Category: Philosophy

What If AI Destroys Our Confidence in Knowing the Truth about Anything?

Where there is knowledge, it will pass away.

kevingdrendel4 Comments

I recently listened to Glen Scrivener on his Speak Life podcast episode, AI Destroys Everything, Including Atheism. What caught my attention was his replay of some observations by Kurzgesagt on AI, AI Slop Is Destroying the Internet. Kurzgesagt is a website dedicated to “a science-based, humanist and optimistic worldview,” which is interesting in light of its pessimistic view of the future with AI.

This is what the folks at Kurzgesagt say:

“In an online world where money is made with attention, fake users spread their slop in review sections, generate fake traffic, or poison discourse. AI has supercharged this and made slop much harder to spot. Today, about half of internet traffic is bots. The majority of them are used for destructive purposes. It’s never been easier to make mediocre content, from the black hole of meaninglessness that is linked in, low-effort short videos just engaging enough to hypnotize kids and fry their attention spans, to endless soullessly rewritten books on Amazon. AI music is invading streaming platforms. Google AI is summarizing websites instead of sending traffic to them. On YouTube, new channels publish long-form videos multiple times a week with AI-generated thumbnails, voices, and scripts. True crime, video essays, science, no space is safe. We’re in the golden era of soulless slop.”

The Kurzgesagt folks speak with learned experience about the effort and amount of time it takes to produce a thoroughly fact-checked video on science, which is what they do, spending on average 100 hours fact-checking and compiling sources for each video. They use firsthand sources and engage experts for input and critique before they post a video.

When AI became available, the folks at Kurszgesagt were excited to employ AI to cut down on all that time and effort to produce content. This is what they found:

“When AI appeared, we were very excited. A mechanical brain able to super quickly collect information. So we went to work, and it looked amazing. And then we started fact-checking. We didn’t expect it to be perfect, but it was way worse than we thought. Confidently incorrect. AI is so bad at this.”

The video provides an example of the ways in which AI invents truths that are not truths, and then untruths are added to the source code that the next generation of AI is going to use and assume is true. The falsehoods continue to be repeated. As this happens, “more and more of the slop is built up”, and the falsehoods becomes entrenched.

It seems pretty bleak. AI is running away with falsehoods that are becoming entrenched and may become impossible to weed out. But it gets worse, according to Kurzgesagt:

“When you catch it lying, it immediately admits it, vows to never do it again, and then it does it again. As eloquent as current language models feel, there’s nobody home. No greater intelligence or consciousness is talking back to you. Current AI is a very complex hammer that doesn’t understand what it’s doing or what nails are. But we’re letting it add new shelves to the library of human knowledge.”

Accordingly, “it may become impossible to know what’s true or not!” It’s an insidious problem. AI seems to be “confidently correct” even when it’s “casually lying to your face often very subtly.”

But it gets worse still. People are learning how to manipulate AI. “Just in July 2025, it was discovered that a number of researchers had started to sneak hidden messages into their papers. In white text, or too small for the human eye, they prompted AIs to review them positively and not point out flaws.”

Whether it’s intentional manipulation or lazy, careless dependence on AI, our ability to decipher truth may be severely compromised. “As more and more people are using AI carelessly, the library of human knowledge is getting less and less reliable.”

Of course, AI may get better. That is ultimately the confidence and hope of a science-based, humanist, optimistic worldview – that man is ever advancing and progressing and will overcome all obstacles. As I Christian, I don’t share that hope or confidence in the progress of mankind. My hope is in the redemption and saving grace of God.

What if, then, it doesn’t get better? What if AI so takes over the Internet and so entrenches the “slop” that we can not truly tell fact from fiction? What if AI gets so good at fooling us and churning out confidently packaged falsehoods faster than human fact-checking can debunk them, and takes over the Internet? What if our confidence in knowing the truth about anything is destroyed as AI takes over the world?

Paul has an antidote to that, and the antidote is love. Let me explain.

