Recently my kids asked me some questions about transubstantiation, and the distinctions between Catholics and Protestants.
At one time I could rattle off quite a bit of info on such topics, but having been an atheist for several decades, and being content with my conclusions following my religious search/education, I have spent more of my time recently in examining Humanist history/thought, than the alternative beliefs I have rejected. I was a little frustrated at being able to respond to my kids in rather vague terms about topics I think are important, and that I have spent a lot of time on in the past, altho not recently.
I often encounter similar situations. Say, for example, concerning evolution. I know that at one time I read several original and secondary sources and was up on the various arguments against the various strains of creationism/intelligent design/etc., but other matters have apparently crowded them from the tip of my tongue.
Same for many political issues.
To what extent does the validity of your views depend on your being able to currently explain/defend/justify them to another?
Do you feel it is necessary to periodically “recharge” your belief system through updating your fund of data with current research?
Or is it sufficient to be content with your understanding of your point of view on issues you feel important, despite being vague as to the specific processes that got you to that point?