Emet/Truth posts a saying of R. Nachman of Breslov. The saying (as quoted) is as follows:
It is written, 'A fool believes all things' (Proverbs 15:15). It is good to be such a fool. If you believe even that which is false and foolish, you will also believe the truth. You are better off than he who is sophisticated and skeptical of everything.
One can begin by ridiculing foolishness and falsehood. Eventually he will ridicule everything and end up denying even the truth. As one of our greatest sages once said, 'It is better that I be called a fool all my life and not be wicked even one moment before God (Eidiyot 5:6).
Sichos HaRan/ Rabbi Nachman's Wisdom #103
I can hardly believe that this quote is accurate. Did R. Nachman really make such a statement? Should we actually be a fool and believe everything? Of course, such a feat is impossible. There is so much contradictory information out in the world that it is impossible to believe everything.
Even putting such contradictory information aside, I find it hard to believe that followers of R. Nachman would really recommend believing things that are simply hard to believe. Do they really believe that there are alien bodies being kept at Area 51? That the Bermuda Triangle is a place where ships mysteriously disappear? That Elvis is doing three shows a week on Jupiter?
Skepticism, in and of itself, is not a bad thing - and being skeptical of some things will not automatically lead one to ridicule everything. After all, it was skepticism that Jews showed 2000 years ago that caused us to reject the messianic claims of Jesus. Without that skepticism, we'd all be Christians today. It was skepticism of the claims of Mohammed that led the Jews of the Middle East to reject Islam.
Skepticism is the sign of a healthy mind. The ability to critically think through information to sift truth from falsehood (yes, Mis-nagid, I know what you're going to say) is something that has served Jews for ages. To go to a state of simply believing everything is downright dangerous.
Apparently, I'm become a skeptic of R. Nachman...)