Now I can fully appreciate this sounds like a very very dry topic and tertiary based philosophical question, entirely unrelated to your day to day existence.
But bear with me.
It's actually incredibly profound and important.
Why?
There are two parts to this question actually, and it has a few presuppositions baked into it that also need to be accepted in order for the question to be valid.
The two parts are this:
1. Do we have a moral obligation to pursue the truth of a matter?
2. If we discover or uncover the truth of the matter, what moral obligations do we have to accept it?
Let me set the scene with a typical scene that we have seen repeated throughout history:
A man is falsely brought before a judge to be condemned for his crime.
The judge has been called in to judge the accused under a law that is not under his jurisdiction.
The man is flogged under the ancient Roman system with a whip akin to the "cat of nine tails", where they assign 40 lashes, but only do 39, because 40 can kill the person.
Before condemning the man to a brutal form of death that was designed to have death elongated through extreme suffering - the crucifixion, (which, by the way is where we get the word "excruciating" from - ' out of the cross'), a conversation is had between the accused the the judge:
----------
"37 “You are a king, then!” said Pilate.
Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”
38 “What is truth?” retorted Pilate. With this he went out again to the Jews gathered there...'
John 18: 37-38
----------
Now if you are a septic, you may scoff at the validity of this historical event or the authenticity of the exchange.
So be it.
But here's the rub gents :
Coming back to the question part a and b - what if it did occur? What if it is the truth?
Do you have a moral obligation to find out? And if it turns out to be the truth, what do you do with it? Are you morally culpable if you reject the truth of the matter? Are you responsible for the consequences that follow?
Is your presuppositions of skepticism or personal dislike a reasonable, plausible justification for either ignoring the obligation to pursue the truth of a matter or rejecting it outright?
Let me put it another way.
Play the same scenario out above and it's you in the dock.
What is the obligation of the Judge? The accusers?
----------
If there is no ultimate judge or arbiter, but just imperfect, fallible humans with evidence that is opaque. What is the obligation of the jury?
Have you ever been on Jury duty? What is your moral obligation?
Why?
Here's my contention, in the case of Jesus Christ, it is recorded that Jesus said it 19 times "Truly truly I tell you...." ; he said many times 'very truly I say to you..."; he said "I am the Truth. (John 14:6)... he said "if you hold to my teaching then you will know the truth and the truth will set you free" John 8:31-32.
And finally, the Son of God, is standing before a mere mortal, who is going to untruthfully judge him to a brutal death march and questions him to find out The Truth of Jesus' situation, to find out if Jesus had breached a moral law that was originally from God himself, the Torah. And Jesus says : "I testify to the truth - and those who listen to me, are on the side of truth."
And what does the judge do?
He asks Jesus, the embodiment of Truth, "What is truth" .... and doesn't wait for Jesus's answer...
Is that what we do?
-----------------------------
