The Pursuit of Knowledge vs. The Pursuit of Wisdom

[Alien826]

Individual humans use their faith in their own conception of God to be better humans every single day. Billions of them. And it's been going on lie this for eons. These humans never show up in the history books. No one sees them living all around them. But they do. And no one notices when their faith in their God stops them from behaving badly toward someone else. But it happens a billion times a day all across the planet.

And then there are those whose faith in God causes them to strap explosives to their bodies and blow up innocent people. What is the balance across all religious people? I don't know and neither do you.

That doesn't mean religions can't be abused, can't become abusive, and that people have done all kinds of horrible things hiding behind some religious nonsense or other. Or that any of this should be excused. But let's start our with some honesty and wisdom on the subject, and make some basic distinctions between theism and religion, and between religious beliefs and dogmas and the practice of faith is a personal concept of God. and then let's add to this some humility in that we really have no idea for whom and how this persona faith in God has changed them for the better. What we do know is that many billions of us will and have attested to it.

Difficult to determine certainly. And we need to also ask if the good and bad things religious people do are caused by religion or if they choose a particular belief based on their existing proclivities.

It's so easy to proclaim religiosity a failure because humans remain imperfect. But come on, how foolish is THAT! Re we really going to be that stupid and biased? And t replace it with what? With 'scientism'? With the idiotic worship of empirical science as the only pathway to truth??? While we denigrate art and philosophy and religion as useless "un-factual" navel-gazing? Really?

It's a failure only if someone claims that it has had a significant positive effect on the morality of humans. It seems obvious that it hasn't. Maybe the good effect is drowned out by some other bad stuff. Maybe if we did away with all religion the world would crash in ruins. I see no way of deciding it, particularly if we can't rely on evidence.

And yet this is the kind of sentiment I am seeing all over these threads. Every day.

Just sayin'.

Well, nobody's perfect.

 

[blü 2]

I think that's a very lazy, arrogant response. And a very common one among those I mentioned in the OP.

In my respectful submission, if you can't show God has objective existence, is more than a notion (very usually acculturated), then the only thing God can be is purely conceptual / notional / imaginary.

And since on my part that's the result of careful and informed thought across quite a few years about the question, and is offered in response to your post in the debate boards of RF, I see no basis for you to call it either lazy or arrogant.

So I again invite you to address what seems to me to be the actual problem with your argument.

 

[Dimi95]

There is a 3rd alternative: Existence has a finite past and didn't come out of anything (including nothingness). It is rather uncaused, for it makes no sense to talk about anything preceding existence.

If existence has a finite past then you cannot include nothingness there.
That's not what the Big Bang theory is saying..
When we study the Big Bang we see Light which was emitted during recombination about 400,000 years after the big bang. At that time, it was emitted from basically all directions and locations in space.
We can see the "echo" by a phenomena known as tbe cosmic microwave backround
Light has to come from somewere,or?

 

[Koldo]

If existence has a finite past then you cannot include nothingness there.
That's not what the Big Bang theory is saying..

What specifically?

When we study the Big Bang we see Light which was emitted during recombination about 400,000 years after the big bang. At that time, it was emitted from basically all directions and locations in space.
We can see the "echo" by a phenomena known as tbe cosmic microwave backround
Light has to come from somewere,or?

What does this have to do with my former post?

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

And yet, logically, existence needs a transcendent source.

Logic clearly does not apply here. There is insufficient data with which to make such an inference or deduction.

The statement also begs for some sort of definition of whatever you might mean by "transcendent".

You seem to vigorously point out that we are not omnicient and do not have a complete understanding of the Cosmos when it suits you, yet at other times you seem to make difinitive statements about things that are clearly out of our capacity to perceive. That's my cursory observation anyway.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

I specifically recommend that we stop lying to ourselves about 'facts = knowledge = truth'. We do not possess the truth of what is, and we never will.

I specifically recommend that we stop seeking to forcibly control the circumstances of our lives and the world around us and instead try responding to them as opportunities to practice the art of wisdom (as opposed to control).

I specifically recommend that we stop obsessing about proving our 'correctness' and instead look for how we can enable the cause of our collective well-being, understanding that none of us are "correct" or "incorrect" by any measure of truth that we possess. And with the idea in mind that our well-being and our collective ("we's") well-being is one and the same well-being.

Hmmmm. I do not see any of that as really actionable or capable of being codified into some moral framework (i.e. legislation) in terms of addressing your list of political and economic grievences. For example, I see no specifics on how we should temper or regulate our capitalistic market system in ways that will mitigate what you see as problems, yet not ruin the economy altogether.

