[TimTheTinker]

That's almost like saying it's OK to falsely report about religion in the first place because "the religious interest groups will defend themselves adequately", etc.

False reporting of any sort (including the failure to correct prior false reports, whether intended or not) always causes harm. Truth and principles matter.

Furthermore, reducing ideas to power struggles between those who speak them is to commit both the genetic fallacy and the ad-hominem fallacy.

[nurettin]

Why would an idea exist other than to serve a purpose, and why would that purpose be distant from the mindset which benefits the most from it?

[TimTheTinker]

> Why would an idea exist other than to serve a purpose

Because ideas are the substrate of thought, belief, motivation, desire, and human life itself. Without ideas we lack the ability to understand anything at all.

[nurettin]

Not sure how that relates to my question. Why would an idea exist without someone to give it purpose?

[TimTheTinker]

Because it constitutes belief and/or knowledge.

Because it is true, or someone believes it to be so.

Because it carries explanatory power - something we all strongly desire.

You might call those reasons “purposes” - if so, I don’t disagree. But the truth or falsehood of an idea transcends any “purpose” someone may have for speaking it. This is the academic posture: to dispassionately evaluate truth claims without fearing the speaker.

[nurettin]

Yes I understand that the naive position may be used as a default position for understanding ideas, and that is fine.

That doesn't stop us from acknowledging the fact that ideas and worldviews have strong ties and are intermingled enough that they almost always warrant an underlying motivation whether that be a noble search for truth or a way of digging further into denial.