Tag: God

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?” →

From His Holy Dwelling, God Sets the Lonely in Families

In between Eden and the New Jerusalem are we, the people of God, with the indwelling Holy Spirit.

kevingdrendelLeave a comment

In my morning time with God and His Word, the following verses caught my attention:

“A father to the fatherless, a defender of widows is God in his holy dwelling. God sets the lonely in families. He leads out the prisoners with singing, but the rebellious live in a sun-scorched land.”

Psalm 68:5-6

Other verses speak of God being a father to the fatherless and a defender of widows (and a lover of “the foreigner residing among you” (Deut. 10:18) and an upholder of the cause of the appressed (Psalm 146:7), but this hit in a different way today. God is a father to the fatherless and a defender of widows “in his holy dwelling.”

The Hebrew word translated “holy dwelling” is the word used to mean God’s tabernacle or temple. As John Walton and other Old Testament scholars say, the tabernacle and the temple are designs meant to remind us of the Garden of Eden, full of Edenic imagery. They were used to demonstrate God’s desire to dwell among His people, first in the tabernacle that was carried through the desert and stationed in the Tent of Meeting and later in the Temple in Jerusalem.

God allowed the Temple to be destroyed after Jesus came, died, and rose again, leaving the Holy Spirit to dwell with us and in us. The progression of the tabernacle, the Temple, and the Holy Spirit living in and among God’s people are all pointers to God’s ultimate plan and design:

“Then I saw ‘a new heaven and a new earth,’ for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.  And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.””

Revelation 21:1-4

God is a father to the fatherless and a defender of widows in his holy dwelling. Since Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden, human beings have not dwelt with God in His holy dwelling. God has dwelt among His people in limited ways in the Tabernacle, and in the Temple, and (presently) in people who have received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, but we have not lived with God in His holy dwelling.

Though God’s people have the comfort and guidance of the Holy Spirit in this world, this world is still on the other side of Eden, and this world as we know it will pass away. We await the new heavens, the new earth, and the new Jerusalem where God will dwell with His people.

In the meantime, though God is a father to the fatherless and a defender of widows in His holy dwelling. What does that mean? We are separated from God’s holy dwelling in this life. We are in between Eden and the New Jerusalem.

I believe it means that commissions those who have God in us (the Holy Spirit) to the “defend the weak and fatherless” and to “uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.” (Psalm 82:3) He commissions us to “care about justice for the poor” (Prov. 29:7), and He commissions us to love the foreigners living among us. (Deut. 10:19)

God is a father to the fatherless and a defender of widows in His holy dwelling. That is who God is in his inner sanctum. That is who God is at the core of his being. God “sets the lonely in families,” and “God leads out the prisoners with singing.” This is God’s very heart at the core of his being. This is who God is, and this is who we should be as His children.

Continue reading “From His Holy Dwelling, God Sets the Lonely in Families” →

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” →

Who Are the “Least of These?”

Jesus considers “the least of these” his brothers and sisters

kevingdrendelLeave a comment

Have you ever noticed the odd qualification in the key statement of the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats: [W]hatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.” (Matthew 25:40)(NIV) Why did Jesus qualify “the least of these” with the phrase, “brothers and sisters of mine?”

I came at the same topic from a different angle in Who are Christians to love? I raised the question, then, whether “brothers and sisters of mine” limits the people we are to care for – limiting them to brothers and sisters of Jesus. What does that phrase mean in the context of the parable of the Sheep and the Goats?

Elsewhere, Jesus tells his disciples that the world will know they are his followers by the love they have for one another. (John 13:35) When Jesus learns from someone in a crowd that his mother and brothers are looking for him, Jesus says, “[W]hoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” (Matthew 12:50)

These verses in other contexts have prompted some scholars to conclude that we are only called to love fellow believers. They conclude that only the care we show for fellow believers who are hungry, thirsty, naked, a stranger, or a prisoner is showing care for Jesus in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats. Some even narrow the focus further, taking the position that Jesus was only referring to his disciples (with whom he shared the parable).

This, however, is a minority view. Most of the early church fathers and theologians do not hold that view because of the many Bible passages that instruct us to love our neighbors and even our enemies. The Parable of the Good Samaritan makes this point rather clearly, as I show in the blog article linked in the opening paragraph.

In another article, I tackled the question, Why does Jesus repeatedly prioritize Christians loving one another? It seems that Jesus does prioritize our love for fellow believers. Paul also prioritizes Christian love for fellow believers when he says, “[A]s we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.” (Galatians 6:10)

I note in the previous article that Jesus emphasized loving each other as he was preparing his disciples for the imminent reality of his death. In that context, he was encouraging them to stick together and to love each other. The context matters.

In other contexts, Jesus told his followers to love their neighbors and their enemies. Thus, Christian love is not exclusive to loving Christians.

Yet, Jesus does seem to prioritize love for fellow followers of Christ at some points.

