Others sometimes accuse me of being unable to clearly state what I believe, being confused or wishy-washy. Apparently if I don't subscribe to one extreme belief I must by default subscribe to the other. If I'm not willing to commit to disbelief in God, that automatically makes me a 'theist' (and yet my definitions, which allow for more options than just 'theist' or 'atheist', are somehow the more narrow ones). If I see social justice or workers' rights or collective action are desirable, I am de facto against individual freedom. If I don't think that all of our problems can be solved by eliminating laws and government, I'm a coercive statist who wishes to crush the human spirit beneath the iron heel of tyranny. If I'm willing to acknowledge that there are things about reality that limited material humans do not and perhaps cannot know, and that these things may be important and worth paying attention to, well that's just irrational magical thinking; I'm confused, deluded, I have a problem with my logic.
We live in a complicated world. Being the limited bio-machines that we are, we feel a deep need to simplify it; we see contradictions, ambiguities, fuzzy grey areas as a potential threat to our survival. A tiger is either eating you, or it isn't; there's no real room there for debate. The world of ideals, political policies, and metaphysics is a little bit different. In the natural world, evolution is all about life or death. In the informational world, evolution is more often about synthesis. People feel the need to defend their beliefs unto the death; because their beliefs are a part of them, and when those beliefs die a part of them dies too. I, no less than anyone, is subject to this essential human flaw; but I also feel driven to examine the opposite point of view, because I instinctually feel that, given any two opposing viewpoints, the 'truth' is somewhere in the middle.