I would encourage you to explore these issues as you would any other disputed truth claim. For instance, how would you investigate the veracity of climate change? Answer: You would investigate/research both sides of the disputed issue. You would read expert opinion from both sides. You would verify that the respective experts are qualified to be considered experts. There are many “experts” on the internet who do not have the education and training to be considered experts. The following questions would be important:
What percentage of qualified experts agree with each side? Are the experts evenly divided? If so, that is going to make it much harder to choose a side. However, if there a consensus of experts on the issue and only a fringe that disagree, that will make your decision much easier.
Does one or both sides have biases? This is critical. Truth must be the ultimate goal, whatever that truth may be. Try to identify biases and ignore those biases when evaluating the evidence.
Some of your questions are beyond the scope of experts, such as reconciling a loving deity with the cycles of death required in evolution. On such issues, I would encourage you to trust your common sense.
That is certainly an option, Roy. But when making yourself the final authority on a complex topic one must be acutely aware of the Dunning-Kruger Effect:
The belief that a non-expert can determine the truth on complex, technical issues through personal research is largely an expression of the Dunning-Kruger effect, where individuals lack the necessary expertise to recognize their own incompetence, leading to overconfidence. While empowering, this approach often results in becoming more misled due to confirmation bias, as people tend to search for information that validates their pre-existing beliefs.
Key aspects of this phenomenon include:
The Dunning-Kruger Effect: Non-experts often lack the necessary knowledge to accurately evaluate their own understanding, causing them to underestimate the complexity of a topic.
Confirmation Bias: The tendency to search for, interpret, and favor information that confirms one’s pre-existing beliefs, while ignoring contradictory evidence.
Epistemic Trespassing: The phenomenon where laypeople (or experts in an unrelated field) form confident judgments in a new area, resulting in unreliable conclusions.
Information Misinterpretation: “Doing your own research” often involves seeking out online sources that mirror existing views, rather than evaluating evidence objectively.
The Illusory Truth Effect: The tendency to believe information is correct after repeated exposure, a common hazard when consuming information online.
While some arguments suggest that non-experts can challenge expert consensus, studies indicate that independent research on complex, scientific, or technical topics frequently leads to higher levels of misinformation.
I think I’d encourage the opposite though it might lead to the same place. I’d say, “Don’t trust your common sense, too, because a lot of obviously clever people haven’t figured the solution either”. Instead, be humble, accept the ambiguity, and muddle on the best you can. Appreciate the merits of the problem and proposed solutions but don’t invest strong emotion or a sense of identity in any. It’s a meditation, not fight-club.