In search of complex conversations
24/09/25 00:54
I read the news from a variety of sources, including several international ones. I try to understand what is going on in the world, and also why those things happen. I am interested in nuanced analysis, but it is tough to find. In our increasingly polarized world, many people are getting their news in sound bites and clips. Social media is a place for in-depth analysis. When I am tempted to blame computers and social media, I try to remind myself that engaging in careful analysis and conversation has never been easy.
I recall a series of conversations I had as a college student, before cell phones, personal computers, and social media. In those days, we got our news from newspapers and television broadcasts from three networks. The conversations centered on the general topic of science versus religion. I rejected the proposal, arguing that science and religion are not opposed. At one point, I found myself in a conversation with a classmate about the theory of evolution. The classmate was a “born again” Christian who frequently used the slogan “one way” to indicate his belief that Christianity was superior to all other religions. I found his brand of faith to be off-putting. I was a serious student of religion, intending to become a Christian minister, and the reduction of Christianity to a set of slogans seemed inappropriate. I didn’t publicly criticize those, but I certainly thought of them as having a very shallow faith.
In our conversation, my classmate said that the Bible is opposed to Darwin. I responded that I didn’t think the Bible is opposed to any person. He clarified that the Bible states that God created everything, including humans, and that Darwin proposed humans descended from apes. I said that I didn’t think that Darwin’s research into the origin of species could be reduced to family lineage and asked him if he had read “Origin of Species.” He responded that he didn’t have to. He had read a brochure that he got at church.
I wrote off the conversation, deciding that it wasn’t worth arguing about. I myself had not read Origin of Species. I took a look at it in the library after our conversation, and it was over 500 pages long; frankly, it was pretty dull. Knowing that much reinforced my belief that it was nearly impossible to have a nuanced conversation about natural selection with a born-again Christian who was convinced that he knew the truth and that everyone who disagreed with him was wrong and probably headed for hell.
Charles Darwin was a very complex thinker. He was fascinated by many aspects of the natural world. He is famous for the survey voyage on the HMS Beagle, and for his theory of natural selection, but those two things represent just a small part of his interests and research. It has been reported that Darwin’s favorite plant was a type of Drosera, a carnivorous plant that has sticky tentacles with which it entraps insects. His 287-page book Insectivorous Plants, published in 1875, reports on his experiments with Drosera.
A tract circulating in an evangelical church did not equip my classmate for a nuanced conversation about Darwin’s ideas or theories. Despite his claims to the contrary, my classmate did not know what Darwin thought, nor did he know what he wrote.
What Charles Darwin did was to participate in science. He contributed to a body of knowledge and information that has been accumulating for centuries. A human life is a short span compared to the lives of many plants. Learning about them requires many generations of shared information and knowledge.
Science and religion are not opposed. They are human explorations that have been shared over the span of thousands of years. And they are filled with layers of nuance and complexity. When we reduce them to slogans, we fail to appreciate either of them.
I am hungry for complex and nuanced conversations, but I find them increasingly difficult to find.
I would like to have a calm conversation about freeing the hostages and ending the suffering of the Palestinian people in Gaza. Still, it seems that anything other than a full endorsement of the policies of the government of Israel is labeled anti-Semitic in public conversation these days. I want to be able to understand the story of the man charged with the murder of Charlie Kirk to see if there is anything that can be learned about preventing such violence in the future.. But even raising the question seems to be interpreted as saying something negative about the man who died. I don’t understand how Turning Point USA became a multi-million-dollar nonprofit. I’ve worked in much smaller nonprofits, and I know the influence major donors can have. But questioning the organization at this point will get a person labeled as a radical leftist.
I actually may be a radical leftist, but I am deeply committed to nonviolence. I would like to have a nuanced and civil conversation with those who hold different positions, without the conversation being reduced to memes and tropes.
The arena of internet memes doesn’t require research. It doesn’t require reading long and sometimes boring books. It doesn’t require actual knowledge. More troubling, it often dismisses careful study and investigation.
I am not a scientist, but I know that autism is not a disease and it cannot be prevented or cured. I know that banning Tylenol during pregnancy will not mean that there are no people on the spectrum. Furthermore, I am grateful that I have friends who are autistic. I believe they have a significant positive impact on the quality of life within a community. What worries me most about the current public debate is that officials at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are literally deleting the results of complex double-blind research projects and removing from public access research that has taken generations to accumulate. Any questions raised about where federal funds authorized for scientific research are being redirected under the current administration are dismissed as inappropriate.
