At Science and the Sacred today, there is a post by Joel M. Martin, What Do Most Christians Really Believe About Evolution? He writes:
… But we live in a world that hungers for simple answers to complex problems. We Americans in particular seldom take the time to come to our own conclusions on complicated matters; we often defer to others to tell us what to do, how to feel, what to believe, how to think. I’m as guilty as anyone else here.
Rather than following a complicated regimen of exercise and diet, we look for a pill to help us lose weight. Rather than reading the president’s health plan, we want someone to summarize for us what’s wrong (or right) with it. Rather than studying the political landscape in detail, we rely on talk shows to find out how we should vote. Instead of increasing our science literacy, we adopt someone else’s take on cloning, or global warming, or the Gulf oil spill, or evolution. And there is no shortage of persons eager to step in to do just that, to distill the world’s major issues into simplistic terms. …
I hear these complaints a lot, mostly from intellectual types like me. While I resonate with it partly, another part says not so fast.
Imagine that I need a paper clip for a stack of papers. Which type of clip should I use? One of those traditional metal ones? Maybe one of those plastic ones? Or maybe one of the V-shaped things that open their jaws and clasp the papers together? I suppose I could go on the internet to look for product reviews, buy samples and do some tests, and ask others about their experience with paper clips. You might think I have become a little eccentric if I did so. I would suggest the same is true for many of the issues Martin lists above.
Most people do not have the compulsion to dig that deep. And for most, what is the relative benefit of nailing down nuanced aspects of evolution or having an expert grasp of the Gulf oil spill versus a) the impact these issues have on their daily lives, b) the ability they have to influence these issues if they knew more, and c) the cost they pay in forgoing other activities to develop expertise in these areas?
Now I will say that I agree that more people should delve deeper into some of the issues, but to expect the great majority of the population to delve deeply into every issue that confronts us is not realistic. The economics of becoming that informed don't add up. To keep expecting that depth of analysis can and should be so is to set yourself up for continued frustration. (I think those who try to shape belief … whether Dawkins on religion, Mohler on evolution, or McLaren on economics … should be held to a different standard.) And this is one of my great challenges: How to address complex issues in an age of information overload and busy lives?
Leave a Reply