All ultimate and necessary truths are aspects of God's being, including the truths that are the means to all truths including themselves, truths that make up reason, logic, a set of values and conditionals, intentions and purposes.
There is a sense in which courage of one's convictions is in direct proportion to the extent to which one is willing to attack those convictions. Moreover, this way of negation is not only necessary for completing the structure of one's understanding of one's perspective and oneself, it is also required to understand surviving claims and their argumentative structures in the sharpest contrast to arguments for their negations. This prepares one more fully to examine competing claims, although again the resulting comparative analysis either contributes to the edification of one's view, or else changes it or negates it altogether. That's the necessary risk one takes.
Moreover, one is already taking a risk in not knowing whether one will live through the coming day, and in operating according to whatever default view is assumed already. There's no such thing as a philosophical neutral zone.
The essence of the self-critical process is the attempt to approximate an ideal structure of justification. So why not an all-out attack on every front? Systematic, comprehensive, from the ground up, and developed into more than a habit---like breathing.
The result of course is to strengthen one's view, assuming it's true, and render being one's own worst enemy the greatest of friendships.