Theism works for billions of people because it is based on faith (not solely on facts or knowledge, or even on presumptions of truth). Atheists do not understand this at all. Because their understanding of everything is almost entirely based on the axiom that facts (evidence) = knowledge = truth (true reality). Everything else is dismissed out of hand as "woo". Faith does not factor into any of this. And neither does wisdom. Which is why so many of them have succumbed to the cult-like insanity of 'scientism'.

Wow, don't get me started on faith. That is my most disliked word. It is the currency of charlatans.

As to "woo", I get that "woo" works for some (many?) in addressing some psychological needs. I question whether only "woo" will work, or if we can accomplish the same results in a way that doesn't require "woo".

 

[PureX]

I agree that it is not logically possible for existence to come out of nothingness.

There is a 3rd alternative: Existence has a finite past and didn't come out of anything (including nothingness). It is rather uncaused, for it makes no sense to talk about anything preceding existence.

That is both an argument from ignorance and a something from nothing claim.

It is logically impossible for something to cause existence for it would need to exist before existence.

Thus, the need for a transcendent source. Meaning transcendent of the limitations of both existence, and of nothingness, as we experience and conceive of these. Like it or not, "God did it" is the only logical possibility.

 

[Koldo]

That is both an argument from ignorance and a something from nothing claim.

Not at all. Since nothingness didn't exist before existence, it is not something from nothing. Also not an argument from ignorance, it is simply the only viable alternartive.

Thus, the need for a transcendent source. Meaning transcendent of the limitations of both existence, and of nothingness, as we experience and conceive of these. Like it or not, "God did it" is the only logical possibility.

There can be no such thing as a transcendent source that transcends existence itself. Let me put it this way: What does it even mean in practice to say anything at all transcends existence? It equals saying it neither exists nor doesn't exist. It is a meaningless statement.

 

[PureX]

Knowledge is what we know. Is it always correct? No, but the word implies that the person "knowing" has a strong belief that the knowledge is correct.

All facts are correct, that's what the word means. If you have more facts (about the same thing) then you know more about it.

They are only correct relative to other sets of fact. And yet they are not correct relative to other different fact sets. Facts are only bits of relative truthfulness.We assemble them into sets until we feel we have enough to generate an idea of reality. But that idea is only true relative to the relative truthfulness of the fact set we used to create it. But relative truthfulness is not truth because the truth is a singular absolute (the truth is what is and there is nothing else). So all the facts we can muster still cannot give us the real truth.

I would say that knowledge is neutral morally. Actions are good or bad and they can flow from knowledge. To test this, imagine someone who is completely paralyzed, unable to take any action. He can however know things. His knowledge does nothing so can't be said to be good or bad.

Good and bad are value assessments based on whatever criteria we choose to apply and whatever results we choose to apply them to. Wisdom, or the lack of it, occurs via how and why we make these choices.

It is tempting to think that for example, if the Einstein had not come up with the idea that matter can be transformed into energy, we would not have atomic weapons. But we wouldn't have nuclear power stations either. I've been trying to think of an example of knowledge that didn't have both good and bad actions resulting from its being known. I've had no luck so far. Can you?

Wisdom occurs, or does not occur, when we are choosing to apply our presumed knowledge of reality to our actual experience of reality.

Incidentally, how would you decide if a particular line of pure research (that's discovering knowledge, not technology which is using it) will result in knowledge that will cause bad actions, and then avoid it?

That is the question we ask when we seek wisdom instead of knowledge-as-control.

Agreed, but I'm thinking of people in general, not just atheists.

Atheists (the scientism cultists in particular) are just the glaring example. There are plenty of theists unwisely trying to use the god-ideal as a means of forced control.

 

[PureX]

There can be no such thing as a transcendent source that transcends existence itself

Well, I guess if you say so, it must be so, huh.

Let me put it this way: What does it even mean in practice to say anything at all transcends existence? It equals saying it neither exists nor doesn't exist. It is a meaningless statement.

Which IS an argument from human ignorance. But what we can't know does not determine what must not be so. Logically, a source is required to make something possible from the abject impossibility of nothingness. And that source would have to be transcendent of both the something (existence) and the nothing (eternity not withstanding).

You are trying to claim that this cannot happen because we cannot comprehend the nature of that transcendent source. But our ignorance does not determine it's possibility. Especially when even our own logic necessitates it.

 

[Koldo]

Well, I guess if you say so, it must be so, huh.

Which IS an argument from human ignorance. But what we can't know does not determine what must not be so. Logically, a source is required to make something possible from the abject impossibility of nothingness. And that source would have to be transcendent of both the something (existence) and the nothing (eternity not withstanding).

