I've found that my relationship with "THE TRUTH" (and also debunking things) have changed as I understood more of complex topics, like geopolitics, competing political frameworks, economics (and competing economic frameworks, and enterprise management in general).
It's definitely not fun to realize that there are good arguments against the position you found very compelling in the first place. I don't think we're alike in our current relationship with "THE TRUTH"; I'm very... odd? Unusual? I don't hold on to my positions, until I do. Here's how I imagine a lot of my current conversations would sound like:
"So, [QUESTION]?"
"Well, someone who adheres to X view would say A, but someone who adheres to Y view would say B."
"But what's the answer to [QUESTION]...?"
"It depends the framework you pick. Do you want me to list the counter-arguments leveled between X and Y?"
"Nooooooooooooooooooooo"
And that probably sounds incredibly dull to some people; having no pretense over anything and always signifying at competing frameworks that seem irreconcilable, but are somehow both compelling.
Since I'm a writer, I find great use in wielding conflicting worldviews, and extracting interesting (but paradoxical) perspectives from them. It tells compelling stories (I find) that are more thought-provoking. Incidentally, at the core of the spiritual lore of my series is a sort of reworked Christianity. It's essentially borne from philosophical disagreements I have with Christianity, like "No, God wouldn't be like this. No he wouldn't do this. No, souls wouldn't work like that. No, hard-line atheists are wrong here too! Here's how it would work. There. That's even more compelling now!"
That doesn't mean I never take issue with anything (QAnon is the biggest conspiracy nowadays, and it's VERY destructive. There are also a ton of conspiracies that are *ahem* buckwild). I believe there exists aliens out there, I've already stated my position on this. Alien conspiracies appear far more benign compared to others (at least, when it doesn't lead to military officers using the existence of aliens as an argument to not disclose the nature of their conflict with China, (because China knows, and they know, but the public is not ready!!!)).
1
Tobias 1104~3Y
I used to be a FERVENT INTERNET ATHEIST back in the Fig Hunter days because I felt that religion was doing harm to people, so convincing people of its faults would help them... which was naive.
These days I just try to stay out of the whole belief coliseum because we're just not psychologically inclined to change our beliefs by being told we're wrong by others. Plus it's just stressful.
But the aliens thing does seem benign; I'd even say that unlike many of the other more harmful beliefs, there's no actual enemy (unless you count 'The Gubment' hiding stuff as such), so it's more about excitedly trying to solve a mystery than it is dehumanising another group. It's more about wondering whether something external will happen without our input, rather than what we can do to force change on the world through direct action. Or at least that's my attitude towards it, and it's why I find it fun and would rather indulge in it even when it gets silly than just disregard it all.
1
septet8~3Y
i think this idea of staying open-minded makes a lot more sense when applied to moral arguments, not the truth. different worldviews shouldn't ever be totally or even mostly irreconcilable, there is a lot of common ground that can be clarified. even if some of the content is untrue, it's likely to exist for a good and true reason. i think people mostly disagree on what the right thing to do is and use a biased interpretation of a common truth to justify it. i noticed a lot of people thinking i'm trying to prescribe action when i say something i think is true because they're so used to others doing that. i think you could benefit from making this distinction
It's definitely not fun to realize that there are good arguments against the position you found very compelling in the first place. I don't think we're alike in our current relationship with "THE TRUTH"; I'm very... odd? Unusual? I don't hold on to my positions, until I do. Here's how I imagine a lot of my current conversations would sound like:
"So, [QUESTION]?"
"Well, someone who adheres to X view would say A, but someone who adheres to Y view would say B."
"But what's the answer to [QUESTION]...?"
"It depends the framework you pick. Do you want me to list the counter-arguments leveled between X and Y?"
"Nooooooooooooooooooooo"
And that probably sounds incredibly dull to some people; having no pretense over anything and always signifying at competing frameworks that seem irreconcilable, but are somehow both compelling.
Since I'm a writer, I find great use in wielding conflicting worldviews, and extracting interesting (but paradoxical) perspectives from them. It tells compelling stories (I find) that are more thought-provoking. Incidentally, at the core of the spiritual lore of my series is a sort of reworked Christianity. It's essentially borne from philosophical disagreements I have with Christianity, like "No, God wouldn't be like this. No he wouldn't do this. No, souls wouldn't work like that. No, hard-line atheists are wrong here too! Here's how it would work. There. That's even more compelling now!"
That doesn't mean I never take issue with anything (QAnon is the biggest conspiracy nowadays, and it's VERY destructive. There are also a ton of conspiracies that are *ahem* buckwild). I believe there exists aliens out there, I've already stated my position on this. Alien conspiracies appear far more benign compared to others (at least, when it doesn't lead to military officers using the existence of aliens as an argument to not disclose the nature of their conflict with China, (because China knows, and they know, but the public is not ready!!!)).
These days I just try to stay out of the whole belief coliseum because we're just not psychologically inclined to change our beliefs by being told we're wrong by others. Plus it's just stressful.
But the aliens thing does seem benign; I'd even say that unlike many of the other more harmful beliefs, there's no actual enemy (unless you count 'The Gubment' hiding stuff as such), so it's more about excitedly trying to solve a mystery than it is dehumanising another group. It's more about wondering whether something external will happen without our input, rather than what we can do to force change on the world through direct action. Or at least that's my attitude towards it, and it's why I find it fun and would rather indulge in it even when it gets silly than just disregard it all.