The Pursuit of Knowledge vs. The Pursuit of Wisdom

[IamYourYahaweh]

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.

So many statements made, so many falsehoods, no wonder you cannot convince these atheists who apply logic to their understanding. Try again

 

[PureX]

So many statements made, so many falsehoods, no wonder you cannot convince these atheists who apply logic to their understanding. Try again

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I share what I see and what I think about it. You can choose to learn from it, or you can fight to remain ignorant. That's up to you.

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

It is to the vast majority of self-proclaimed atheists.

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

All opinions are based on something. But not all opinions are based on knowledge. So the "knowledge = truth" crown wants to immediately assess whether the opinion is based on knowledge or not. And if it is not, they will immediately reject it.

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

Wisdom is wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is knowledge. And intuition is intuition. Trying to erase the particular distinctions between these is not a wise course of action. It seeks to obscure rather than to illuminate.

Wisdom is the effective ability to collate and evaluate apply knowledge. Knowledge is the accumulation of pertinent information. And intuition is a very quick, subconscious method of reasoning (as opposed to the slower, conscious methodology of logic).

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

Intuition is helpful to us because it is more holistic and much faster that logic. But it is also blind to it's own propensity for error. Whereas the methodology of logic seeks to recognize any possible error.

 

[Ostronomos]

So many statements made, so many falsehoods, no wonder you cannot convince these atheists who apply logic to their understanding. Try again

Judging by your tone and content of your wording, I'd say you were one of the members of an evil atheistic cult. An attempt to dishearten the righteous no doubt. I see hear you champion ignorance. The statement you made ironically reflects a falsehood that has been bested by the superior logic of every Metaphysical scientist of today.

 

[IamYourYahaweh]

Judging by your tone and content of your wording, I'd say you were one of the members of an evil atheistic cult. An attempt to dishearten the righteous no doubt. I see hear you champion ignorance. The statement you made ironically reflects a falsehood that has been bested by the superior logic of every Metaphysical scientist of today.

Imagine judging someone you just met and then saying they are a member of an evil cult. I am just supporting atheists and am not one myself. So quick to judge. And what do I care about metaphysical scientists? They are called theories and constantly disproven for a reason. They can't determine if a book from religion or an event happened that they weren't there for. Chill out

 

[PearlSeeker]

Intuition is helpful to us because it is more holistic and much faster that logic. But it is also blind to it's own propensity for error. Whereas the methodology of logic seeks to recognize any possible error.

Experience makes intuition more reliable. So wisdom grows with experience.

 

[PureX]

Experience makes intuition more reliable. So wisdom grows with experience.

Yes, it does. So does having a broader base of knowledge from which to determine the possibilities available to us. So they do inter-relate though they are not the same things.

 

[Nakosis]

A complex post.
Something I think I have to answer bit by bit.

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.

Yes, from my POV, I don't believe any human has any knowledge of God.

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's existence is irrelevant. The claim of knowledge about God is relevant. I don't believe when people tell me they have knowledge of God.

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".

Sure, the idea that if I can't have reliable knowledge about God, neither can you, or anyone. At least with good evidence I should be smart enough to come to the same conclusion about God.

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).

I'm not personally a fan of the idea of truth. Knowledge needs only be correct enough to allow one to make successful decisions. Doesn't necessarily have to be the truth, just needs to work in a practical sense so I can make successful choices. That's knowledge. Knowledge does not have to be truth, only practical.

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

Knowledge is the ability to navigate successfully through life. Overcome whatever obstacles you happen to be facing in life. That's it's value, it's worth.

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

IMO, you have you're own knowledge which allows you to be successful through life.

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.

Sure, people take their knowledge along with their experience and from it assume the substance of reality. Part of wisdom is in understanding the limitations of your knowledge.

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

Knowledge is a necessary part of wisdom. Without knowledge there is no wisdom.
Without sufficient knowledge your wisdom is likely faulty.
A lack of knowledge can lead one to a false sense of wisdom.

You have to have enough experience in the world to know your limitations.
I have enough experience with belief in the supernatural to know my limitations.
I accept my limitations. I argue to point out the limitations others have which they don't seem to understand.
I feel if they did not have these limitations they ought to be able to successfully argue beyond them.
So it is two fold. I'm open to someone who is able to argue beyond the limitations I assume we all share as human beings as well as point it out when they can't.