I will never research the most important thing, but I’m absolutely sure about it (the psychology of the unread)

There is some quote that goes, “Either the Christian faith is the most important thing in the world or it is completely unimportant.” Perhaps the Ricochetti can find who said that particular quote. While not conventionally religious myself, I respect the intellectual rigor of that statement.

If two thousand years ago a carpenter-turned-Rabbi was the only way for a person to attain eternity in heaven, then you should probably have an audiobook or two on the subject on your iPad. That’s just good long-term planning.

So Christians studying their religion always made sense to me. What is logically inconsistent are devout Christians who never study the Bible but take everything the Bible says literally. If these people had chronic medical complications, they would probably spend an hour of their lives googling it to see if there were any new treatments once every few years. Yet the texts regarding their immortal soul are too long to read. (To be fair, the Bible is not an easy read.)

I find these kinds of Christians odd, but eventually learned that many people besides Christians also share a lackadaisical approach to research. This is particularly notable among hard leftists who used to focus on catastrophic climate change.

I hear from hard leftists that we will all die because of climate change. It logically follows that if you believe in that, you would research and prepare for the coming climate apocalypse. I would expect science fiction novels like Make Room! Make Room! or beachfront property to lose value, and the ultra-rich buying land in Greenland and creating sustainable farms. I would also expect every third conversation to be about how children will survive the environmental apocalypse.

What actually happens is that hard leftists say we will all die because of climate change and then continue on as if everything is regular. If Greta Thunberg honestly believed that climate change would destroy everything, then why does she care about the Palestinian cause? Wouldn’t the number of Palestinians killed in the conflict pale in comparison to the billions about to die?

Besides Greta, journalist Tom Elliot gave a tweet that summed up this mentality perfectly. (For those of you who don’t know, Tom Elliot is some talking head on MSNBC with an obnoxiously metrosexual haircut.) He tweeted, “When I go to D.C., I’m not afraid of losing my wallet so much as I’m afraid of losing my vote. I’m not afraid of losing my wallet so much as I’m afraid that my children’s freedom to breathe will be stolen in a world where climate change policy is nonexistent.”

If his children won’t be able to breathe, wouldn’t that matter more than voting rights? If my Dad were more worried about voting rights than my ability to breathe, I would feel quite sad. Tom Elliot is probably more political than my dad, but I would still feel sad if he valued the life of his kid as the equivalent of voting.

The reasoning (or lack thereof) behind Tom Elliot’s quotation is that he compares voting rights to the rights of his child because both are entirely theoretical in his head. He isn’t actually concerned about either of them.* It’s like horror nerds arguing about whether Freddy Krueger or Jason Voorhees is a scarier bad guy. It’s so abstracted that the details aren’t particularly relevant.

If there were any real effort to limit voting rights, there would be some intellectual who wrote a book about how democracy isn’t great. Then other thinkers would quote that book, and some policy nerd would write up a basic outline of a proposed bill. Journalists and talking heads could then go into the details about the policy and reference the book against voting.

So is Tom Elliot lying when he says that voting rights in America are under threat and that his kid might die from climate change? I don’t think his mind is logical enough to make that kind of lie. I think he goes by feelings, and his feelings say that voting rights are under attack and climate change will make everything horrible. He doesn’t check these feelings with the physical reality of the material world that we live in, and these feelings aren’t based on any serious research, study or even empirical observations. Tom Elliot’s vibes are so important that they make their own ‘truth.’

With Greta, Tom Elliot and the reading-averse Christian, the specifics aren’t important. The overall story is emotionally compelling, so they believe it without sweating the details. This doesn’t mean that their beliefs aren’t sincerely held.

Though it is notable that they often behave in opposite ways from their beliefs. If someone thinks that Israel was cool with genocide, you think they would be scared to protest in Israeli-controlled locations. If I thought that global warming was going to kill billions of people, I would force myself to pay attention to Canada. Similarly, Christians who don't read the Bible seem to ignore the Bible whenever convenient.

My mind doesn’t function like the zealous unread. Since I’m posting this on an online writing club, I doubt that it’s how your brain functions either. But a huge number of people live and vote with little information and maximum vibes. It’s worth contemplating their minds.

* For the record. I totally want to take Tom Elliot’s voting rights away unless he can pass a test of basic logic.

Author's Note: All the images are free for public use.