Sociologist Robert Wuthnow has suggested that the general public doesn't find either science or theology provides satisfactory answers for life. Either they don't understand the talking heads, don't trust them, or anecdotal experience leaves them thinking the proffered solutions don't work.
The result is to resort to pop forms of these things. People turn either to pop science (e.g. Richard Dawkins or William Dembski, pick your poison) or self-help gurus.
Aside from the fact that people are going to show signs of rabies when commenting on either Dawkins or Dembski, Wuthnow goes deeper to claim part of the reason for this is that many people connect better to artistic expressions of an idea that is centered in experience than to rigorous academic approaches. For example, they are more likely to listen to a song about struggles with death by a musician who has struggled with death than listen to the advice of a psychiatrist.
Think about it. Is someone more likely to reference a song about spirituality or a theologian? Are they more likely to talk about Tony Stark's amazing scientific accomplishments or Stephen Hawking's?
What say you?
The result is to resort to pop forms of these things. People turn either to pop science (e.g. Richard Dawkins or William Dembski, pick your poison) or self-help gurus.
Aside from the fact that people are going to show signs of rabies when commenting on either Dawkins or Dembski, Wuthnow goes deeper to claim part of the reason for this is that many people connect better to artistic expressions of an idea that is centered in experience than to rigorous academic approaches. For example, they are more likely to listen to a song about struggles with death by a musician who has struggled with death than listen to the advice of a psychiatrist.
Think about it. Is someone more likely to reference a song about spirituality or a theologian? Are they more likely to talk about Tony Stark's amazing scientific accomplishments or Stephen Hawking's?
What say you?