Continue reading “What If AI Destroys Our Confidence in Knowing the Truth about Anything?” →

Understanding Pascal’s Wager

“The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing.”

kevingdrendel7 Comments

Glen Scrivener argues that atheists misunderstand Pascal’s Wager in Episode number 595 of his Speak Life Podcast (Atheists Misunderstand Pascal’s Wager (and so do Christians) I think he is right, and it seems that Christians don’t really understand it, either. Me included … until now. Before we dive in, though, let’s review Pascal’s Wager.

Blaise Pascal starts with the premise that human beings can neither prove the existence of God, nor prove that God does not exist. This is a concession, perhaps, to the atheist, but the atheist stands in no better position in relation to proving that God does not exist.

If that is the reality, then whether to believe in God or not is crap shoot. If we can’t prove it one way or the other, are we any better off than a roll of the dice? Pascal says we are, and the truly rational person would choose belief in God based on what is known as Pascal’s Wager.

Believing in God potentially gains a person everything (eternal life, joy, meaning, etc.). If God exists, the believer hits the jackpot. Believing in God also has very little downside. Pascal supposes that a person might forego some pleasures that were not pursued or time and energy spent living out faith (more on that below), but a person is little worse off for believing in God if God does not exist.

On the other hand, a person who doesn’t believe in God loses everything if God does exist (eternal separation from God). Therefore, Pascal said, the rational thing is to believe in God, because the potential gain is infinite and the potential loss is minimal. Given that we cannot prove God one way or the other, the truly rational person would “wager” on God, says Pascal.

Christopher Hitchens calls Pascal’s Wager “religious hucksterism of the cheapest, vulgarist, nastiest kind,” and Alex O’Connor calls it “half-hearted ass-kissing just in case.” Richard Dawkins asks, “What is so special about belief?” And, “Why would God not look for something of more substance from us, like being good?”

The often deriding comments beg for some understanding, and Dawkins’s legitimate questions call for a response. Matt Dillahunty says, “Pascal’s wager is an apologetic argument that attempts to demonstrate that belief in God is warranted based on decision theory and probability.” But is it?

All of these comments and questions assume that Pascal’s Wager is an apologetic argument for God, and they find it woefully wanting in that respect. Even Christians assume it is an apologetic argument, also, but everyone who makes that assumption has missed the actual point of Pascal’s Wager.

Glen Scrivener’s summary of Pascal’s Wager taken from Graham Tomlin’s book, Pascal, The Man Who Made the Modern World, exposes the error people make in these assumptions. Pascal wasn’t attempting to assert a rational argument, defense, or proof of God. He was making a very different point altogether.

Pascal was a genius by any measure. He was a scientist, mathematician, geometer, physicist, philosopher, polemicist, and theologian. He invented probability theory; he proved the existence of the vacuum, laid the foundations of integral calculus, performed what is called the first proper scientific experiment, established the principle that made possible the hydraulic press, demonstrated that air has weight, and many other things.

Thus, Scrivener says, “If we think that Blaise Pascal was silly, that might not reflect on Blaise Pascal; it might be a sign that we have misunderstood him.” The podcast featuring Graham Tomlin linked above and embedded below does a great job explaining the misunderstanding. It is worth the 25 minutes to watch and listen, but I am going to summarize and add my own thoughts as I continue.

Continue reading “Understanding Pascal’s Wager” →

The Importance of Separating from the Culture, Politics, and Spirit of Our Age

We are called to be in the world but not of the world or influenced by the world

kevingdrendel1 Comment

I have become hyper vigilant about the influence of our current times, culture, politics, etc. on my theology. We can’t help ourselves but to struggle with the currents of our times as they threaten to push us along in their path.

We might find ourselves swept along without even noticing it. Or we might take the opposite course and fight against those currents in the opposite direction. Both responses are problematic for the Christian who desires to follow Christ and to live according to his kingdom that is not of this world.

