The Pursuit of Knowledge vs. The Pursuit of Wisdom

[PureX]

Again, I would disagree. Understanding how reality works *is* revealing and giving us answers.

But not to the question that we asked.

It is also allowing us to make a better distinction between the question of why anything exists at all and why Homo sapiens exist specifically.

It can? How? How has understanding some of the mechanisms of expressed possibility enlightened us about the source, sustenance, or purpose of this existential possibility? What have we learned about it?

Although the answer to why is there reality at all may never be answered, it would be untrue to say that increasing our understanding of reality does not get us closer to solving the question.

By what reasoning are you making this claim? Because I see no connection between knowing how the parts function together and knowing why they exist at all, or why they function together, or why this and not something else.

In other words, we definitely will never answer the question by remaining in complete ignorance.

Again you presume that knowledge = truth. That some knowledge = some truth. And that more knowledge = more truth. But without knowing why anything exists, including ourselves, all knowing how it functions gains us is the ability to manipulate and control some of the mechanisms.

Knowledge without wisdom. And this is a very dangerous path.

Sure, obviously.

This unsupportable opinion assumes facts not in evidence. To be fulfilled implies intent.

Yes, the fulfillment of existential possibility does imply that this was the intent of the source of the possibility. I agree. It's a big reason why we humans ponder the question of the source of this possibility/impossibility so intently. Even as it remains aloof. We recognize the implication of intention within it, and so presume to be behind it, as well. .

and a lot more assumptions not in evidence.

Everything is evidence. If that does not satisfy your demand for evidence, nothing ever will, so you may as well stop demanding it ... right?

Given what we do know, I would argue there is a strong case to be made for there being no purpose to it all.

I've been down that road many times with people, and there is no case for that at all. Not really. Not once we accept that what we think we know is all just about the mechanics, and that actually supports the contention of specific intent, rather than negating it. But a lot of folks get so caught up in defending against ANY HINT of deity that they lose the ability to think reasonably.

It's also very difficult for most of these folks to grasp the idea that intent does not automatically require a conscious determination. Like, the course of a river being 'specifically designed' by the 'intent' of the water to seek the center of the gravity field it exists within. The intent is evident. Conscious determination is not. Just as existential intent is evident by the fulfillment of that possibility, while conscious determine is not. This doesn't negate conscious determination. It just means it is not evident. But the atheists smell the possibility of deity, here, and start jumping out of their skins trying to negate it by any means they can muster. Usually nonsensical. And all unnecessary.

 

[Alien826]

I will simply point out a few observations in response to your comments.

One is that all facts are determined to be true or untrue relative to other related facts that are determined to be true or untrue relative to other related … you get the picture. And all facts and fact sets are subject to change. Meaning that the truth of any fact is then subject by reason of that change to becoming un-factual. You have suggested that by increasing the scope of the fact set, the changes can be explained so that the facts can somehow remain true. But that's really just changing the facts to make them factual, again, and therefor does not mitigate my original point. Because they are now different facts.

Not quite. Change does not make a fact "un-factual" necessarily if the fact is clearly enough defined. To stick to your car parking example, the fact the your car was parked in a particular place at a particular time, if it was ever true, remains true eternally. It is in the past, it can't change. Agreed that as time goes by the car moves out of the parking lot and that can be described by a series of facts, each clearly defined, and each equally remaining true (the car was at this point in space at this time). As you say they are different facts. that's the point. A fact can't change, though it can be shown to be inaccurate with the introduction of further evidence (sorry!), in which case it ceases to be a fact.

I don't think that covers the entire subject of factuality, but I'll let you expand it if you wish.

Secondly, you seem to have implied that reality is defined by and limited to physicality. And this is not so. Reality is defined by what is possible and what is not. Which is why we humans will never know the truth of what is real and what is not because we simply do not know what is existentially possible and what isn’t. All we can surmise is that reality (existence) is the fulfillment of what is possible, against the non-existing nothingness of what is not possible. And the facts are just an ocean of ever-changing bits of fulfilled possibility; recognized by us or not, and true or untrue by way of our applied context.

