Do the faithful forfeit the ability to be wise? Can one be wise as well as religiously faithful?

Wisdom is the ability to ascertain perspectives and ramifications outside of ones own personal experience. Consequently, this allows a wise individual to utilize various differing perspectives to come to a result/action, or simply, a decision. Further, a wise decision is one that implicitly takes into account a very large number of the result's/action's direct and indirect ramifications (a side-affect of being able to understand perspectives dissimilar to your own, per se). Even so, this person must be able to mentally work with a large number of abstractions at the same time. To dissociate from one’s own perspective is simple, even hard wired into our brains (perhaps, it happens when you feel perfectly safe in the arms of your omnipotent lord), but to even just try to understand another perspective, that takes intelligence, but more importantly, the ability to understand context. For in the largest of context we can possibly imagine is that the only thing one can trust to be right, is that we are ignorant and blinded by our own biology. Without doubt, we are divinely born with dignity, the gift and curse of bias. Additionally, we are temporal beings, and accordingly, it is incredibly far from possible for even one human to understand all perspectives and physical ramifications of a decision. Our bias defines us, just as context defines the interaction of people.

A wise individual can not help but be a compassionate anthropologist (they genuinely find difference to be ‘of interest’). A wise person never labels a particular difference as unimportant, for that distinction is important in the challenge of discerning ones own bias. Able to plan several steps ahead, a wise individual consistently watches for patterns in human behavior, specifically examining the patterns that very 'unusual' or ‘irrational’ to their own personal experience. To a wise individual, such distinctions demand to be understood in regard to context. Concerning context, a wise individual does not simply consider another opinion, but in all actuality, immerses themselves in another’s perspective. This immersion is not directed in an effort to logically deduce the flaws of another’s perspective, but due to the limitations of bias, another’s bias is not given the benefit of the doubt. Even with this natural inclination to find fault, a wise person knows that this thought was originally conceived from the directive to understand context, and this immersion eventually leads such a person to ask why such flaws are overlooked by the individual being ‘understood’. Additionally, considering how even the distinction of being ‘unimportant’ is still notable, a wise person must understand why a flaw is considered a flaw. Consequently, they may find that some of those flaws may not be flaws at all. Beyond questioning the relative/subjective nature of morality, a wise person is distinctly aware of his mutable condition at all times, if only in an attempt to further understand the abstraction known as the human condition. To understand ones bias and physical circumstance, a wise man must then be aware of the degree that conditioning has colored his perspective, which ultimately leads him to the conclusion that his perspective, and even humanity in its entirety, is fundamentally fallible (ignorant or blinded). Regardless, for the wise avoid such heated connotations, the simply regard the human condition as mutable, and in that state of being in flux, it better to be understood as fundamentally flexible. (But please remember, flexibility has its limitations too. ‘A single leaf of grass, blown about by the wind, is not torn apart so easily’)

Since one can only gain wisdom by admitting that they are fallible and largely insignificant, (thus allowing one to successfully look beyond the majority of their own conditioned biases, while at the same time swiftly instilling the true belief that they are only a small part of the whole) can a truly wise individual still consider themselves Christian, Muslim, or some other religion that stresses faith? These religions can not admit that they are incomplete or fallible, otherwise they wouldn't be very popular or have the concept of faith, and consequently, wise individuals can only, at best, be considered agnostic (atheists do not admit their own fallibility, which is their fatal flaw). If religion is based upon the power of faith, wisdom can not be a trait of the religiously faithful, who are unable to admit that they assume rather then logically deduce.