Loading summary
Transcript19 lines
- [00:00]
AJ
Sa.
- [00:31]
Greg Koukl
Hello friends. Greg Koukl here. The show is stand to reason and that bird is still squawking, isn't it? After all these years. Thank you for joining me. And this is an open mic day and so we're going to be taking your questions that you leave online for us and I will be doing my best to answer them. Actually, the way this happens is people go to our homepage@str.org and they look under podcasts and then under the live broadcast and there's an opportunity there for you to record your question about anything that's on your mind in the area of ethics, values and religion. And you can be a believer or non believer, it makes no difference to me. Sometimes the challenges to Christianity are satisfying to respond to. There's always some challenges that people offer or others pass on, like Christians passing on challenges that they've heard that there may not be answers for or at least not ones available to us. And that's just the way it works. I've mentioned in the past that Christianity is kind of messy. The Bible's messy and the reason for that is that religions are messy. And the reason for that is that life is messy. So we live in obviously a fallen world. I don't think that it makes sense to deny that most people can perceive that fact. And we are fallen individuals in the midst of the world. And that means there are liabilities that we face of various types and one of them is the area of knowledge and understanding, even what God has communicated to us in language, in words that characteristically could be understood in principle, but we still sometimes have a hard time with it. So I do my best here and I beg off on a number of issues. Remember that the why did God and why didn't God questions cannot characteristically be answered with authority because we don't know the answer to those questions. Sometimes God tells us, sometimes he doesn't, but most of the time he doesn't. And all we're left with is maybe educated speculation. Which is alright as long as we understand that it's educated speculation and not necessarily definitive answer. Anyways, we are always looking for more open mic calls because we have programs that are broadcasts that I do off schedule and I use your open mic calls for that purpose. So please go to our website if you have a question. It's great for people who are are curious about something or something is pressing and they want to offer their thoughts verbally to me rather than writing them out like with Strask. And it's okay if it Takes me a couple of weeks or so to get to them. And we take first in, first out is the way. Characteristically, it works for us. So we'll work on getting eventually to your questions. And it helps us too. Well, helps you for one, because you may not be in a position to call in during the live show, which is 4 to 6pm Pacific Time in Los Angeles. And sometimes that's just not convenient to wait in line. But you can put these calls in and we'll eventually get to you. So that's the deal. Str.org podcasts, live broadcast and the detail there for open mic calls. We're going to start with A.J. and Kyle. You've got that booted up. Okay, let's hear from AJ. What's on your mind? Hi, I'm AJ. I'm 13 years old. I have a question about what the Bible says when they say that Jesus sits on the right side of God. And I was wondering who sits on
- [04:51]
AJ
the left side of God?
- [04:55]
Greg Koukl
Okay, aj, thanks for the question. I'm chuckling a little bit because it's a fair question. And I have never been asked this before. And if Jesus is sitting on the right, then who's on the left? Okay. That kind of presumes a little bit that someone's on the left, that there's a seat there for people to sit on. And I'm thinking that when Jesus was asked by the disciples, they said, actually two of them. I don't know if it's James and John, maybe the brothers, or maybe it was their mother that interceded for them, asking, can they sit on your right and your left side when you come in your kingdom, or something to that effect. So there's a reference to right and left, though I don't know of anything in scripture that talks about the throne of God where Jesus sits at the right hand, that somebody is sitting at the throne of God on the left. And this may sound confusing. Wait a minute. Jesus is on the right side of the Father, but then in the kingdom, Jesus will have his own throne and somebody will sit on the right and the left, presumably, which is why James and John asked about it. And Jesus said, well, that's been already decided. So there's some reality here. What the heck is going on? Here's what I think is going on. I think that this is language that is not strictly literal. I mean, you think about it, you think God is actually sitting in a throne. I mean, God doesn't have a body, Jesus does, but the Father doesn't have A body. So, gee, the reference in the New Testament sometimes is seated at the right hand