Another point I have to disagree with. Though possibility limits the set of "all existing things", it by no means defines it. It is perfectly possible to describe something that is possible but doesn't exist. For example, Mount Everest is around 29000 feet high. It is perfectly possible for a mountain on Earth to be higher than that, but such a mountain doesn't exist. You seem to be assuming that if something is possible it must exist, which requires an operator that needs to be established.

Agreed that we don't know enough to define all possibilities, and we don't have the ability to explore the whole universe to discover everything that exists. That said, the realm of physicality gives us plenty to be going on with. And, sorry to raise evidence again, if there is something that cannot be described as physical, we need some reason to look into it and that implies some kind of evidence. Unlike some I don't claim that our current concept of what is physical covers all possibilities, though I do have feeling (no more) that if discovered it will turn out to be something physical that we have not previously detected or understood. At one time radio waves would have been considered to be supernatural.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

By what reasoning are you making this claim? Because I see no connection between knowing how the parts function together and knowing why they exist at all, or why they function together, or why this and not something else.

When Homo sapiens first began to ponder these questions, they were completely ignorant about all of it. Our question of how did reality come into being or did it always exist, for them including absolutely everything: How did mountains come to be, what is wind, how did plants and animals come to be, why are there volcanos, etc. We have gotten a good handle on a lot of that. We are no longer in a state of such utter ignorance regarding reality.

So, we know why rivers exist, why stars exist, what constitutes the earth and its relationship to other heavenly bodies. We know why Homo sapiens exist and that they (we) have not been the only human species on earth. We don't know exactly how life on this planet began, but given its appearance late in the timeline of what we can surmise as the age of the Cosmos and to the long period to which it remained quite simplistic in form, it is reasonable to conclude that life's beginning was purely serindipitous, i.e. the evidence points strongly in this direction as opposed to some other cause.

So we have been able to answer a whole lot of our earliest ancestors why's, with each solved why leading to the resolution of other why's. This is the reasoning behind my claim.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

Knowledge without wisdom. And this is a very dangerous path.

And it is my contention that it is ignorance that is dangerous.

 

[PureX]

Not quite. Change does not make a fact "un-factual" necessarily if the fact is clearly enough defined.

My car is in the lot, or it isn't. That is a pretty clearly defined fact that is either factually correct, or it isn't.

To stick to your car parking example, the fact the your car was parked in a particular place at a particular time, if it was ever true, remains true eternally.

But you are no longer presenting any facts, you are presenting a history of past factuality. Histories are neither true nor false because they are not real. They are fictional representations of what we think was once real. Factuality (factual correctness) is always present tense because the present is constantly changing.

It is in the past, it can't change.

It is not real. That's why it doesn't change. It's become a story about what we once believed to be real.

Agreed that as time goes by the car moves out of the parking lot and that can be described by a series of facts, each clearly defined, and each equally remaining true (the car was at this point in space at this time). As you say they are different facts. that's the point. A fact can't change, though it can be shown to be inaccurate with the introduction of further evidence (sorry!), in which case it ceases to be a fact.

As the car moves, and as time passes, and as all things are constantly changing, the whirlwind of perceived factoids related to any given happenstance are also always changing. And when they change, the factoids change from being correct to being incorrect, and/or vise versa. Reality is constant flux. Which is why the truth is not a static summation that we can attain. It is a dynamic event that's always passing away just as we reach it.

I don't think that covers the entire subject of factuality, but I'll let you expand it if you wish.

Another point I have to disagree with. Though possibility limits the set of "all existing things", it by no means defines it. It is perfectly possible to describe something that is possible but doesn't exist. For example, Mount Everest is around 29000 feet high. It is perfectly possible for a mountain on Earth to be higher than that, but such a mountain doesn't exist.

If it doesn't exist, it was not possible.

Whatever forces stopped Everest from being higher than it currently is, made it impossible for Everest to be higher than it is. This is logically self-evident. You say it could have been higher, but that is not logically self-evident.

You seem to be assuming that if something is possible it must exist, which requires an operator that needs to be established.

Water seeks the center of the gravity field within which it exists. When it encounters resistance to this quest, it tries to flow around it, and/or to wash the resistance out of it's way. And in it's attempting to fulfill this intent, it becomes a river. The water's intent, and it's reaction to resistance, when fulfilled, "designed" the course of the river that results.

