Only Idiots Use Logic

Even posteriori knowledge (for example, arguments for the existence of God) that seems certain cannot be said to be certain! This is because posteriori knowledge relies on the limited ability of the mind to make conclusions.

Richard Hamming asserts, "Just as there are odors that dogs can smell and we cannot, as well as sounds that dogs can hear and we cannot, so too there are wavelengths of light we cannot see and flavors we cannot taste. 

Why then, given our brains wired the way they are, does the remark 'Perhaps there are thoughts we cannot think', surprise you? 

Evolution, so far, may possibly have blocked us from being able to think in some directions; there could be unthinkable thoughts." 

Even Ghazali held similar contentions. He claimed that there was an absence of a criterion to determine the certainty of the most certain posteriori knowledge; he expressed this contention with an appeal to dreaming. 

“So there may be, beyond the perception of reason, another judge. And if the latter revealed itself, it would give the lie to the judgments of reason, just as the reason-judge revealed itself and gave the lie to the judgments of sense. The mere fact of the nonappearance of that further perception does not prove the impossibility of its existence...

Don’t you see that when you are asleep you believe certain things and imagine certain circumstances and believe they are fixed and lasting and entertain no doubts about that being their status? Then you wake up and know that all your imaginings and beliefs were groundless and unsubstantial.”

When you know empiricism doesn’t give you certainty and (apparently) neither can reason, are all claims just based on faith in our a priori knowledge? I think that Ghazali and Hamming both seem to believe so!