evasiveness was an essential ingredient in the message of Lost

The tv show Lost evoked a wide range of reactions. One of these was the common complain that the show's writing was perceived as excessively evasive, especially during the show's second and third seasons. "I'm tired of the way that Lost never stops to explain everything that's going on." Fortunately, the creative minds (I will never refer to people as "creatives"!) working behind the scenes were able to negotiate the endpoint, which allowed them to plan and pace their episodes more evenly.

Of course, the project of keeping the show going was a crucial reason why some degree of evasiveness was always going to be needed. It would've hurt the show tremendously if its plot took a halt and had a character—probably a mythological figure suddenly appearing out of nowhere by a burning campfire—deliver a monologue with answers for every question. That would've been a lecture, not a show. And in the case of Lost, the unsettling lack of knowledge was actually one of its major emotional engines (complete with quivering strings on the soundtrack). Eliminating that would've drained its effect as surely as eliminating the "will they/won't they" question has drained the effect of many shows that have a central couple. Out of the many shows that copied the Lost formula, some were much quicker to reveal the explanation of the mystery in the premise...and then those shows spun wheels in-place trying to go somewhere interesting after the big revealing.

Nevertheless, as I watch the show again from my present mindset, I'm convinced that evasiveness was more than a practical requirement. It was essential to one of the very ideas that it played with: faith. The writers have admitted that the concept of faith was one of their inspirations. The characters have conversations about it several times, and their attitudes toward it change over time. 

To put it bluntly, Lost couldn't portray faith as thoroughly as it did and yet not be evasive. Faith needs evasiveness in order to be maintained and to be labeled "faith". If faith in the show was intended to be meaningfully comparable to the supernatural faiths of real people, then it had to share those faiths' evasiveness about precisely how reality is affected in any way by the things in those faiths. Evasiveness was a show ingredient, not an accidental oversight.

Why did the show need to be evasive about...

• ...faith in the personification of "The Island"? So that it could imitate the evasiveness about faith in the personification of a "Good Force". 
• ...the source and meaning of various visions that characters have? So that it could imitate the evasiveness about the source and meaning of various visions that religious followers have. 
• ...why numbers are bad luck or significant in some other way? So that it could imitate the evasiveness about why numbers matter in numerology. 
• ...how or why people are healed—or not—by their faith? So that it could imitate the evasiveness about how or why religious followers are healed—or not—by faith. 
• ...the connections between paranormal "scientific" occurrences and the island faith? So that it could imitate the evasiveness about the connections between paranormal "scientific" occurrences and religious followers' notions about the supernatural. 
• ...the connections between popular religions and the island faith? So that it could imitate the evasiveness about the connections between popular religions, which would be part of explaining how it's logically possible for all the popular religions to be equally accurate.
• ...the unseen actions of the competing supernatural figures on the island? So that it could imitate the evasiveness of religious followers about the unseen actions taken by their competing supernatural figures. 
• ...the details in the plans and goals of those figures, as well as how those plans and goals directed events? So that it could imitate the evasiveness about the details in the plans and goals of religious followers' supernatural figures, as well as how those figures' plans and goals direct real-world events. 
• ...the definition of a good or bad person in the eye of the island? So that it could imitate the evasiveness about how to definitively sort people into good or bad according to religious followers.
• ...whether any one character is lying or simply incorrect about island secrets at any moment? So that it could imitate the evasiveness about whether someone is sincere and knowledgeable about what they say about supernatural things.
• ...the so-called rules about what people (and human-shaped beings with uncanny powers) are allowed to do? So that it could imitate the evasiveness of religious followers about exact behavioral rules, which they debate amongst themselves endlessly.
• ...abnormal abilities or mental links that some people have? So that it could imitate the evasiveness regarding the abnormal abilities or mental links that some religious followers claim to have, such as clairvoyance and divine guidance, etc.
• ...the ancient past of the island's inhabitants who left behind exotic ruins and other structures? So that it could imitate the evasiveness of religious followers about admitting that ancient societies' "false religions" were every bit as vibrant as current religions. 

Having said all this, I must be clear that I wasn't one of the people who objected to Lost's perceived evasiveness. I don't demand that fictional stories be upfront about everything at all times. I believe the show's writing staff have been honest about their motivation to leave some things unsaid so that the audience could have differing interpretations, similar to the way that songwriters may refuse to decisively explain their lyrics. Questions are fascinating; the unknown lurking below the surface is thrilling and dangerous. (Lodge 49 too has a vibe of people pursuing an amazing realm which always seems perpetually a little out of reach,..although it's far more laid-back about it.)