We have intent. We have design. We have the specific fulfillment of both as the result. But do we have a conscious (intelligent) designer? One may be implied, but one is not self-evident. So the answer is ... suspected by many, but unknown to all.

Agreed that we don't know enough to define all possibilities, and we don't have the ability to explore the whole universe to discover everything that exists. That said, the realm of physicality gives us plenty to be going on with. And, sorry to raise evidence again, if there is something that cannot be described as physical, we need some reason to look into it and that implies some kind of evidence.

When we unpack this need for "evidence", what we usually find is a want of knowledge. We want some way to KNOW that "X" is a correct or incorrect view of reality. But the sad fact is that we humans are never going to be able to KNOW this, because that knowledge would require omniscience, and we just do not possess that. And we never will possess it so long as we remain human.

If we are willing to accept this limitation (many are not), then the next thing we are seeking from this need for "evidence" is to establishment probability. If we can't KNOW that "X" is correct, then we want to try and establish the relative probability of "X" being correct. And this is all well and good within the limited framework of the "X" question. But this isn't really knowing the truth of anything. It's just trying to guess wisely.

Unlike some I don't claim that our current concept of what is physical covers all possibilities, though I do have feeling (no more) that if discovered it will turn out to be something physical that we have not previously detected or understood. At one time radio waves would have been considered to be supernatural.

It 'could be' anything we can imagine, or something unimaginable. And it is this aspect of the 'great existential mystery' that I find most fascinating. And most useful to humanity.

 

[PureX]

When Homo sapiens first began to ponder these questions, they were completely ignorant about all of it. Our question of how did reality come into being or did it always exist, for them including absolutely everything: How did mountains come to be, what is wind, how did plants and animals come to be, why are there volcanos, etc. We have gotten a good handle on a lot of that. We are no longer in a state of such utter ignorance regarding reality.

So, we know why rivers exist, why stars exist, what constitutes the earth and its relationship to other heavenly bodies. We know why Homo sapiens exist and that they (we) have not been the only human species on earth. We don't know exactly how life on this planet began, but given its appearance late in the timeline of what we can surmise as the age of the Cosmos and to the long period to which it remained quite simplistic in form, it is reasonable to conclude that life's beginning was purely serindipitous, i.e. the evidence points strongly in this direction as opposed to some other cause.

So we have been able to answer a whole lot of our earliest ancestors why's, with each solved why leading to the resolution of other why's. This is the reasoning behind my claim.

Yes, but none of those answers answered the real question being asked. What is the source, sustenance, and purpose of it all? Why anything? Why this and not something else? Why am I a part of this?

Because all those answers you're referring to tell us about are the mechanisms of the possibility fulfillment. Not the source. Nor the purpose. Nor our place within it.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

Yes, but none of those answers answered the real question being asked. What is the source, sustenance, and purpose of it all? Why anything? Why this and not something else? Why am I a part of this?

It seems now we disagree on the main question. I would state it simply as, "Why does reality exist?", which correspond to your question "Why anything?"

The multi-part question, "What is the source, sustenance, and purpose of it all?", leans into a biased assumption that there is to be a "source" to be identified, that reality requires an external "sustenance" (whatever you imagine that entails), and that it is all for a "purpose" which is to be identified or discovered. Here you are building your expectations or wants into the question. You are leading the witness, as it where.

Because all those answers you're referring to tell us about are the mechanisms of the possibility fulfillment. Not the source. Nor the purpose. Nor our place within it.

Again, I think we are in agreement, or seem to have been, that the answer to why reality exists is beyond our capacity to know, and I would add, meaningfully speculate on.

Given that agreement, we can't even speak about the applicability of the concept of source nor to any purpose.

As to Homo sapiens place within reality, I think that is more than clear. We are one of many species of life on a rock orbiting a midling sun in a galaxy etc. etc. We, like all life, have set of instinctual, pre-programed behaviors which we, greater than other species, have the capacity to override. We also uniquely have the capcity to use abstractions to think, remember, and communicate with our fellows in a manner well beyond that of other species on our great rock we call Earth. These and other capacities afford us the opportunity to be self-directed and generate our own purpose and goals, no longer simply reactive organisms solely at the mercy of the particular environment and conditions we find ourselves in. And so on, and so on.

