Metaphysics and belief

DO we have the right to 'believe' anything — in philosophy?
     Anyone can believe anything. Believe what you like. Believe 'six impossible things before breakfast'. Not that hard to do if you put your mind to it.
     ('Don't believe in yourself, Don't deceive with belief, Knowledge comes with death's release...', Bowie.)
     Philosophy is the art of reason, and anything that doesn't come from reason isn't philosophy.
     Then, maybe, this is something else.
     'Every single moment is preserved for all eternity.' — That's a belief. There's no arguing for it. no 'reason'. The alternative is just too... unbelievable. That after this moment is gone, when it s past memory, lost to all record, it will never have been. Obliterated. Nothing.
     There's a word that comes far too easily to the lips. Can something ever 'come' from nothing? Can something ever 'become' nothing? Nothing as emptiness waiting to be 'filled', blackness, the black hole where your keys disappeared, the 'sight' of the blind, the 'hearing' of the profoundly deaf, ultimate forgetfulness.
     Might there have been nothing? What a doozy!
     What exists, exists. And that is an absolute fact. What exists might not have existed. That is also an absolute fact. The ultimate contingency.
     Just as it is contingent, not necessary that things are the way they are rather than some other way.
     Just as it is contingent that the time is now, and not some other time.
     Just as it is contingent that things being as they are, at this moment in time, I am here, rather than not here — everything else remaining the same.
     Even if you could explain away all the other contingencies (using the 'God' theory, for example) that last contingency, 'I exist now', would remain.
     — That would be one way of doing 'philosophy', or maybe a better term is 'metaphysics', by starting with a list of things that you just 'must' believe because 'the alternative is too unbelievable', then see what kind of system you can construct on that foundation.
     This isn't about Descartes' 'clear and distinct ideas'. These ideas are the opposite of clear. They are not even obscure (i.e. something you 'half see'). They come from 'I don't know where'.
     Then again, isn't that exactly what Descartes did? Inviting the reader to look into himself and discover the same 'indubitable' ideas that Descartes had? Aren't human beings ultimately the same in that regard?
     (Then again, wouldn't that be a very remarkable fact — if it were true?)
     The human mind — picture this as a pit full of wriggling, writhing snakes, a mass of contradictions, no 'reason' there, only images and thoughts connecting and disconnecting...
     Philosophers. Pah! ('You guys crack me up,' as someone once wrote, 10 Big Questions.)
     Consider the alternative. Philosophy is not the 'art of reason'. Philosophy is the discovery of belief. Belief is the only thing that is real. This table isn't real. These hands aren't real. Only my belief in the table, or in these hands, is real. If I didn't 'believe' in the table, or in these hands, what then? What to do?
     Not write this, for a start. There's nothing to write the words on, no keyboard, no pen and paper, no screen, no Earth, no universe...
     Nothing exists except believing makes it so.
     (Compare: Hume in Treatise of Human Nature, Santayana on Scepticism and Animal Faith, Vaihinger The Philosophy of 'As If', Wittgenstein on 'mental pictures' in Philosophical Investigations and On Certainty.)