perception, but the frequency of the vibration of the air that hits your ear drum is truly different in each case. I may be open to correction, but I would say that a given note has the same wave form whether it was formed that way by an instrument or "compressed" by motion. In any case the wave form differs between the the examples, and we are in fact talking about separate and differing things, not some weird idea of there being three things that are both the same and different at the same time.

If i may , does that mean that the three seperate structures of nitrate are also weird to you? Because you said things..
One molecule of nitrate is all three resident structure all the time , and never just one of them, the three are separate , but all the same, and they are one , they are three in one.

Much of this discussion, I believe, can be resolved by better definitions. If wisdom differs from intelligence, it may just mean that the "wise" person is including more data into his calculation.

I agree.
Where do you think that the discussion should start in the first place?

 

[Heyo]

I disagree. The note that your brain "hears" is indeed a perception, but the frequency of the vibration of the air that hits your ear drum is truly different in each case.

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that the whistle emanates a C. The distortion is due to the relative motion so that the shift in tone is "real", i.e. measurable and not an illusion.

I may be open to correction, but I would say that a given note has the same wave form whether it was formed that way by an instrument or "compressed" by motion. In any case the wave form differs between the the examples, and we are in fact talking about separate and differing things, not some weird idea of there being three things that are both the same and different at the same time.

Much of this discussion, I believe, can be resolved by better definitions. If wisdom differs from intelligence, it may just mean that the "wise" person is including more data into his calculation.

The definition was quite clear to me. "The train whistle is blowing a C" is the fact. "I measure a C# because of my relative motion" is also a fact, but "the train whistle is blowing a C#" is simply wrong.

 

[Alien826]

Your example (and your thinking?) doesn't deal with facts, but with perceptions. Fact is that the train whistle blows a C, constantly (under standardized conditions). Everything else is a distortion effected by relative movement. And we are able to filter the distortions by using science and reasoning.
That also applies to other perceptions. When we filter out the distortions, there is only one truth.

I disagree. The note that your brain "hears" is indeed a perception, but the frequency of the vibration of the air that hits your ear drum is truly different in each case. I may be open to correction, but I would say that a given note has the same wave form whether it was formed that way by an instrument or "compressed" by motion. In any case the wave form differs between the the examples, and we are in fact talking about separate and differing things, not some weird idea of there being three things that are both the same and different at the same time.

Much of this discussion, I believe, can be resolved by better definitions. If wisdom differs from intelligence, it may just mean that the "wise" person is including more data into his calculation. For example the "wisdom of age" might just mean that the person has more examples of a certain thing to consider.

Edit: essentially a duplicate. Ignore.

 

[Alien826]

If i may , does that mean that the three seperate structures of nitrate are also weird to you? Because you said things..
One molecule of nitrate is all three resident structure all the time , and never just one of them, the three are separate , but all the same, and they are one , they are three in one.

If that was in a previous post, I missed it.

And in any case I don't understand it. If you can explain I'll address it. Incidentally, I'm not claiming anything is weird, just addressing those who do.

I agree.
Where do you think that the discussion should start in the first place?

With more exact statements of what the poster is on about. Is that what you mean?

Incidentally, I think the base question is whether or not there is a single version of "what is" that we attempt to approximate with our theories. If the answer is yes, then my idea that we need better measurement has merit. If not, then maybe @PureX is on to something.

 

[Alien826]

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that the whistle emanates a C. The distortion is due to the relative motion so that the shift in tone is "real", i.e. measurable and not an illusion.

The definition was quite clear to me. "The train whistle is blowing a C" is the fact. "I measure a C# because of my relative motion" is also a fact, but "the train whistle is blowing a C#" is simply wrong.

I'd say that the whistle is emitting a series of vibrations in the air that from one position (traveling along with the train) is perceived as C and from other positions as the other notes. That's because the frequency of the vibration is actually different in each case. The motion comes into it, yes. But so do a lot of other things. All three are valid notes.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

But nothing that you wrote makes the case that wisdom has anything at all to say about God -- either God's nature, God's existence, or about the actual nature of reality, if reality is not what we are able to perceive it to be.

Nor do you make any case for how "reality," or the existence or non-existence of God, should inform human action.

You do not provide a clear argument for how wisdom specifically addresses questions about God's nature, existence, or the actual nature of reality. While you contrast wisdom with knowledge, you don't demonstrate how wisdom offers insights into the existence or non-existence of God, or how it informs our understanding of reality beyond what we can perceive. The focus on wisdom as being superior to knowledge is more philosophical, but it lacks a concrete explanation of how wisdom can reveal anything definitive about God or reality. And as we've seen from many failed philosophical forays, philosophy that ignores the reality we can perceive can lead one astray.