 

[blü 2]

I don't know what question you are referring to.

The question of the manner in which any supernatural being exists, of course.

Either God is real and so can be found in reality, the world external to the self which we know about through our senses, or God exists only as a concept, notion, thing imagined, in an individual brain.

If God is real, you need to demonstrate [his] reality ─ photos, videos, a TV interview, whatever. In the absence of such a demonstration, God can only be notional, a thing imagined in an individual brain.

 

[PureX]

It seems now we disagree on the main question. I would state it simply as, "Why does reality exist?", which correspond to your question "Why anything?"

The multi-part question, "What is the source, sustenance, and purpose of it all?", leans into a biased assumption that there is to be a "source" to be identified, that reality requires an external "sustenance" (whatever you imagine that entails), and that it is all for a "purpose" which is to be identified or discovered. Here you are building your expectations or wants into the question. You are leading the witness, as it where.

The logic of all we know and experience of existence leads to ask these questions in this way. Unfortunately, the 'substance' of the answers lay beyond any version of (meta-)existence that we can know or even imagine. So we have no access to the answers, whatever they might be.

But to help clarify, the "source" part of the question is related to the source of the possibility of something ... 'being' ... when nothingness is the perfect eternal state (non-being). The 'sustenance' part of the question is being derived from the fact that being (existing) requires consistent effort, whereas 'nothingness' (non-being) requires nothing at all. And the 'purpose' part of the question is related to the obvious inference of intent being exhibited by the very complex and integrated 'design' manifesting from a specific mixture of possibility and impossibility.

Again, I think we are in agreement, or seem to have been, that the answer to why reality exists is beyond our capacity to know, and I would add, meaningfully speculate on.

Actually, I think the freedom of speculation that we are being afforded by the fact that we cannot know the answers to this amazing existential mystery is the greatest gift existence has ever given to mankind. Because it is through our speculations in this regard, and our active responses to the many valid possibilities that we can invest, that we define ourselves as individual examples of 'being'. What an amazing gift that is, ... to get to create ourselves by imaging whichever solution to this great existential mystery we would most hope to be so, and then living our lives accordingly.

Given that agreement, we can't even speak about the applicability of the concept of source nor to any purpose.

Of course we can. I just did. It's what theology, religion, art, and even some aspects of the sciences are mostly about.

As to Homo sapiens place within reality, I think that is more than clear.

Once we accept that, logically, the result is likely the purpose, I would submit that our purpose is the ask ourselves these unanswerable questions, and to ponder the many possible solutions that our imagination can conjure up, and experiment on them within the experience of living our lives.

We are one of many species of life on a rock orbiting a midling sun in a galaxy etc. etc.

We are the only ones asking why, and how, and what for.

We, like all life, have set of instinctual, pre-programed behaviors which we, greater than other species, have the capacity to override. We also uniquely have the capcity to use abstractions to think, remember, and communicate with our fellows in a manner well beyond that of other species on our great rock we call Earth. These and other capacities afford us the opportunity to be self-directed and generate our own purpose and goals, no longer simply reactive organisms solely at the mercy of the particular environment and conditions we find ourselves in. And so on, and so on.

Yes. And this is why I find it incredibly sad that so many of us think all these amazing human traits are good for is gaining control over our environment so we can continue to behave like dumb animals.

 

[PureX]

The question of the manner in which any supernatural being exists, of course.

What makes you think and natural being could answer that question?

Either God is real and so can be found in reality, the world external to the self which we know about through our senses, or God exists only as a concept, notion, thing imagined, in an individual brain.

Or God is a word we humans use to refer to an unknowable (to us) meta-reality that is the source, sustenance, and purpose of this reality and existence.

If God is real, you need to demonstrate [his] reality ─ photos, videos, a TV interview, whatever. In the absence of such a demonstration, God can only be notional, a thing imagined in an individual brain.

Reality is not your own personal 'kangaroo courtroom' where you get to demand evidence and decide proof and pass judgment.

 

[blü 2]

What makes you think and natural being could answer that question?

The same thinking that tells me Spiderman and Mickey Mouse aren't real.

