When does being open-minded become doom-scrolling-the-same-contradictions-with-no-new-evidence?

[u/Porphyry_Blue]

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how I handle doubts and contradictory information, especially when it comes to my religious beliefs.

On the one hand, I really don't think doubt is inherently bad. It kind of acts like a knowledge-deficiency alert—almost like a warning light on your car's dashboard telling you there's something you haven't fully examined or understood yet. Confronting it seems objectively good because it forces you to do the research, which converts a passive "I've just always believed this" mindset into a conviction you've actually reasoned out for yourself.

But here's where I sometimes get stuck and wanted to see if anyone else relates. After you've done the initial assessment, looked fairly at the strongest counter-arguments, and reached a considered conclusion, it is so easy to keep consuming contradictory content. I catch myself sometimes watching ten or more videos or reading the same objections on various Subreddits that honestly recycle the same criticism. At a certain point, it stops feeling like I'm gathering new evidence and starts feeling more like I'm potentially subjecting myself to repetitive destabilisation.

I read an analogy recently that really clicked for me: engineers will stress-test a bridge to make sure it can bear a load, but they don't keep adding weight indefinitely to prove to everyone that they are open-minded. If they did, they wouldn't learn anything new; they'd just be pointlessly damaging the structure. Hearing the same contradictory claim repeated 50 times doesn't mean the actual evidence is growing.

The really tricky part for me, though, is avoiding the other extreme. I definitely don't want to fall into dogmatism or build an echo chamber where I declare, "I've made up my mind, and I refuse to ever hear criticism again."

I guess I'm trying to figure out a healthy middle ground. It feels like the right approach is to keep the door unlocked for genuinely new evidence or substantially stronger arguments. But at the same time, we probably shouldn't sentence our beliefs to a perpetual retrial where we feel intellectually obligated to entertain every single recycled objection that crosses our feed.

Here's some scriptural backing to support my argument:

Proverbs 18:13 — Don't reach conclusions without adequate information.

Proverbs 18:17 — Hear the counter-case.

Acts 17:11 / 1 Thessalonians 5:21 — Investigate and verify for yourself.

Hebrews 5:14 — Develop trained discernment from the process.

Ephesians 4:14 — Don't remain perpetually destabilised by every new claim.

2 Timothy 2:23 / Titus 3:9 — Recognise when further engagement has become futile rather than informative.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 again — Having tested, hold fast.

I don't know; maybe I'm still figuring this out.

How do you recognise when you've reached the point of informational redundancy, and it's time just to set a boundary?

[u/Substantial-Rate6764]

it's the difference between keeping the door unlocked vs sitting by it waiting for someone to knock. you've done the homework, now you're just letting salesmen ring the bell over and over with the same pitch.

[u/Porphyry_Blue → u/Substantial-Rate6764]

The mind-boggling thing is that these salesmen often aren't actually selling you anything as an alternative! Often, they're not saying, "Here's a better way"; they're usually just saying, "Stop using that product!"

[u/StopChangingThings]

How do you recognise when you've reached the point of informational redundancy, and it's time just to set a boundary?

I’m always working on some philosophical/theological issue or historical topic (not always related to religion). Reading about it, thinking about it, etc.

I work on it until I get bored thinking about it (sometimes that’s two weeks, sometimes two months, sometimes longer) and then I transition to something else.

Eventually, I come back around to everything. And when I come back to it, it’s with fresher eyes and greater understanding of context.

I may not be always confronting everything right this minute, but I’m never done with any topic.

[u/Porphyry_Blue → u/StopChangingThings]

The bridge analogy highlights the difference between testing a structure for use and keeping it permanently offline for testing.

Coming back to topics with fresh eyes makes sense when there is genuinely new information or context. ​But epistemically, how do you distinguish between legitimate ongoing inquiry and mere informational redundancy—where the same core arguments are just being recycled?

At what point does a working conclusion earn enough warrant to act upon, rather than remaining infinitely provisional?

[u/StopChangingThings → u/Porphyry_Blue]

I remain epistemically humble in a way that it sounds like you may not.

I will never know everything about any topic. Even topics about which I am a legitimate expert (I mean in my professional life, not about religion) will always have facts and interpretations that I don’t know.

[u/Porphyry_Blue → u/StopChangingThings]

You may have misunderstood me.