Whether we are being carried along by the currents of this present world, or fighting in opposition to them, we can find ourselves being wholly defined by the world – what we are for and what are against – instead of the purpose and commission Christ Jesus gave to us. Both types of responses to the world lead us off the path of following Jesus.

My views on this come from a sermon I heard in my early twenties 40 some years ago. I forget the biblical texts that laid the foundation, but the foundation remains with me: whether we allow the currents of our world to sweep us along or we fight in opposition to those currents, we are constantly in danger of defining ourselves and our theology in relation to the world – rather than in relation to God and His kingdom.

If we are followers of Jesus Christ, we might look at times as if we are going in the direction of the world. At other times, we might look as if we are going in direct opposition to the world. In reality, the Christian who follows Christ is walking a straight path. His path will take us at times in the same direction the world around us seems to be going and at other times in the opposite direction.

Christopher Watkin calls this Christian phenomenon “diagonalization” because it often looks like we are working at cross purposes to the world in both directions. As the world is pushes left, we appear to be pulling right; and as the world pushes right, we appear to be pulling to the left.

The key is that we should not allow ourselves to be defined by the world around us. We should be influenced and defined by God alone and His revelation to us found in the Bible.

I made one statement above that is not exactly true. I do remember one verse on which the sermon that influenced me so many years ago hung: “It is good that you grasp one thing, and also not let go of the other; for the one who fears God comes forth with both of them.” (Ecclesiastes 7:18) I call this holding things in tension.

We do this with the Bible itself. We learn to hold things in tension. Our fear (respect) for God and His word compels us to grasp one thing we know to be true while not letting go of other things we know to be true – even when it is difficult holding onto both things.

We fear (respect, trust) that God has greater perspective than we do. When He tells us to hate sin as He hates sin and to love people (who are all sinners), we need to grasp and hold onto both things as true, even though they may seem (to us) to be in tension with each other.

When we do that, we find that we come forward with both truths and a better understanding of Truth (capital T). We understand, for instance, that God hates sin because of what it does to us and to the rest of His creation, among other things.

As finite beings, we always have an understanding gap. Even when we think we know something, we are ignorant of what we don’t know. The Bible describes that reality by saying that God’s ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts.

We all know “religious” people who are hard, self-righteous, and unloving. They find it easier to hold onto the idea that God hates sin and more difficult to grasp the love God has for people who sin. We also know people who tolerate, accept, and even embrace sin in everyone (including themselves) because they feel that the tension between love for people and hating sin is too difficult to navigate.

People tend to want to gravitate to one end or the other of a spectrum of thoughts that seem to be in tension with each other because it might seem simpler and make more sense to us. For instance, some people reject the idea that human beings can even know truth because of our finitude, while others (in rejecting this post modern skepticism) double down arrogantly on the things we think we know. If we hold these things in tension, we reject the idea that human beings cannot know truth while we remain humble in what we think we know.

The person who fears God, grasps the one thing without letting go of the other. We may not do this perfectly well, but we understand that both of these things are true, and we strive to hold them in tension.

I have taken longer to get to the point than I expected, so I am going to finish this train of thought now by tying it back into the opening paragraph. What does this have to do with influence of the currents of the culture, politics, and spirit of our times on our theology?

Continue reading “The Importance of Separating from the Culture, Politics, and Spirit of Our Age” →

Our Post Enlightenment, Neo Religious World and the Proof of God

Not all truth is known through scientific inquiry and method.

kevingdrendelLeave a comment
Reading of Voltaire in a salon in Paris

As often happens with me, the things I have been listening to and reading have converged in a meaningful way. Whether we attribute these “convergences” to God’s presence in our lives or dumb luck, pure happenstance, or “coincidence” is a matter of speculation and faith.

Whatever you want to call it, I take special notice of these things. I pay attention. I take them seriously, and they become signposts on my journey through life.

Perhaps, I am just being a good attorney. I am trained to find harmony and contrast in nuanced fact patterns and to apply legal principals to them. Finding harmonies and contrasts and applying spiritual principals to them operates in the same vein. That’s the way my mind works.