Or God is a word we humans use to refer to an unknowable (to us) meta-reality that is the source, sustenance, and purpose of this reality and existence.

Named Spiderman? Or named Mickey Mouse?

Reality is not your own personal 'kangaroo courtroom' where you get to demand evidence and decide proof and pass judgment.

Yes, unfortunately for your argument, it is. When you say or suggest 'supernatural being', I continue to reply 'If you assert that this being exists independently of anyone's concept of it, show it to me ─ photo, video, interview, best of all bring it into the lab.'

Until then its status remains in the category "imaginary", like Mickey and Spidey.

 

[PureX]

The same thinking that tells me Spiderman and Mickey Mouse aren't real.

Named Spiderman? Or named Mickey Mouse?

Yes, unfortunately for your argument, it is. When you say or suggest 'supernatural being', I continue to reply 'If you assert that this being exists independently of anyone's concept of it, show it to me ─ photo, video, interview, best of all bring it into the lab.'

Until then its status remains in the category "imaginary", like Mickey and Spidey.

There, you slung your insults. I hope you feel better about yourself, now.

 

[Alien826]

My car is in the lot, or it isn't. That is a pretty clearly defined fact that is either factually correct, or it isn't.

It's not clearly defined at all, as you are omitting the time factor.

But you are no longer presenting any facts, you are presenting a history of past factuality. Histories are neither true nor false because they are not real. They are fictional representations of what we think was once real. Factuality (factual correctness) is always present tense because the present is constantly changing.

It is not real. That's why it doesn't change. It's become a story about what we once believed to be real.

Don't confuse "History", like a dusty old book on a shelf, with the past. The past begins one split second (or whatever) ago. Agreed that it becomes more difficult to establish the accuracy of an event the further into the past it occurs, not least because whatever evidence there was might not have been preserved, or preserved accurately. Reversing that it suggests that the shorter the time that has elapsed, the more likely is is that our "history" is correct. Also, I'm not talking about whatever the records of an event might be, but the possibility of accuracy.

As the car moves, and as time passes, and as all things are constantly changing, the whirlwind of perceived factoids related to any given happenstance are also always changing. And when they change, the factoids change from being correct to being incorrect, and/or vise versa. Reality is constant flux. Which is why the truth is not a static summation that we can attain. It is a dynamic event that's always passing away just as we reach it.

Yes, it becomes more difficult to attain accuracy the more precision we demand. Where the car is, however, does not require much precision. "In the parking lot" is pretty imprecise, exactly where in the lot? But you are not asking that. Whether it is in the lot or not is fairly easy to establish.

If it doesn't exist, it was not possible.

Whatever forces stopped Everest from being higher than it currently is, made it impossible for Everest to be higher than it is. This is logically self-evident. You say it could have been higher, but that is not logically self-evident.

Not Mt Everest, but A mountain. You are saying that, given all the factors involved in the formation of Everest (anything really) it has to be exactly what it is. Of course that's true. What I am saying is that, given the constraints on mountains that exist on Earth, there is nothing that makes a mountain higher than Everest impossible. It's easy to demonstrate. I could take some rocks and put them on the top of Everest (let's say a small hill to make my task easier) and it would be higher than it was. Thus, something doesn't have to exist to be possible.

Water seeks the center of the gravity field within which it exists. When it encounters resistance to this quest, it tries to flow around it, and/or to wash the resistance out of it's way. And in it's attempting to fulfill this intent, it becomes a river. The water's intent, and it's reaction to resistance, when fulfilled, "designed" the course of the river that results.

We have intent. We have design. We have the specific fulfillment of both as the result. But do we have a conscious (intelligent) designer? One may be implied, but one is not self-evident. So the answer is ... suspected by many, but unknown to all.

You are using words (bolded) that imply conscious intention to a purely mechanical process that has no consciousness (though you suggest otherwise by putting quotes around "designed"). You then state that we (humans) have intent and so on. Correct. There is no connection between the two things. Your last paragraph says that people tend to make a particular assumption that is not self-evident. Again correct. I don't see what you intended to convey by this.

When we unpack this need for "evidence", what we usually find is a want of knowledge. We want some way to KNOW that "X" is a correct or incorrect view of reality. But the sad fact is that we humans are never going to be able to KNOW this, because that knowledge would require omniscience, and we just do not possess that. And we never will possess it so long as we remain human.