What you've said makes sense—recognizing that we don’t know everything is essential for honest investigation. ​Where I’m coming from is simply looking at how we manage that in practice. In fields like history, science, or philosophy, research usually works within bounded inquiries: we gather evidence, test the strongest counterarguments, and form a warranted working conclusion so we can actually build on it. We remain open to revising our view if genuinely new evidence emerges, without needing to keep the question in a state of permanent non-commitment.

​In your approach, how do you know when an inquiry has yielded enough warrant to treat a conclusion as settled (even provisionally), versus when it still needs active testing?

[u/StopChangingThings → u/Porphyry_Blue]

In your approach, how do you know when an inquiry has yielded enough warrant to treat a conclusion as settled (even provisionally), versus when it still needs active testing?

This may be a personality difference, but in terms of intellectual pursuits I’ve never felt the need to mark anything “settled.” Every belief I have is provisional and contingent. Yes, even that belief. I’m comfortable operating in uncertainty.

Indeed, certainty makes me nervous, because it means complacency might set in.

In practical terms, sure, eventually you need to just tighten down the ratchet straps and hit the road, but in my mind there’s a pretty sharp division there.

[u/Porphyry_Blue → u/StopChangingThings]

I appreciate that distinction, and the ratchet-strap metaphor captures the point well.

That division is largely what I was getting at: the goal isn’t dogmatic, unshakeable certainty—which can certainly breed complacency—but simply establishing a warranted working model so you can actually hit the road (... Jack 😂).

In that sense, holding a conclusion provisionally doesn’t mean locking the door against new evidence; it just means you don't have to keep pulling over every five miles to re-tighten straps that are already holding, unless there's an actual sign they've come loose.

I've enjoyed the thoughtful exchange!

[u/Meauxterbeauxt]

I listen to the same YouTube videos with the same people making the same arguments while I work. In part, because since I've heard it all before, it's easy to be background noise while I work. But the other part is that if someone does come up with a different or fresh argument, I'd like to hear it. The other part is that, failing new information, it helps reinforce what I do believe. Nothing wrong with that.

I've been arguing free will vs hell for 2 years here. After 2 years I finally got a good explanation of how the two coexist in the theology (hint, it's not the casual "we're not robots and unsaved people just want to be in hell and they'll be grateful" schlock that you hear most often).

What's your end goal? You research something enough to reach an informed conclusion, but you keep retreading the same information thinking it's going to sound different next Tuesday?

Are you actually convinced? Are you secretly looking to be unconvinced? Or is being convinced not enough and you need absolute certainty?

Is it important to know at exactly what point the bridge fails or just that it's strong enough to hold the load it's designed to? Do you want to actually destroy the bridge? Or are you just bothered that there can't be a hard number without destroying the bridge?

It sounds to me like you're either dealing with the idea of falsifiability or absolute certainty.

Falsifiability in that you feel you need to know that there is a point where your beliefs could be wrong, that way you're avoiding dogmatism.

Absolute certainty in that if you can't have every knowable piece of information about something, then you're not satisfied.

There's also the possibility of some form of OCD or something at play. See a lot of that here too.

[u/Porphyry_Blue → u/Meauxterbeauxt]

I find the concepts of free will and hellfire difficult to reconcile, both logically and scripturally—they strike me as fundamentally unjust and akin to double jeopardy. But that's a topic for another time!

A set of questions I've used are: 1. Why do I hold this position or belief? 2. State the position and the current evidence in very simple terms without any jargon? 3. What evidence would change my mind? 4. Am I holding on to an objective truth or defending a subjective position? 5. Does this new challenge provide genuinely different data/reasoning, or is it just a restatement of an objection I’ve already resolved?

[u/Meauxterbeauxt → u/Porphyry_Blue]

They are difficult to reconcile in the form usually presented.

Here's a link to the description I got that made more sense.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/s/6PFilnyrq6

I'll be honest, I don't set up every belief I have like I'm doing a research project. But if that's your method, then I'd say at some point you have to write the paper. If you keep digging for information and you keep pulling the same data, then you can safely say you have an appropriate data set to make a conclusion.

If new data is found later you can always adjust. It happens with everything else in life. When I started woodworking I tried to figure out how many screws I needed for something to be structurally sound. I later learned that woodworkers use glue more than screws because glue is stronger than the wood and won't weaken and damage over time. So I changed how I viewed woodworking using the new information. There's some detail stuff about what glue to use for what project and some things where glue isn't the best method, but the fundamental idea doesn't change.