of power. And the idea of the disciples sitting on either side of Jesus when he comes in his kingdom is a request to be honored in a very particular way. I don't think. Well, I'm tempted to think that there's no throne where God's sitting and Jesus is sitting next to him hanging out in some sense. I mean, there's no reference to the left side of God, for one. And I think the references to thrones and sitting on the left and right are generally references to positions of honor and authority, but they don't have an exact parallel in heaven. Now, I could be mistaken about this, but if that's the case, then the question arises, well, where is Jesus sitting? Is he sitting to the right hand of glory, or is he sitting at his own throne with apostles on either side and some around him? The math doesn't work out. So I suspect that this is a broader reference to being in a position of honor and authority. And certainly when the Father, rather Jesus, is at the right hand of the Father, that is clearly a distinctive position as the Son of God. So you have the Father and Son there. That suggests his divine nature. And like a co regency with God in heaven, both the Father and the Son. Now, there is a little wrinkle to this, and that is in the book of Acts where Stephen is martyred. I don't know if that's Acts, chapter seven. Maybe I can look at it. And then he peers up into heaven and he sees Jesus standing. And I actually think he saw this. But let's see. I'm looking at it here. Yeah, this is chapter 7, verse 55. Being full of the spirit, he, Stephen, gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. So I guess there is a manifestation of God's glory and Jesus is standing at the right hand. There's no mention of a throne. And he said, behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God. And of course, this made his detractors even more angry, and they continued to cry out at him and stone him. And then he says, lord Jesus, receive my spirit, Lord, do not hold this sin against them. And he fell asleep, meaning he died. So even the falling asleep is a metaphor of death because it looks like the body is in repose, sleeping. So I think this right hand of glory is a reference to power, honor and authority. It isn't meaning to describe a location where God the Father is located or God the Son in this situation. Acts chapter seven. I think what we have is a visible manifestation for Stephen as he is dying, an act of grace and Jesus standing. So he's not sitting, he's standing. But that also I think the vision that he sees is meant to communicate something important about God. That here now Jesus is rising, so to speak, to receive him. Stephen the faithful witness. But I don't think that we could carry it further and say, well, and then Stephen came up and his spirit went with Jesus. Then Jesus sat down again and he's just sitting there. I think that this figurative speech, but I could be wrong about this. I think that's the best way to make sense of this notion of Jesus at the right hand of glory. And also the concept of disciples, some of them, or someone being accompanying Jesus at his left and his right side when he comes in glory. That's a request for special honor in the second coming. Best I can do with that one. AJ appreciate your call and 13 years old. Good for you that you called. Left a question and call me back and leave some more if you have any more. Maybe I'll give you better answers than the one I just gave you about who sits on the left side of God. All right, here we got Gail C. And all right, let's hear from Gail. A question about atheism or atheists. Gail.
- [12:07]
Gail
Good morning, Greg. This is Gael calling from Quebec, Canada. So the other day I was, I had the opportunity to preach the gospel to my childhood friend and he was willing to admit that although he is an atheist, or at least he's non religious, he's willing to admit that there must be, there must have been some form of creator, some form of higher power or architect as he liked to call it. Okay. That began creation, organized the matter, the materials necessary to form the earth and form humans. But he, he can't make the jump or he can't commit to the idea that that same creator would have a personal involvement in each of our lives and would require something personal of each of us. So he just doesn't understand why, why he or somebody he loves should go to hell because they don't like, because they don't want to submit to the will of the Creator. He doesn't understand why that creator should have a say on his creation's life. And I know that as I, the way I'm phrasing it, it sounds pretty evident, the answer to the question. But the way he, he was phrasing it, he, it just didn't seem obvious to him why there's a personal relationship between a God and the creation. Yeah, why do we matter to him? So if you could help me out with that question, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you Greg and the whole team over at str.