You're using "know" to mean "know absolutely". And indeed that is probably impossible. To return to the OP, I very much doubt that many atheists do demand that degree of certainty, at least I don't.

If we are willing to accept this limitation (many are not), then the next thing we are seeking from this need for "evidence" is to establishment probability. If we can't KNOW that "X" is correct, then we want to try and establish the relative probability of "X" being correct. And this is all well and good within the limited framework of the "X" question. But this isn't really knowing the truth of anything. It's just trying to guess wisely.

Yes, I agree. The reality is that we all use probabilities in our every day life. And once the probability reaches a high enough level. we start to use language that suggests that we are certain. It's hard work to keep saying "it seems very likely" in front of every statement. That doesn't mean we should consider that all knowledge is probably wrong and act accordingly. 95% certainty is good enough most of the time. I'll take an umbrella on that probability of rain.

It's not really guessing though. That suggests a much lower level of probability. It's using probability to select a best course of action.

It 'could be' anything we can imagine, or something unimaginable. And it is this aspect of the 'great existential mystery' that I find most fascinating. And most useful to humanity.

Yes to fascinating. Useful to humanity, I'm less convinced of.

 

[blü 2]

There, you slung your insults. I hope you feel better about yourself, now.

They're not insults.

They're statements of the problem you're continually not addressing.

There is no substantial difference between the manner in which God exists and the manner in which any character in fiction, including Mickey Mouse, exists ─ namely as a concept, notion, thing imagined in an individual brain, with no real referent.

 

[Dimi95]

What specifically?

Well,mathematically you just put the '1' there and said existence had a finite past.
How do you know that?
Do you think that's a reasonable alternative?
It does not solve the problem of causality..

I would also ask you to define 'uncaused' if that is not a problem , so i can explain it better.

At one extreme we have 'perfect certainty' where 'A always and only causes B',in which case, there is no time.

At the other extreme, we have perfect uncertainty, where there is time, but we can't say if 'A causes B'.

This is the problem with causality.

You have to have A to have B.
It usually means that there was some process, governed by a set of rules, that links A to B.
And that A happened before B.
What makes sense to me is that A was uncaused or A means 'eternal existence'.
What does eternal existence mean and further questions is a really delicate matter of discussion.
To prove eternal existence is very hard thing to do , even the greatest minds in human History could not menage it.

If i can narrow it to questions of simple nature then usually we start with 'What?' and then we cotinue with 'Where?'.
The third question varries , people usually think that means 'Who?' , but i think that the third is 'Because?'.

Reason , i need a good reason so i can be able to ask that 'Who?'.Because to ask that 'Who' means to narrow it to a person.

I think that some Theists have much in common with some Atheists in that matter,each side has some x reason 'to believe in', or 'not to believe in'.

What does this have to do with my former post?

Well it does , because you mentioned something about alternative..
This alternative with 'finite past' does not seem so logical to me.

 

[Madsaac]

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.

Yes, maybe what you say has some truth.

Couple of things though, I find the hypocrisy a little annoying. Lots of 'believers' go against some of my social beliefs (Which I think Jesus would have agreed with), so if you believe in god and have 'crappy' social beliefs, then you need to be questioned. So it has some practical reasoning behind it.

Another thing is, I know there are theist with more knowledge then myself and hopefully they can teach me some things about truth.

 

[PureX]

Yes, maybe what you say has some truth.

Couple of things though, I find the hypocrisy a little annoying. Lots of 'believers' go against some of my social beliefs (Which I think Jesus would have agreed with), so if you believe in god and have 'crappy' social beliefs, then you need to be questioned. So it has some practical reasoning behind it.

People disagree about social values and systems. People also disagree on how they understand any given religious, political, economic, and/or social ideology. They aren't right or wrong. It's just how they see reality given their experiences of life.

Another thing is, I know there are theist with more knowledge then myself and hopefully they can teach me some things about truth.

Theism is not about 'knowledge'. It's about faith. This is something that some religions and religious professors forget, or have not yet learned. And it's something that atheists flat our reject, and even resent. They want to KNOW, not 'trust in'.

 

[wellwisher]

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.

