Certainly I read a lot in my past, but I think to internalize and digest outside readings into one's own belief system is utmost important, otherwise you'll see some people who also read a lot will throw out some quotes without context at you like a stone as their simple conclusive argument...

As a religious or philosophical faith, many people like to believe a person like God. Well, if you meditate calmly, the personification of the Creator itself is another anthropomorphic (modern physics & cosmology jargon) metaphor under my metaphoric nominalism view, which historically stimulated certain lovely type of people. I can think of a sufficient reason for this, since at least by now, we're still more or less taught by human parents and teachers from childhood, not by some trained AI bots, so we gradually and naturally developed this kind of feeling which we like to be guided by some living person we attracted or attached to. This personification metaphor of absolute unadulterated truth is very emotionally compelling, it may lead people boil down to two simple choices for any decision, that is, will (for the creator like my father) or not will without fully reasoned caution. It's like choose your career or your intimate partner in a rush. On the other extreme end, modern logical but cold hard artificial intelligence is still very limited in forming metaphoric possibilities simply based on the premise that the bot has been trained with neuro-network models literally. In other words, AI apparently lacks real intelligence through self reflection and critique.

My slight difference from above belief is that, I have no trouble using some relatively unconfused metaphor (aka, essentially approximate and fake) to describe/explain/predict other confused metaphors, but there's only one condition that is being rational meaning it hasn't been falsified by any experiment or mathematical logic. So the personified creator image so far hasn't been invalidated and very likely it may never will be invalidated. But Taoism doesn't advocate a personified creator while emphasize there're eternal heavenly laws governing all aspects of human life and natural phenomena. This was very much like modern belief that math plus all kinds of sciences are governing the world, like Leibniz's necessary modal principle of sufficient reason (PSR) or Chinese Huayan school's much more holistic dependent arising with interpenetration depicted in Quine style Indra's Net essentially all saying that there's always some sufficient reason for anything which ever existed. Scottish philosopher David Hume was seriously skeptical of such kind of deterministic certain constant conjunction as nomic causality proposed in his famous problem of induction and Hume's fork, later in principle such requirement was generally loosened to verifiable statistical correlation (aka correlated conjunction) after the establishment of QM so that the classic logical entailment first principle won't be deflated to possible vacuous material implication in a specific model at a possible world or got violated entirely. Anyhow history shows that math is found to be the universal-more-clear-precise-validated metaphors so far and this fact is coined as the indispensability argument in the philosophy of mathematics by Quine and Putnam which is an attempt to avoid Benacerraf’s dilemma by showing that our best epistemology is consistent with standard readings of mathematical claims. Medieval western mystic John Dee once tried his own version - Enoch angelic language and claimed it was more clear and could directly communicate with angles. Similar legends hold for King Solomon invoking spirits via his Lemegaton language, and many religious factions emphasize Dharani or Mantras such as Om... However, none of these private languages had been validated as more reproducible, more clear, more precise, more universal, more applicable in various fields than the public math language though they may sound more esoteric and mystic for layman's naive curiosity (i.e. speculation)...

It's definitely true from my academic experience math never helped anyone to reach love, most students and professors are driven mad and become theorem proving machines so that they can publish papers and get cited for their own career. But my speculative thought is since this stuff is too complicated to master all its pieces and corners, our mortal humans no matter how gifted still need to study it and think about it everyday such that it doesn't even let the pros rest and enjoy. You can personify math as a super mysterious person (or even creator) which we just scratch its face, we haven't got the time to fully know and enjoy such a large, mysterious and complex person completely, mathematicians and other math practitioners are still full of big confusions even within math itself...

In other science departments, similar things happen. Popular particle physicist Richard Feynman in his videos hinted to find new physics nowadays are exponentially harder than 50 years ago as experienced by modern string-M theory, simply because human minds are running out of elementary common metaphors like jiggling balls to describe laws inside atoms/quarks. Mother nature never lets physicists rest and play inside a familiar known framework like engineers. Space may not look like real line continuum any more, it's replaced by esoteric Calabi-Yau 11-D manifold space borrowed from modern algebraic topology. So to find remaining new basic physical laws inside atoms, physicists have to work same hard as mathematicians around the clock to leverage new abstract math structures to explain many strange new findings from high energy collision experiments or blackholes...

I agree unless we know the unadulterated truth at our disposal, we can never know the exact ontology. It's like without knowing a whole person, we can never understand what is a hand, as pre-Renaissance Cardinal and philosopher Nicholas of Cusa pointed out clearly in his Book - Learned Ignorance, without complete understanding of the ultimate Oneness, one cannot completely understand any part. However a half-blinded man can still help fully-blinded men, I don't have trouble to live in a purely metaphorical world with different levels of clarity, since we still can help illuminate the relatively confused (suffered) within this crazy fake pictorial world which we already somehow recognized, just as many ancient saints described in their books, it's exactly like a dream... And per my metaphoric nominalism methodology, in this grand dream there're nothing but various people's confusions (sufferings). When a person starts to recognize his or her own confusions (sufferings), then by his or her own metaphors of various clarity degrees, hopefully this person will not be too far away to "solve" his or her own problems...

Once there's an online guy claimed I'll soon believe in ufology. In UFO business realm to prove its existence, we need measurements and facts to validate, and this is within a much more complicated natural phenomena realm including all sorts of cosmology business, not basic physics laws/math realm. So the nature of this complicated realm is more concrete but much less clear for human, compared with math/laws inside atoms. The definition of facts are controversial here since no repeated experiments can be done to validate it yet, much work to be done here, so I don't think I'll believe in ufology soon. Reading books literally is of course an important way to form one's own metaphors by the words' semantic meanings. The key is even reading same literal word, people will form different semantic meanings. Furthermore, reading books may not be the only way or sometimes the best way to learn, for example, I learned computer programming mainly via direct project agile practice, you don't need read books after books on how to program in Javascript then begin to setup a frontend webpage or a backend server, it's not efficient. Similarly, conversation is the ultimate way to arrive at truth since reading books without criticism is a well-known trap in any academia, only through dialectic critiques human mind can test and correct her previous rigid dogmas formed by simply reading books and imagined from her own limited experiences.

Pyrrhonism (borrowed some ideas from Buddhism thousands of years ago) definitely has some shining point in it otherwise such an ancient school of thought would disappear long ago. Because for human the world is nothing but a metaphoric picture, so we cannot know the ultimate truth if it exists. But Pyrrhonist's goal is happiness of life and claims human cannot understand the nature of the world, similar to Fallibilism or Positivism. However, my metaphoric nominalism explains we can use less-confused particular metaphor to represent more-confused metaphor during the inevitable and subtle semantic ascent, and this is NOTHING BUT the nature of epistemology. If you can somehow achieve this like modern science, you've successfully resolved confusions and conflations already and can have other advances with it like technology. So my ethics is to use all our skills to help resolve confusions still existed, but not to pursue any happiness or ataraxia, as happiness is nothing but another illusory murky sentimental metaphor which quickly morphs into dullness as layman always experienced... So in this sense, my position is far from pyrrhonism.