Additionally, you don't make a case for how the existence or non-existence of God should influence human action. You emphasize the importance of wisdom over knowledge, but stop short of explaining how this wisdom would guide ethical behavior, decision-making, or responses to existential questions like the existence of a deity. Your argument seems more focused on critiquing atheist reliance on evidence than providing an alternative framework for addressing these deeper metaphysical issues.

 

[Dimi95]

If that was in a previous post, I missed it.

And in any case I don't understand it.

That's fine , that is just knowledge in chemistry.

Human Metabolome Database: Showing metabocard for Nitrate (HMDB0002878)

hmdb.ca

We can see the properties of these structures and what they tell us.
The point is that they stop becoming weird and they become valid examples for the Trinity hypostasis.

And i can adress this only as an Orthodox.

In Orthodox terminology the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are called three divine persons. Person is defined here simply as the subject of existence and life—
hypostasis which is in the traditional church 'language'.

A theory about something has to be falsifiable in order to be considered a scientific hypothesis. The statement "all cats are gray" is falsifiable, because you can observe many cats and prove that it's false.
Unfalsifiable claims, which often pop up in conspiracy theories, can't be tested — it doesn't mean those beliefs are wrong, just that they're unscientific and impossible to prove.

non- always means "not".
un does not mean not , well yes in one case but when un- is used with an adjective it suddenly means "not".

To me unscientific means not based on or exhibiting scientific knowledge or scientific methodology : not in accord with the principles and methods of science.
This can be misunderstood and people often find themselfs in misconception.
There are branches of social Science that have much to say about the scientific method.
The scientific method works because it is consistent in every branch of Science.

Use of Scientific Method in Social Science for UGC NET Sociology Notes

Learn about the use of scientific method in Social Science in detail for the UGC NET Sociology. Also find a few related faqs and also key highlights of the article.

testbook.com

The historical events to be mentioned cannot be recreated and it is not possible to establish laws of history that remain true irrespective of the time and space.
Hence, it may not be possible to use the method of laboratory experiments and observation in historical research.

An experiment is a procedure designed to test a hypothesis as part of the scientific method.
Experimentation is often described as a method, approach, a test, a tool to generate evidence.
I can't say the same for everyone , but i have encountered those who don't understand the difference between them and i have noticed adressing some questions with wrong answers just because of silly mistakes.

If you can explain I'll address it. Incidentally, I'm not claiming anything is weird, just addressing those who do.

I did my best to provide the information.
I understood that in the last part of your first answer and i agree with it.

With more exact statements of what the poster is on about. Is that what you mean?

Well , i think that He is a Theist adressing Atheist.
That's how j see his OS.

I don't support his way of doing things , because it's just too many misleading words.Answers have to be clear and simple and easy to understand them.

Incidentally, I think the base question is whether or not there is a single version of "what is" that we attempt to approximate with our theories. If the answer is yes, then my idea that we need better measurement has merit. If not, then maybe @PureX is on to something.

I think that the measurment was always the same and that is the scientific method.
We didn't invent it , we discovered it.
To me , as i said i trust it because it is consistent in all science.
It is those who make science to be only natural and formal that should ask themselfs about the social part of it.
And 'Social Sciences' as part of science has its own History.
Rules change because in History it is very hard to force the answers to come out of lab , almost impossible..
Well lab helped about important things on the way , but that is not the driving force of it.
But rather experimentation is what helped historians to distinguish between myths and actual events.
I think that Atheist lack knowledge in History and Social sciences and PureX confuses that with 'ego'.
That's my opinion..
I totally belive an Atheist when he says that he sees no empirical evidence of God.
And most Theists have failed to demonstrate what empirical means and to opose some set of definitions.
Empirical aplies to observations and expiriences in all Science.

Is that definition OK?

 

[PureX]

When you see the world around and take much of that staff on scale , you would do the exact same thing.I don't doubt what you say in the same way as they do , because i don't see it in the same way they do , but i would argue many things that you write here.
So you have some 'unique' way of saying things , but they sound 'silly' because you use your own set of words which someone may not understand it as you want it.The basic for me is mutual ground and to understand each one's point.I don't find many issues on talking with Atheists , i accept some rules and play the "game".
Not that it's a game , but it means just showing 'formal' respect and finding mutual understanding.
'Attacking' someone's world view in that way is unimaginable for me.
It's not the way i am taught.

I am puzzled why you see this as an "attack". Especially when you claim that you are able to recognize their obsession with being able to 'know' the truth of things, to the degree that not knowing and not being able to show how one knows something by an objective materialistic standard equates to untruth.

I would have started a conversation with an Atheist with something formally like :
What does Theism mean and what does Atheism mean.
Just to start...

I have been down that road a thousand times. And all you're going to get are nonsensically biased definitions, like, "atheism is the lack of belief in any gods that any theists believe in". And "theism is believing in the abrahamic God of the Bible". This is the nonsense most of the atheists that come here are thinking. And they will not be dissuaded from it by ANY degree of logic you throw at them.

