Why people only change when they have to

I recently watched a fantastic lecture on religion and science. The following quote is a section that articulated something that has been on my mind for a while and is worth further exploration:

Quote

There are certain live, momentous and forced options which people face and can’t be decided by anything that some would be willing to call evidence. 

An option is live if we can't help thinking about it; if we can't help feeling it's important. Options that are live for some people are not live for other people. People's sense of importance differs.

It's momentous if, unlike the option of going to the movies or staying home and working, decision between the alternatives will have far reaching effects. 

It's forced if there's no way of splitting the difference, no way of fudging the issue. It cannot be decided on intellectual grounds if there is no consensus in the relevant community of what criteria should be used for arriving at a decision.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EjhVk-0Vhmk

I don't believe anyone changes their life or reaches new conclusions because unsought evidence lands on their lap.

People don't join the church because truth interrupts them. Almost every conversions story whether into or out of Mormonism (indeed many faith or no faith expressions and transitions) happen in reaction to one of those three possible influences. 

People say "I had a tragedy and started looking for..." or "I was at a stage in my life when I felt a desire to..." or "There was a problem that I needed a solution for..." Both into and out of the church. People don't radically change their life when there is no reason to. It happens when circumstance leads to questions that are "live, momentous and/or forced." I think these often exist without us consciously being aware of it.

When something is outside of both our circle of influence and our circle of concern it isn't of any interest at all.

For example, I don't care for a minute whether Zoroaster really had a vision of God and his Amesha Spentas some 3,500 years ago. Partly because I only heard of him last week but mainly because it really has no bearing on my life. The reality or not of his vision is neither live, momentous nor forced. I will have probably forgotten about it in a few months time. Is that irresponsible? Do I have a duty to go and explore every claim of divine interaction? No. There are more divine stories that hours in my life. There has to be a triage system.

So when people leave or join the church, or when people read and are troubled by church history vs reading the same thing and shrugging it off, it is not simply the history that is the issue.

The issue of accepting or rejecting the historic evidence of Joseph as a prophet really has a deeper root. When people leave the church, it's almost always not a "desire to sin" as some characterise it or a laziness at not wanting to be a saint anymore. But it is also not simply a cold and rational reading of historical information.

It is far more likely that "something" has happened which causes the same evidence to lead to a different conclusion. 

E.g. If my wife converted to Zoroastrianism then suddenly the question of what happened to the faith's founding prophet would become live and somewhat momentous. Until then he's a curious but forgettable footnote in history. 

The "something" motivates us to seek the evidence. This drives the exploration. Without that "something" people will either ignore the evidence/history entirely, or will engage with it from a different perspective and objective.

This doesn't invalidate the conclusion reached. It doesn't mean that those who doubt or leave are weaker or more ignorant than those who stay or vice versa. It simply means that life's experiences has lead to a different set of "live, meaningful and/or forced" options. The "something" is different for everyone. The same "something" in two or more people can also lead to different conclusion. I believe that both we and God are involved in crafting the personalised curriculum that leads to these different circumstances, options and conclusions. This is also why I'm very comfortable with the notion of individualised vehicles for travelling the path to godliness.

I'm not sure if I'm making any sense. It's making more in my head. I'll give it a bit more 'mulling' time.