I feel that wikipedia article to be equivalent to throwing your arms up in the arm and saying "I give up". It assumes that humanity is able to explain and prove *anything*. Where is the philosophy syllogism that shows this to be true and I hope it's in the form of BARBARA. This is just typical post-moderism talking. If I can't prove something true it must be false. In a nutshell, if I can't figure something out or don't have the means to figure something out, my methods are not wrong, it's therefore the object of my study that is wrong. Really? What was the argument that proved the methods are wrong? What's the argument that proves the object the wrong? Those two arguments point the finger away from the human object towards the perceived object as being at fault. Is it possible we lack the language and knowledge to explain something? Is it possible that our senses cannot grasp all possible knowledge or does our senses therefore encompass all *knowable* knowledge? If so, how do we know this? Granted it's difficult to learn something from that which we cannot sense or experience but "belief" is an experience, our problem is that we lack the knowledge to understand it fully. Belief cannot by default start from a neutral or agnostic view as that's not belief. You haven't reached belief yet. Belief comes from your will reaching out to something that reason cannot fully explain but isn't blind to it either.
Topic: Belief--should our default position be a neutral/agnostic one? (Read 5288 times)