- [13:35]
Greg Koukl
Thank you Gail. And boy, there's a lot going on here. I guess we'll start from the top. So, God, I suspect what your atheist or maybe agnostic or non religious friend is willing to acknowledge as he looks around at the universe and he says somebody's messing with things. And that's pretty obvious, I think. And to deny that is to deny the obvious. To suggest that all of the things that we see here, that the refined order, even the existence of the universe itself, owes its beginning to nothing at all, is beyond belief because it is inconsistent with all of our natural intuitions about the way things work. Things that are effects have causes. In fact, if that were not the case, science would be able to operate. But when it comes to the universe itself as an effect, given that it came into being, they want to say this is which everybody agrees to, by the way. Pretty much Big Bang cosmology. This would have to be the one effect that had no cause. Okay, why would anybody say that? Why break with the pattern? Because the idea of FX having causes is not a scientific notion. It's a metaphysical notion that science trades on, but it's not unique to science. You can't say well before science can actually operate. In the natural world, there is no natural world. So cause and effect may not be a function of that because there's no natural world for there to be cause and effect. As if cause and effect is only tied to the natural world. No, it just seems that this, like I said, is a metaphysical principle. It goes beyond the physical realm. Effects seem to have causes that are adequate to them. Okay, so not only do we have the existence of the cosmos, but your friend is aware that this stuff is organized and it's architected. There is a plan, it seems, and a purpose. Things were put together in a thoughtful way, which would be an understatement. Even Richard Dawkins, who wrote the Selfish Chain and the Blind Watchmaker, started his book the Blind Watchmaker with this statement. It's almost a direct quote. The biological realm is a complex world which gives the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. Alright, so he's even willing to acknowledge that it looks that way. Now he says it isn't that way because he thinks that Darwinian evolution can account for the design. I Think he's totally wrong on that, on the merits. Not because I'm reading my Bible and I'm demanding. It's got to be my way. But the Darwinian model cannot account for hardly anything except for changes in the size of finch beaks and the colors and the population of peppered moths. Given pollution and very, very modest things like that, it may explain the survival of the fittest, but not the arrival of the fittest, as some have put it. In any event, so here, Richard Dawkins, the atheist, acknowledges it looks designed. It strikes me that the best explanation for looking designed is that it is designed. Okay, so your atheist friend is willing to say that much. However, as you put it, he can't believe that we would matter to him or that he would require anything from us. Well, it does raise the question, first of all, if he made it all, to what purpose? Let's say he made all this world, including human beings, finely tuned, the universe responsible for the origin of life and maybe variations of life as time went on. So he's making all of this stuff and all these living things. In other words, he fashions a place and he fills it with living things appropriate to the place he's fashioned. Okay, so why? For fun? Maybe. But doesn't it kind of make sense to say he fashioned it for us? Especially when the biblical account at least says that we are kind of like him in an important way. We are made in his image. We are made for friendship with Him. That's the biblical view. Why does that sound odd? It may not be the case. But why is it odd? It strikes me when someone builds something, he builds it for a purpose. You build a house and you put something in there that's alive. And maybe it's just for fun, but it strikes me that it's more transcendent than that. And so what we would do is agree with him and say that God made us for Himself. In fact, that's the famous quote of Augustine. Lord, you have made us for yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in you. Now, the existential condition of human beings seems to suggest that this God made us for Himself. We have this hunger for the transcendent. We have this desire for meaning and purpose that's beyond ourselves. And we also have a desire for forgiveness that's part of the human condition. Now, it seems to me that all dovetails not only with the omission that your atheist friend has made, Gail, that God has made everything, but he made it for a purpose, for us to be in friendship or fellowship or relationship with Him. That doesn't strike me as odd. I don't know why your atheist friend doesn't say, well, that's in the running. And here's another element. Not only do we have this existential sense that we were made for something, there's something bigger than us. And by the way, this is everywhere. This is the human search, basically. You watch movies and films and people talk about that. Yes, look at the human. It celebrates the human spirit and all kinds of stuff like this that subtly and sometimes not so subtly underscore that humans are aware of being part of something bigger. We're not just molecules clashing in the universe kind of thing. There's more going on here as reflected in that wonderful quote from Augustine. But there's another step, and that is, it appears that God has told us that he has made us for Himself. It's not just our internal existential awareness that we were meant for something bigger, but that God actually Himself has essentially said that, that he has made human beings for Himself. And I think too, so that we might share in the kind of happiness that he experiences all the time. And a happiness that's grounded in moral virtue, which he is a perfect example of. And as we grow in our moral virtue, we experience eudaimonia, the classic sense of the good life, the full life, the happy life, the life where we fulfill what we were made for, that is human flourishing. So, I mean, there's a lot of reasons we can look at as long as we're open to the possibility. Maybe it