You are trying to claim that this cannot happen because we cannot comprehend the nature of that transcendent source. But our ignorance does not determine it's possibility. Especially when even our own logic necessitates it.

First of all, you are presuming that something came out of nothing when you say that ( "[...]to make something possible from the abject impossibility of nothingness")
which is not what I am proposing. Existence didn't come out from (the abject impossibility of) nothingness. Existence didn't come out from anywhere, including nothingness.

Second, the issue is not that we can not comprehend the nature of a transcendent source, it is rather that this kind of transcendence is nonsensical.

 

[PureX]

First of all, you are presuming that something came out of nothing when you say that ( "[...]to make something possible from the abject impossibility of nothingness")
which is not what I am proposing. Existence didn't come out from (the abject impossibility of) nothingness. Existence didn't come out from anywhere, including nothingness.

"Existence" is the term we use to refer to 'something, not nothing'. To 'be' requires content.

Second, the issue is not that we can not comprehend the nature of a transcendent source, it is rather that this kind of transcendence is nonsensical.

It is "nonsensical" to you because you cannot comprehend it. None of us can. Yet, logically, it is required for existence to exist.

 

[Koldo]

"Existence" is the term we use to refer to 'something, not nothing'. To 'be' requires content.

Exactly. Therefore... ?

It is "nonsensical" to you because you cannot comprehend it. None of us can. Yet, logically, it is required for existence to exist.

It is not that we can not comprehend it. Let me put it this way: Consider there is an object Z that has the property A but not property B. It is of object's Z essence to have property A and not to have property B. Consider also that property B is identical to property A in every single manner. Is the concept of such an object nonsensical just because we can't comprehend it? Or is it nonsensical because it truly is nonsensical?

Further than that, I have already presented a completely viable alternative: Existence didn't come out of anywhere.

 

[PureX]

Exactly. Therefore... ?

Something was possible ... how? That is the fundamental existential question.

How was/is something possible? The perfect eternal ideal is nothing. Nothing does not logically need to be possible.

It is not that we can not comprehend it. Let me put it this way: Consider there is an object Z that has the property A but not property B. It is of object's Z essence to have property A and not to have property B. Consider also that property B is identical to property A in every single manner. Is the concept of such an object nonsensical just because we can't comprehend it? Or is it nonsensical because it truly is nonsensical?

Again, just because you cannot comprehend the nature of a transcendent existential source does not mean there cannot be one. Especially when our own logic tells us that they must be one.

Further than that, I have already presented a completely viable alternative: Existence didn't come out of anywhere.

That's an irrelevant statement based on the concept of place. Not source. It has nothing to do with the question being addressed.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

Thus, the need for a transcendent source. Meaning transcendent of the limitations of both existence, and of nothingness, as we experience and conceive of these. Like it or not, "God did it" is the only logical possibility.

Where'd the "transcendent source" come from, come into being?

 

[PureX]

Where'd the "transcendent source" come from, come into being?

The transcendent source would transcend this need. Asking this question is redundant.

 

[Koldo]

Something was possible ... how? That is the fundamental existential question.

How was/is something possible? The perfect eternal ideal is nothing. Nothing does not logically need to be possible.

It is not that something was possible. It is rather that something has existed since the beginning. There was never a moment where something didn't exist.

Again, just because you cannot comprehend the nature of a transcendent existential source does not mean there cannot be one. Especially when our own logic tells us that they must be one.

Let's dive deeper. If you want to say that something trancendes existence, you must first understand and delineate what is that which is being transcended. What does it mean to say that something exists?

That's an irrelevant statement based on the concept of place. Not source. It has nothing to do with the question being addressed.

Potato, patato.
Existence didn't come out of anywhere, anything, etc. Existence didn't come out from... [add any word here].

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

The transcendent source would transcend this need. Asking this question is redundant.

How convenient. Curious as to how you can be so confident in your assessment.

ETA: If you say logic, I'm gonna laugh out loud.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

It is not that something was possible. It is rather that something has existed since the beginning. There was never a moment where something didn't exist.

Existence didn't come out of anywhere, anything, etc. Existence didn't come out from... [add any word here].

I curious as to what informs your confident assessment as to the nature and source of existence.

 

[PureX]

How convenient. Curious as to how you can be so confident in your assessment.

ETA: If you say logic, I'm gonna laugh out loud.

There is no other logical explanation.

"It just happened" is not logical.

"It always was" is not evident.

Yet it is evident that something is happening, ... so how is it possible?

What is the source of what is possible and what is not possible?