The question is straightforward as it read, but to elaborate I will give some examples.
I think most people will agree that reason is what is special about human beings, and most religions and philosophies are directed to human reason to persuade or redirect human reason to what is deemed correct/true, but human reason have a set of premises that it works from, in other word discernment in human requires approval by reason itself, it cannot be otherwise.
So, to convince what is reasonable philosophy employ dialectic thus it cannot be blamed for misology. Most religions, however, use faith in addition to dialectic and when faith contradict with reason misology is visible and human reason succumb to confusion.
Now, Buddhism is no different from these religions, although it claims that no faith is need beside direct knowledge, it avoid explaining the basic building block of the idea it propounds. For example, it seeks to eliminate ignorance to end suffering but it avoids to give an explanation how in the first place ignorance arise? Some sect of Buddhism also teach a Buddha nature in every being but fail to explain how a perfect Buddha nature get deluded, to begin with. Buddhism also fail/avoid to explain how it’s possible that an endless liberation is possible.
The above is not uncommon to other religions even in India the Jain’s teach a True Soul that get liberated from karmic element but they fail to explain how this ever going ebb of liberation can be true, how is that even possible to have a never filling bucket? Why are all souls not liberated if the Jani’s cosmos progress or the Buddhist idea is to be believed?
This question is marked as a duplicate, but I don't think it is directly related to my question. What I'm asking is not a bias towards conceptualization, but avoidance to explain idea's within Buddhism, not of individual conceptualization Mr.Ethan would want to keep, but a reasoned explanation for Buddism itself.