Perhaps, Jesus was letting his followers (and us) know that we need to love each other, first, before we can love our neighbors (and then our enemies). If we cannot even love those who love us and think like us, how can we love our neighbors – and how in the world can we love our enemies?

I encourage you to read the previous two blog articles if you want a more compete analysis on the subject. In this blog article, I want to explore the majority way of reading “whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.” (Matthew 25:40)

Continue reading “Who Are the “Least of These?”” →

Why Does Jesus Repeatedly Prioritize Christians Loving One Another?

Loving each other, our neighbors, and even our enemies

kevingdrendel1 Comment

Jesus shocked his followers one day with the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats in which Jesus likened the love and care we show to people in need – the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the people lacking clothes, the sick, and the prisoner – to showing love and care for him. Jesus said, “[W]hatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.” (Matthew 25:40)(NIV)

Until recently, I had glossed over the qualifier to this statement: Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me. When someone pointed out to me that the statement is qualified, it nagged at me.

What did Jesus mean when he said “these brothers and sisters of mine”? Did he mean only his biological family? Did he mean his followers? Or did he mean something else?

In another passage while Jesus was talking to a crowd, someone told him his mother and brothers were outside wanting to speak with him. He responded by pointing to his disciples, saying, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” (Matthew 12:49-50)

Does this mean that we only apply the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats to followers of Christ who are hungry, thirsty, in need of clothing, strangers, sick, and imprisoned? Does it mean that we have no divine obligation to love and care for other people (even in our own family)?

Along the same line, I previously noticed that Jesus qualified his prediction that the world would know his followers by their love. He said, “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (John 13:35) That qualifier has nagged me for sometime, and for the same reasons as the qualifier in Matthew 25 was now nagging me. I knew I needed to dig into this and develop a better understanding of what Jesus is saying in these passages.

After meditating on these things and considering other Bible passages, I worked out my analysis in Who Are Christians to Love? Matthew 25 and John 13. I determined that we need to understand the bigger picture, and we need to understand context.

Many passages exist throughout Scripture from the Old Testament through the New Testament that convey God’s intention that we love all people. The Bible is rich with passages clearly and emphatically stating that we should love all people, just as God loves all people.

The second greatest commandment – to love your neighbor as you love yourself – is not qualified. The Parable of the Good Samaritan makes clear that our neighbors include people regardless of their ethnic, national, and religious identity – even people we are strongly tempted to despise.

Jesus eliminated all guesswork when he told us that loving our neighbors extends even to our enemies. The example Jesus gives is that God causes sun to shine on the good and the evil and rain to fall for the benefit of the righteous and the unrighteous. (Matthew 5:44-45) God doesn’t withhold good things like sun and rain from the evil and the unrighteous, and neither should we. We are to be like Him in showing basic love and care for all people.

Jesus added that even pagans love those who love them. We would be no different than a pagan if all we did was to love those who love us back. (Matthew 5:43-48) Rather, we are to “be perfect as God is perfect” and love all people like God loves people, the good and the evil, the righteous and the unrighteous.

When Jesus healed the sick, drove out demons, gave sight to the blind, and showed compassion to people, he did not distinguish between Jews and Gentiles or believers and unbelievers. Of the ten lepers that he healed, only one of them came back to thank him and give glory to God (Luke 17:11-19), but He healed them all anyway.

When Jesus announced his ministry in his hometown synagogue he recalled two stories that triggered the people to want to kill him. These stories demonstrate how God loves not just the Jews (and how the Jews had a hard time accepting that reality). These are the words that provoked his hometown people to want to kill him:

“I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian.”

Luke 4:25-27

The Sidonians were Phoenicians, descendants of the Canaanites who constantly battled the Jews, and Sidon was the hometown of Jezebel, the foreign queen who led King Ahab and the nation of Israel astray. Naaman was a Syrian General who had attacked the Israelites. He was a foreigner, an outsider, from Samaria, which was despised by the Jews Jesus spoke to. Jesus was conveying to his people that he came not just for them; he came even for their enemies.

Just as the people in that synagogue, we struggle to love people we despise. We struggle to love people who have wronged us and don’t believe as we do. We struggle to love people who do not believe as we do. Frankly, we difficult actually loving people in the family of God, too.

The difficulty we have in loving people, even fellow believers, does not excuse us from taking the commandments Jesus gave us to heart. The greatest commandment – to love God – is ultimately inextricably intertwined with the second greatest commandment – to love our neighbors as ourselves. John makes this clear:

“For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister.”

1 John 4:20-21

There is that qualifier again – brother and sister. But, we know from other passages of Scripture that the divine obligation to love extends beyond our spiritual family to our neighbors and to our enemies also. Why, then, do those pesky qualifiers keep appearing? I have some thoughts that I will share.

Continue reading “Why Does Jesus Repeatedly Prioritize Christians Loving One Another?” →