That's why I'm in a position that's curiously opposite to any complainers who are also religious followers. When it comes to stories that anyone claims to be nonfictional, I echo their complaints. Evasiveness is an appalling quality for supposed truth-tellers to have. I'm stumped by how they aren't displaying the same attitude and criteria toward the stories that they consider to be simultaneously nonfictional and dreadfully important. Why should the faith stories someone was raised in be granted blanket exceptions—considering that the same people often have no qualms whatsoever in denying the same exceptions to the faith stories they weren't raised in ("how could they believe such nonsensical things?").  Lost can be evasive because, in the end, it's a TV show. Real-life ideas about how the universe works should not be.

mission inadvisable

It's an excellent idea to step back from time to time and approach a belief as a total outsider would. Otherwise, there's a strong tendency to slip into thinking a belief is reasonable merely due to comfort and familiarity. "Common sense" is often no more than a label for "the culture I grew up in". Unexamined assumptions invade and settle into someone like plant roots tunneling into cracks in rocks.

In the religious environment I emerged from, one of these assumptions was the mission to evangelize. Every follower had this mission, at least theoretically. Followers were expected to try their hardest to turn more people into followers. And this mission was for everyone's benefit: newly turned followers received transformed lives and afterlives, but they were also useful additions to the existing group of followers too. The whole concept seemed like a quite natural consequence of being a follower.

Yet now, after both literally and figuratively removing myself from that setting, I can look at this mission with fresh eyes. Through my present viewpoint, it appears...just...poorly thought-out. Its reliance on religious followers is so very inadvisable. If one doesn't assume upfront that it's their mission, then there's a truckload of superior alternative strategies for gathering new followers.

To be more specific: after granting the point that it's necessary for people to be followers before a god may show mercy to them, then using existing followers is an awful option for that god to take. It has vast powers and it would (supposedly) be overjoyed to have more followers to show mercy to. What could it be doing instead to lure more people into following?

• Distributing some more recent holy writings would be a good start. The current set has become overshadowed by insolvable controversies over the intended modern meaning of numerous sections. At the same time, debates have arisen over what to do with the sections that "appear" to suffer from the incorrect perspectives and barbaric social mores that were in effect at the time of writing. For that matter, the simple project of translating the writings into other languages has had its own share of controversies. Publishing an updated edition of the existing set of holy writings, and clearing up which writings in the set probably shouldn't have been included in the first place, would be good at a minimum.
• A god could speak out more frequently to prospective followers and even to self-admitted enemies. "Speak" refers to expressing audible words to multiple people at once, rather than popping up in hazily-remembered dreams or nonverbal impulses to attend a service. Although some wouldn't welcome the message, a lot of them would probably relish hearing from the one actual god—the experience would give them a solid reason to believe rather than keep them in undecided, half-hearted suspense.
• It could carry out undeniable, inexplicable acts of goodness in the world. What route to popularity could be more endearing? What could possibly be easier for announcing that it cares for people? Of course the good acts will need to be claimed so nobody blames any other gods that they have ideas about.
• A less showy but still deeply appreciated gesture would be for it to communicate its staggering knowledge to a wide variety of domains. At this point in human history, people who have expertise in domains other than theology have somehow gotten the strong impression that neither this god nor any other is involved in any way in their domains. Some have stated that their expertise indicates that no god of any real relevance can exist at all. It should resolve such conflicts and patiently go into detail about at what point their expertise went astray. Its sharing of knowledge would also have the side effect of immediately advancing society as a whole; who knows what inventive people could manage to do with the new knowledge.
• Most obviously, it could dispatch evangelizing beings who are far better suited than fallible finite followers. It created everything from scratch, so creating such beings would be no obstacle. They could have abilities to teleport, project loudly enough to reach entire crowds, shrug off dangers of all kinds, execute the occasional miracle, know every language, memorize the entire set of holy writings. Furthermore, they could complete the mission without the weight of a long history of self-righteousness and hypocrisy, which followers need to try to deflect in order to get in the door. Some people won't have a conversation on the topic until they get a sincere answer to the question, "Why has a good god been represented on Earth by people like that?"