The other day I wrote this post about how important the skill of verifying information is. And in that context, there are two things that honestly scare me: religious devotion to science and religious devotion to ethics.
By “religious” I mean when people refuse to question anything they consider “scientifically proven” or “ethically right.” You can clearly see this in arguments with conspiracy theorists, or between people with opposing political views.
A small note: below I’ll use terms like “the right reaction” and “the wrong reaction.” That doesn’t mean I’m suggesting you actually argue online — most of the time, if someone on the internet is wrong, it’s easier to just scroll past. But if you do engage, then by “right reaction” I mean a response based on thoughtful analysis rather than blind faith. Maybe you’re not even arguing with someone else, but with yourself — trying to understand your own thoughts better.
Situation 1. Conspiracy theories
— “The Americans never landed on the Moon!”
Right reaction:
“Look, there was a space race, and the Soviet Union had every reason to expose the U.S. if it was faking it — and they didn’t.”
The debate may continue or not. The moon-hoax theory might pile up increasingly strange assumptions, but you’re not obligated to buy into them. You can just think: “Okay, if everything you’re saying were true, then yes, the Americans weren’t on the Moon. But to me, that chain of events seems highly unlikely, so I choose to believe they were.”
You’re acknowledging that some of your data could be unreliable, or that randomness might play against you — but that’s fine. A coin tossed a hundred times could theoretically land heads every single time.
Wrong reaction:
“Oh my God, it’s obvious to any sane person that the Americans were on the Moon! There’s nothing to explain here!”
Are you sure, though? Maybe you’re not as informed as you think and are just relying on a consensus opinion. Admitting that’s fine. The answer itself isn’t life-defining — but it’s useful to know where your reasoning ends and trust begins.
Situation 2. Ethics
— “Putin’s war in Ukraine is criminal.”
— “Oh yeah? So it’s fine when the U.S. bombs Belgrade and Iraq?”
Right reaction: depends on your worldview. The Belgrade/Iraq question is tricky — it gives your opponent something to latch onto. But, for example, my answer would be:
“No, bombing Belgrade and Iraq was also a crime. The price civilians paid for overthrowing tyrants was far too high. Unfortunately, the U.S. used the privilege of power — controlling a quarter of the global economy — but that doesn’t make their wars any more ethical or any less criminal.”
Or maybe your answer would be:
“No, the 1991 Desert Storm operation was approved by the UN, so we can’t call it criminal.”
Wrong reaction:
“Are you seriously asking this? Just raising such a question makes you a monster.”
Again — are you sure your ethical positions are yours? Do you actually understand what they rest on? A belief has value only if you can identify its weak points yourself.
Once again, these “reactions” aren’t necessarily things you say out loud. They’re things you can say to yourself. If, for instance, you believe that even discussing the ethics of war legitimizes it — fine, don’t discuss it. But I’d be glad if you could still explain to yourself why. Because then your stance becomes solid — especially on the issues that matter to you most.
Questions don’t weaken a strong position — they refine it. Thoughtfulness helps you formulate your own principles and avoid inner conflict when challenged.
Whether or not you say them out loud — that’s entirely up to you.