The answer is plainly found in one definition of the word absurd: “utterly opposed to truth” Another definition I found on the internet is, “something that is so untrue or impossible it is funny.” Most definitions include the words illogical, and unreasonable.
In my personal quest for truth I’ve stated flatly, and without equivocation “Truth is never absurd.” I consider it to be a guiding principle. No matter what I am told, and regardless of the source, be it a respected authority, or a stranger I’ve just met, if I find it unreasonable, or illogical, I question the truth of it. If it creates a logical absurdity I reject it completely.
If finding absurdities is all it takes to sort truth from fiction then why do people so often disagree?
Most of us have been inculcated with particular beliefs concerning the world we live in and the way it works. Those beliefs are not necessarily true, but they constitute the truth as we know it. They become matters of faith. The faithful have a desperate desire to keep believing whatever they believe, even if all the evidence is against it.
Faith, by definition, is a belief in something for which there is no evidence. But if evidence is not essential to a belief then what idea is unbelievable? Without evidence it’s possible to believe anything.
Are beliefs based upon evidence more likely to be true than those that aren’t? I think the answer to that is a very reasonable and logical YES! And the more reliable the evidence the better.
We all believe things that aren’t true. It’s inevitable. I think most people are content to believe what they believe, and say “don’t bother me with the facts.” And that is their right in a free world.
But if you’re on a quest for the truth and not content to just accept without question cultural myths, or the consensus of opinion, then you should reject absurdity; whenever and wherever you find it.