Now that I'm done being a judge I want to report on an observation I found on the sermon topic at:
"The dialogue of knowledge and wisdom has broken off in modern times both in the Western world and in the Islamic world. But their preferences have been different; one has preferred knowledge and neglected wisdom, and the other has done the reverse.
" a. Breaking off in the Western World for the Sake of Knowledge: Rationalism: As modern philosophy has developed since Descartes, the connection of knowledge to its accompanying concern with wisdom or self-knowledge has been set aside. Philosophy as the love of wisdom that considers the true to be the whole has been replaced by the pursuit of method and the truth of the part. In regard to the Socratic tradition of self-knowledge, philosophy has lost its way. The spirit of the modern age has been strictly rationalistic in the sense that it makes human reason the highest authority in the pursuit of knowledge, and naturalistic in that it seek to explain the inner and outer nature without supernatural presuppositions. At the end, knowledge without wisdom has made modern man spiritually homeless, alien to himself or herself, and has made the humanity and the earth challenged by many global cultural and environmental crises. Rationalist and positivist epistemology followed by an atheist and naturalist ontology and by relativist and nihilist ethic brought to modern world more knowledge but less wisdom, more power but less virtue, and more pleasure but less peace.
"b. Breaking off in the Islamic World for the Sake of Wisdom: mysticism: The contemporary philosopher of Descartes (1596-1650) in Islamic World is Mulla Sadra (1571-1640) and he made his preference from the side of wisdom rather than knowledge. Roughly after these dates, the dialogue and balance of knowledge and wisdom could not have been kept on in Islamic world as well. The spirit of the last centuries in Islamic world has been mainly mystical rather than rationalistic or balanced one, and many people have seen practical wisdom enough for living a good life. As Iqbal said, “The more genuine school of Sufism have, no doubt, done good work in shaping and directing the evolution of religious experience in Islam; but their latter-day representatives, owing to their ignorance of the modern mind, have become absolutely incapable of receiving any fresh inspiration from modern thought and experience.” At the end, wisdom without knowledge has made Muslim man materially homeless, scientifically and technologically backwards, and culturally fragile. Mystical and practical wisdom followed by an idealist ontology and universalist ethics brought to Muslim world more wisdom but less knowledge, more virtue but less power, and more internal peace but less international peace and prestige."
In brief, Western thought has sacrificed the positive influence of sources of wisdom in favor of a commitment to knowledge, and Islamic thought has sacrificed the positive influence of sources of knowledge in favor of a commitment to wisdom.
I especially refer to the idea of being "...incapable of receiving any fresh inspiration from modern thought and experience..." and the idea of cultural fragility, although below I will take some issue with the distinctiveness of the dichotomy constructed by Yaran.
In my own view, the West began to separate wisdom from knowledge in the aftermath of the Galileo affair, when the practice of natural science was permitted, so long as it did not make pronouncements on certain articles of faith. This was supposed to separate science from the domain of the metaphysical, but by restricting science to the methodology of naturalism, science and religion cooperatively set the stage for the post-Cartesian rise of metaphysical naturalism (commonly called materialism). This is because people naturally tend to posit a reality that matches the scope of the explanations for the world they inhabit. Religion and science inadvertently set the stage for materialism when they cooperated to limit the scope of scientific inquiry and its pronouncements to the natural world.
Like many constructed dichotomies, Yaran's dichotomy is not so cleanly realized in the real world. There are followers of Western religions who rely on ancient sources of wisdom and who in the extreme "...have become absolutely incapable of receiving any fresh inspiration from modern thought and experience" and there are self-identified Muslims, in, or in contact with, the West, who welcome new knowledge and view their religion in light of it -- but who might be considered by some Muslims to have lost their connection with wisdom.
Several other sources that I found took the position that there can be knowledge without wisdom but not wisdom without knowledge. The above discussion leans in the direction that either can be had to a degree without much of the other, but that neither can remain relevant to the important questions of life, without the other. The mystic, the oracle, the seer, -- the born again, perhaps -- will receive and provide wisdom from a source other than his own awareness of facts, by direct revelation, or at least, that belief is central to such people. But they will not receive it as an outcome of modern thought and experience; in fact, modern thought and experience, being so readily put to the service of materialism, will appear to be a threat. And it might be. I think this threat leads to an intransigence on both sides, that explains many of the irresolvable conflicts in places such as this forum.
Well, I just thought I'd say this because it struck me as relevant to the sermon topic. But this isn't a sermon.