Democracy without education will be flawed. Democracy is hinged to the majority with representation and will go wrong if the majority is not good enough to make better informed decisions for the body under Democratic governance. This simply means democracy in itself cannot be good until there’s a good external of democracy itself.
The mere “leap of faith” cannot be a reliable source of knowing and understanding a world supposedly created by someone. Because with faith, everything can go, every absurdity is possible, and that’s the problem. Faith justifies everything, it even gives one a gold plated reason not to think as Dan Dennett likes to put it. Faith works by chance and when it does not work people go like “oh no, that wasn’t God’s but was your claim“. That’s simply hinging to inevitable flaws of chance, and it’s exactly why I will love to know and understand for myself, rather than attach something I’m yet to fully grasp to that which I’m yet to fully grasp.
For instance, whatever a sincere religious person/theologian/believer backed by supposed Holy Ghost in history, now and forever will say will be dismissed as that of theirs if the future proves them wrong, but truth lies that they were sincere, that their faith/belief was true to themselves. Hence making it quite difficult to accept things asserted by people out of mere conviction and faith. Maybe just maybe, faith will only be right if it’s backed by truth external of faith itself. But the problem still lies, people believe in the Bible out of faith. You need faith to understand some of those absurdities and impossibilities, absurdities like talking snakes and donkeys.
You don’t have to see to believe, you have to believe before you see, which tends to affect probable validity because, if you believe in something and search for stuff to support that thing, you’ll definitely find something no matter how absurd or fallacious that thing could be. You can believe in the story of Goliath and later find a large skull 💀, interpreting that skull as that of Goliath. You can believe in flying unicorns, dragons or the Virgin Mary and later interpret clouds of random formation in the sky as evidence to support such beliefs. Karl Popper used that to differentiate science from pseudoscience and it worked.
As at now, I cannot say with certainty beyond reasonable doubt that the supposed divine is responsible for that which I’ve seen, because again, so many of those I can understand now, can be understood without invoking the divine, or without going for Comte’s first stage of knowing; the theological stage. In fact, the divine is usually mentioned when people lack understanding in a particular field. And time has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the god of the gaps argument has not helped theology at all.
Be that as it may, I cannot also say the divine ain’t possible out of philosophical reasons. Only that, I have no reason to believe there is a divine.
Know before you believe.
Don’t believe before you know.
Believing before you know is locking yourself in a prison called “Confirmation Bias”.
Achaab Daniel ABALANSA