One easy analogy, to help see the difference between knowledge and wisdom is knowledge is like a teacher, while wisdom is like an applied scientist. The teacher knows dates and facts and can use that data base to instill knowledge in others. The applied scientist can also rattle off facts, but often some of these facts are known only to them, as they develop their projects. Their knowledge only reaches the masses in the future. Wisdom is an applied form of knowledge, that may reach new conclusions, not yet carved into stone; mainstream.

When the iPhone was conceived and developed, that knowledge was proprietary, as well as incomplete. It was knowledge kept concealed for business reasons. It was based on a vision of the future; predictive goal, but it still needed the path to the future; tangible solution, until it could become common knowledge. Those who only know knowledge; that which already is, may not see the future, and may even try to inhibit the future, since that is not knowledge, as they know it. Once it appears from the void, then it can be added to their knowledge base.

Wisdom is better than knowledge, but that path is harder to walk, since you need to lead the future, and often you can get too far ahead and may have to walk alone. But still that can be helpful, by blazing a new trail, that others seeking the future, can follow. Their new knowledge is then provided to the masses, and to the teachers, who store it as cultural capacitance, to feed the future.

 

[PureX]

One easy analogy, to help see the difference between knowledge and wisdom is knowledge is like a teacher, while wisdom is like an applied scientist. The teacher knows dates and facts and can use that data base to instill knowledge in others. The applied scientist can also rattle off facts, but often some of these facts are known only to them, as they develop their projects. Their knowledge only reaches the masses in the future. Wisdom is an applied form of knowledge, that may reach new conclusions, not yet carved into stone; mainstream.

I agree. My simplest analogy is that knowledge tells us how to do things. But wisdom tells us if and when to do them.

Which is why it worries me when I encounter so many people that seem to almost worship the accumulation of knowledge while ignoring and belittling those human endeavors that seek the wisdom of if and when to apply it.

When the iPhone was conceived and developed, that knowledge was proprietary, as well as incomplete. It was knowledge kept concealed for business reasons. It was based on a vision of the future; predictive goal, but it still needed the path to the future; tangible solution, until it could become common knowledge. Those who only know knowledge; that which already is, may not see the future, and may even try to inhibit the future, since that is not knowledge, as they know it. Once it appears from the void, then it can be added to their knowledge base.

This is a good example of the failure of applied knowledge without wisdom. Our first thought when new knowledge is acquired is "how can I use this to my own maximum advantage?" But is this really the wisest line of reasoning? Is the exploitation of knowledge for one's own benefit really the best course of action to choose? We ask these question from a place of wisdom. But without wisdom, we simply don't ask. We just automatically behave like a dumb animal that found a meaty bone.

Wisdom is better than knowledge, but that path is harder to walk, since you need to lead the future, and often you can get too far ahead and may have to walk alone. But still that can be helpful, by blazing a new trail, that others seeking the future, can follow. Their new knowledge is then provided to the masses, and to the teachers, who store it as cultural capacitance, to feed the future.

Knowledge is easily transferable, while wisdom is not. Religion, philosophy, and art try to transfer wisdom from generation to generation. But the immediate gratification of selfishly applied knowledge is a very tempting deceit. One that humanity has not yet come to grips with. Even as we are running out of time.

 

[PearlSeeker]

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.

Not knowing (being agnostic about something) is not the same as rejecting.

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.

Opinion can be based on something or it can be baseless. I don't see any wisdom in accepting a baseless opinion.

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

Wisdom IS knowledge - a special kind of knowledge. It includes intuition.

Intuition is a form of knowledge that appears in consciousness without obvious deliberation. It is not magical but rather a faculty in which hunches are generated by the unconscious mind rapidly sifting through past experience and cumulative knowledge.​

​

Often referred to as “gut feelings,” intuition tends to arise holistically and quickly, without awareness of the underlying mental processing of information. Scientists have repeatedly demonstrated how information can register on the brain without conscious awareness and positively influence decision-making and other behavior.​

​

Intuition

Intuition is a form of knowledge that appears in consciousness without obvious deliberation. It is not magical but rather a faculty in which hunches are generated by the unconscious mind rapidly sifting through past experience and cumulative knowledge.

www.google.com