1) does knowing the truth matter to you? because if it does then it seems like you're insulating yourself against the possibility of your ideas being wrong by reasoning that you're happier thinking they're right, and thus possibly preventing yourself from discovering the truth. so if you think the probability argument is strong and worth of basing a belief system on, you shouldn't need to rationalize away the chance of being wrong by reasoning that your way of thinking makes you happier. either you think that way cause you think it's correct, or you're doing it to make yourself happy. combining those two approaches seems to indicate a lack of confidence in the former. 2) i think you're straw-manning the opposition in an effort to make your ideology seem more appealing. "being an intellectual", "better be feared than loved." i think this is a caricature you're attacking to avoid having to confront serious opposition. both sides claim to have intellectual integrity, and you can be an intellectual or pose as an intellectual and land on either side of the debate. so maybe the root cause of the debate goes deeper than that.