You aren't going to get any meaningful conversation asking those questions.

Well , yes but the word for knowledge comes from the ancient world , or not?
Knowledge comes from the word 'to know'.
And that is correct , we are born with the ability to learn and to know things.

Yes, but the ascertaining of facts and assembling them into imagined realities, useful though it may be, does not equate to knowing the truth. And this is the big fallacy that most of these "knowledge seekers" are holding onto.

On 'what' and 'who' to know i would accept that to be 'reality and truth'.
Why not?
Are we not all seeking that?

If we are, we are living out a fool's errand. Because no human is ever going to know 'the truth'. This is not possible for us. The best we can do is know sets of inter-related facts that are true relative to each other.

Wisdom comes from knowledge, if you want it to be that way. But that just another missed step.
I think that we differ on where we find the source of Wisdom.

The "source of wisdom" is us. It's simply our willingness and ability to assemble a vision of reality honestly and creatively and then keep reassembling it as appropriate. Wisdom is adaptive, not collective. We don't possess it, we engage in it.

The true source of wisdom is God.

The true source of everything is called God. But what is God? No one knows. God is the transcendent necessity source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. But what does that mean to a mere human? Not much. Until we choose to use the open possibility that this realization allows us (theology and religion). Then this god ideal can become very useful to us.

That short was the answer and you chose your own set of words.
Do you understand what is my critic and why 'your way' probably does not work ?

No, I don't. What exactly are you objecting to?

Is it they that refuse to see it?
Or is it that we just want it to be the way it is the easiest to us?

I am not here to correct anyone's vision. I already know this is impossible, and is not my place.

I am here to share my observations and understanding with others. That's it. And to learn about how others see and think about the themselves and the world, as well.

I think that people discipline themselfs in the way of being slaves and not Masters.

That's wrong, to me at least.

I don't know what that means. We are both, within ourselves.

 

[PureX]

Your example (and your thinking?) doesn't deal with facts, but with perceptions. Fact is that the train whistle blows a C, constantly (under standardized conditions). Everything else is a distortion effected by relative movement. And we are able to filter the distortions by using science and reasoning.
That also applies to other perceptions. When we filter out the distortions, there is only one truth.

You are just choosing one fact set and using it as a bias to discredit the others. That's not a very honest or logical way to perceive the world.

 

[PureX]

But nothing that you wrote makes the case that wisdom has anything at all to say about God -- either God's nature, God's existence, or about the actual nature of reality, if reality is not what we are able to perceive it to be.

Why would you expect that it should?

Nor do you make any case for how "reality," or the existence or non-existence of God, should inform human action.

That would be for another thread. As it's a big and somewhat complex subject.

You do not provide a clear argument for how wisdom specifically addresses questions about God's nature, existence, or the actual nature of reality.

That's because wisdom is not "one right way". Wisdom addresses reality as it presents itself to us. And we are all experiencing it different, just as we are all different people experiencing it.

While you contrast wisdom with knowledge, you don't demonstrate how wisdom offers insights into the existence or non-existence of God, or how it informs our understanding of reality beyond what we can perceive.

I cannot engage in wisdom for you, and then hand it to you. You have to learn to do it for yourself.

The focus on wisdom as being superior to knowledge is more philosophical, but it lacks a concrete explanation of how wisdom can reveal anything definitive about God or reality.

Wisdom as very concrete and 'meta-practical'. But you have to engage in it for yourself, according to your own abilities and your own circumstances. No one else can hand it to you.

And as we've seen from many failed philosophical forays, philosophy that ignores the reality we can perceive can lead one astray.

There is no such thing as a "failed philosophical foray". And more than there are "failed scientific experiments".

Additionally, you don't make a case for how the existence or non-existence of God should influence human action.

Why would I?

You emphasize the importance of wisdom over knowledge, but stop short of explaining how this wisdom would guide ethical behavior, decision-making, or responses to existential questions like the existence of a deity. Your argument seems more focused on critiquing atheist reliance on evidence than providing an alternative framework for addressing these deeper metaphysical issues.

I have explained that wisdom is the continuing honest, creative application of your own intelligence to your own circumstances. Now it's up to you to begin doing this, or not.

 

[blü 2]

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.

God never appears, never says, never does, has no definition appropriate to an objectively real entity, and is only known to exist as a concept, notion, thing imagined in an individual brain.

So if you're arguing that God is a concept / notion / thing imagined in an individual brain, then yes, God exists in that way, though when it comes to details it's a different God in every brain..

But if you're arguing that God exists in external reality ─ the world external to the self, which we know about via our senses ─ then the same answer is appropriate as when someone asserts they have a real pixie, or unicorn, or working wishing well ─ show me.

And you seem to think that's unfair to God. If so, it's equally unfair to pixies, unicorns and functioning wishing wells too.