How did you come to that conclusion?

That is the full sentence I wrote. I do not allow people to reword the things I write to make the statement change its meaning, as you have done here by shifting the subject from "the approach" to "everything". There is a mighty difference between bringing an approach to an end and bringing everything to an end. We already have a ton of people on this planet speaking for others, I figure it's my bag whether I defend against it or not. I've noted that most people who like to speak for others will take other's words, twist them a bit, then ask a leading question to change the conversation in a way that allows them to speak for others in a very unique way. It's an efficient technique when things are going well, given it can raise interest in groups. It's not so great when things are off the rails. All of that is regardless of whether an individual had intent to do it or whether they may formulate rationalizations to defend their actions in the future. Speaking for others isn't right and it's a wasteful, recursive operation.

Nevertheless, I will clarify that I am claiming the intent by humans to force everything into an objective reality here is causing issues for what can be considered the meta or unknown - the yet to be if you will. I don't consider the unknown anything magical necessarily, but I do consider it the result of causality based on both the current state of the universe plus some yet to be discovered phenomenon that governs quantum events and the rest of the unknowns around us. It is a direct observation that we struggle to explain these "types" of intuition of the unknown with objective descriptions or knowledge.

A good example that I give is aliens. About half of people believe in aliens and half don't. No probabilities exist that make any sense to us to figure out if aliens exist, so we are left looking for an objective (observed) alien signal to "prove" they exist. Any tendency to say "there are no aliens" is illogical, given the lack of proof of them is not proof they don't exist. On the other hand, claiming "there are aliens" has some reasonable intuitive basis, given we're claiming we exist and we're here on this rock in the middle of a HUGE universe. It's faith that aliens exist, but it is not observed, yet, so it can't be objective. Faith is based on a few primaries, including sacredness which is a regard with great respect and reverence by a particular religion, group, or individual. Making something sacred is primarily elevating the belief in the unknown, based on an intuition which is not forced by recursive self-supporting speculation or speaking for others.

So, claiming there are (objective) aliens is illogical, given lack of proof. Someone saying they have faith there are aliens is fine, however. Saying people who have faith there are aliens are wrong (because it is not yet observed) is speaking for others, given their internal frame is faith based and a truth to them.

There are certainly other examples. Michael Faraday believed there was a single unifying force in the universe, but was unable to prove it before he died. He did manage to pop off inventing the electric motor, but his master intent of discovering anti-gravity went undone. Still, he had faith anti-gravity (or shielding of gravity) was possible. I know this because I have read his words saying as much.

So, I have faith that anti-gravity will be discovered. Nobody else in existence can tell me otherwise, given they'd be speaking for me while doing so. And there's the point I was making to begin with - speaking for another's faith is speaking for their internal frames, which are subjective in nature. Not everything here is objective, so expecting that it is is also akin to speaking for all others here. We have free will, and I won't let anyone tell me otherwise.

I've left off discussing issues with faith in aggregates. Religion has gone horribly wrong in the past, and will likely do so again in the future.

Thank you for the question!