An administration that stifles all criticism and attacks those who ask questions is not creating an atmosphere for careful, nuanced, complex conversation. And that is the conversation we need right now.
For the record, I’m willing to listen.
I recall a series of conversations I had as a college student, before cell phones, personal computers, and social media. In those days, we got our news from newspapers and television broadcasts from three networks. The conversations centered on the general topic of science versus religion. I rejected the proposal, arguing that science and religion are not opposed. At one point, I found myself in a conversation with a classmate about the theory of evolution. The classmate was a “born again” Christian who frequently used the slogan “one way” to indicate his belief that Christianity was superior to all other religions. I found his brand of faith to be off-putting. I was a serious student of religion, intending to become a Christian minister, and the reduction of Christianity to a set of slogans seemed inappropriate. I didn’t publicly criticize those, but I certainly thought of them as having a very shallow faith.
In our conversation, my classmate said that the Bible is opposed to Darwin. I responded that I didn’t think the Bible is opposed to any person. He clarified that the Bible states that God created everything, including humans, and that Darwin proposed humans descended from apes. I said that I didn’t think that Darwin’s research into the origin of species could be reduced to family lineage and asked him if he had read “Origin of Species.” He responded that he didn’t have to. He had read a brochure that he got at church.
I wrote off the conversation, deciding that it wasn’t worth arguing about. I myself had not read Origin of Species. I took a look at it in the library after our conversation, and it was over 500 pages long; frankly, it was pretty dull. Knowing that much reinforced my belief that it was nearly impossible to have a nuanced conversation about natural selection with a born-again Christian who was convinced that he knew the truth and that everyone who disagreed with him was wrong and probably headed for hell.
Charles Darwin was a very complex thinker. He was fascinated by many aspects of the natural world. He is famous for the survey voyage on the HMS Beagle, and for his theory of natural selection, but those two things represent just a small part of his interests and research. It has been reported that Darwin’s favorite plant was a type of Drosera, a carnivorous plant that has sticky tentacles with which it entraps insects. His 287-page book Insectivorous Plants, published in 1875, reports on his experiments with Drosera.
A tract circulating in an evangelical church did not equip my classmate for a nuanced conversation about Darwin’s ideas or theories. Despite his claims to the contrary, my classmate did not know what Darwin thought, nor did he know what he wrote.
What Charles Darwin did was to participate in science. He contributed to a body of knowledge and information that has been accumulating for centuries. A human life is a short span compared to the lives of many plants. Learning about them requires many generations of shared information and knowledge.
Science and religion are not opposed. They are human explorations that have been shared over the span of thousands of years. And they are filled with layers of nuance and complexity. When we reduce them to slogans, we fail to appreciate either of them.
I am hungry for complex and nuanced conversations, but I find them increasingly difficult to find.
I would like to have a calm conversation about freeing the hostages and ending the suffering of the Palestinian people in Gaza. Still, it seems that anything other than a full endorsement of the policies of the government of Israel is labeled anti-Semitic in public conversation these days. I want to be able to understand the story of the man charged with the murder of Charlie Kirk to see if there is anything that can be learned about preventing such violence in the future.. But even raising the question seems to be interpreted as saying something negative about the man who died. I don’t understand how Turning Point USA became a multi-million-dollar nonprofit. I’ve worked in much smaller nonprofits, and I know the influence major donors can have. But questioning the organization at this point will get a person labeled as a radical leftist.
I actually may be a radical leftist, but I am deeply committed to nonviolence. I would like to have a nuanced and civil conversation with those who hold different positions, without the conversation being reduced to memes and tropes.
The arena of internet memes doesn’t require research. It doesn’t require reading long and sometimes boring books. It doesn’t require actual knowledge. More troubling, it often dismisses careful study and investigation.
I am not a scientist, but I know that autism is not a disease and it cannot be prevented or cured. I know that banning Tylenol during pregnancy will not mean that there are no people on the spectrum. Furthermore, I am grateful that I have friends who are autistic. I believe they have a significant positive impact on the quality of life within a community. What worries me most about the current public debate is that officials at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are literally deleting the results of complex double-blind research projects and removing from public access research that has taken generations to accumulate. Any questions raised about where federal funds authorized for scientific research are being redirected under the current administration are dismissed as inappropriate.
An administration that stifles all criticism and attacks those who ask questions is not creating an atmosphere for careful, nuanced, complex conversation. And that is the conversation we need right now.
For the record, I’m willing to listen.