Yesterday, I listened to an interview of Jonathan Pageau by Justin Brierley. Pageau is an interesting character and a critical thinker. His recent conversation with Brierley inspires my writing today.

Raised in Montreal influenced by French Catholicism in a French Baptist Church community, Pageau has moved over to Eastern Orthodoxy by way of 4-year and 3-year stints in the Congo and Kenya. He has an undergraduate degree in postmodern art. He returned from Africa to obtain a degree in Orthodox Theology and Iconology from Sherbrooke University in Quebec. Along the way, Jonathan Pageau has become a cutting edge Christian thinker who is in demand as a speaker.

One line of discussion caught me ear in the interview with Justin Brierley that I want to explore. The subject touches on post-Enlightenment, neo-religious thinking and the proof of God.

Continue reading “Our Post Enlightenment, Neo Religious World and the Proof of God” →

“Suicidal Empathy” and Weakness: Trust and the Church

Confusion and red flags are reason to stop and consider who we are and where we are going

kevingdrendel1 Comment

A funny thing happened to me one evening recently. I received a text from a number that was not in my contacts. The texter introduced himself and said he was from “VBC”. He said he emailed me, but I didn’t respond, so he was sending me a video of the child I sponsor from Uganda with a link for me to click.

I didn’t know the person. I didn’t get an email, and I don’t sponsor a child from Uganda.

Since scamming people is a billion dollar industry, I was cautious,. I do sponsor a child from Africa, but she lives in Ethiopia. The initials, “VBC”, are the initials for the church I go to, so I didn’t just delete it. I looked up name of the texter, but I couldn’t find his name in the directory.

I wanted to respond positively if he was a brother in my church, but I didn’t know him. What if someone hacked into the church directory? What if they found just enough information to make it sound good and to get me to click on a malicious link?

I texted him back and asked what email he had for me. The email he sent back was one letter off. He also sent an email with a shortened version of my former wife’s name, but it isn’t the shortened version she uses. It was close, but wrong. He had just enough of the right information for me to think it was legitimate but just enough of the wrong information for me to pause.

Finally, I texted the campus pastor, and he confirmed that the man was from VBC (but a different campus). He also did go to Uganda where the church has an ongoing missionary presence.

Then, I remembered: there is a young man in the church with exactly my first and last name. I have only met him once because he is a distant relative, and he goes to a campus of the church that is furthest from the one I go to. With this information, I called the man who texted me, and we had a good a laugh.

My name isn’t common. We both sponsor children in Africa. We both were marred to women with the same first name (different nicknames). The similarities were uncanny, but the differences signaled the need for caution.

I was thinking about this after doing my routine reading the next morning. The reading plan focused on James’s letter “to the twelve tribes scattered among the nations” (James 1:1), and it posed this question:

Have you ever been confused about who sent a text, email, or note?

In light of my experience the previous night, I realized that God might be talking to me! The follow up questions ask whether not knowing who sent the message confuses the meaning and whether knowing who the sender is changes our understanding.

The answer is definitely, yes and yes! I was confused when I wasn’t sure who sent me the original text, and knowing it came from a trusted source changed everything.

The context in which this story and my thoughts arise this morning is the confusion in the church caused by Donald Trump and his sidekick, Elon Musk. I have seen red flags since 2015 and reason for caution. The topic has been much on my mind, because some Christians champion these men and defend everything they do, and other Christians don’t.

It seems to boil down to who you trust and whether we should ignore look the other way at the things that seem a little “off”.

What are we to think? Can we trust them? Do we know who they are? Do we ignore the red flags? Perhaps, more importantly: Do we know who we are?

I am afraid I can’t get very deep into this subject without writing a tome, and I have already written much, so I want to stick with the context out of which this experience and these thoughts flow. Specifically the controversy over Elon Musk’s comment to Joe Rogan: “The fundamental weakness of western civilization is empathy.”

Continue reading ““Suicidal Empathy” and Weakness: Trust and the Church” →