doesn't seem to him from one point of view, one vantage point, that why would God do this kind of thing? Why would he be interested? Well, you could say he'd be interested because he made it for a reason. And it could be that he made it for a reason to be in relationship of some sorts with us. That makes sense. So it isn't like this is so bizarre and outlandish and we do have this internal hunger that goes with being human for something transcendent and beyond us, which Augustine says it's God that's given us this hunger. And God Himself, on our view in his revelation, said he wants that from us. He wants that connection. So I guess I don't see how unusual or outlandish that is. Now, there's one other element here. Why would he require anything from us and punish us? Because we don't submit to his will. That's another element here. And most of his creation, he doesn't require anything from the Entire animal world, no requirements. They just kind of move along according to their instinct, doing their thing that. Doing the thing that God created them to do, fulfilling their natures. But humans are different, and this is quantifiable. Humans seem to be different in that they are valuable and operate in a moral realm that animals don't. And so both virtue and vice can be predicated of human beings. And. And we are conscious beings that are able to be in a relationship with God. But it's not just that we are conscious and moral, but we are moral. The point of being moral. Part of it is that we have moral obligations. That's what morality entails. Foundational to morality is the sense of obligation. Remove the sense of obligation, you don't have moral obligations. Morality, because moral things are things we ought to do and immoral things are things we ought not do. That's the nature of it. Just a matter of reflection shows us that that's what we mean by those words. All right, but to whom ought we and ought not do these behaviors? Obligations are held between persons, and they have to be a person who it makes sense that he has the authority to oblige us. So if we are moral creatures, that means there are moral standards that apply to us. And if the moral standards apply to us and we are obliged to keep them, that entails a person. So you can't get morality without having a transcendent person to whom you're responsible regarding that morality. That just seems to be connected. It follows, it makes sense. And the reason that we are beholden to him is because he is the Creator. He made us. And it wasn't just the act of making. I don't think it's just not just. Well, he formed us. We can make a artifact of some sort and then destroy it if we want to. I mean, that makes sense to us if we want to do that. But in God's case, he's not just an artifact maker. He is the God of the universe. The grounds of all moral goodness and other metaphysical perfections, I guess you could say, if you want to be fancy about it. So we by nature are under him, below him, dependent on him, and responsible to him. I know there are people who have raised this same question. Oh, I don't. Why should I obey God? And so in this situation, it might be that your atheist friend just holds onto that. Why should I obey it? Well, he's the maker, and he's not just Geppetto who makes toys, but he's God, the God of all creation, the Sovereign Creator, the king, if you will. And we are his subjects, rightfully so. And he cares for us and gives us good things. But we are also beholden to him, given that we are moral creatures like he is, but we are not good like he is. Now there's a problem. Now, what? If we've broken the law, we become guilty. And justice, which is part of moral perfection, requires payment. But love has made provision for justice and mercy at the same time. It just works together so nicely. But again, the answer I'm giving is not magical. It isn't like, oh, he's going to bend the knee and say, oh, I get it. That's wonderful. Because any of these points can be rejected. What I am offering is just a plausible explanation, something that makes so much sense. And one thing that I trade on is our deep intuitions about things. And that is we have a sense of things about the world in ourselves that I think require an explanation. Our sense of morality, our sense of objective, transcendent meaning and purpose, that is part of being human, even though we may not know what that is. A sense of the Creator, as your friend has pointed out, the mechanism of the universe, the architect of the universe in this case. And all of these things, they blend together very nicely in the details of the Christian worldview. Now, I'd like to think that the coherence of that, mixed with the external evidence of God's existence, which he acknowledges, would be compelling. There is no obvious flaw in it that I could see. It may not be true, but it isn't like it's flawed. There are good reasons to believe what I've offered, and even if it doesn't make sense to your friend, doesn't mean that it isn't so. So I'd encourage them to think about the things that I've offered here, and you as well. God made things for a purpose. And it's not a jump. You use the phrase, make a jump there, it's not really a jump. It's a step of reasoning based on reflection. God should have a say because it's his world. Just like if your friend invited other friends over to his house, he gets to have a say of how they comport themselves in his own place. Makes sense, right? Anyway, hope that helps, Gail. And my best to your friend. Let's take a break and we'll be back with more of your open mic calls here on Stand to Reason.
- [29:34]
Stand to Reason Announcer
Have you ever wondered how Stand to Reason is able to produce fresh, accessible content? Each week we rely on generous donors so that we can provide you with the tools and tactics you need to be an effective ambassador for Christ. If you've benefited from this podcast or any of our donor provided resources, including our apps, blog posts, articles and short videos, consider making a financial contribution to Stand to Reason today. Just visit str.orgdonate to show your financial support. It has been an honor providing you with a host of free resources for more than 27 years to help you give voice to the Christian worldview. Help us continue by making a financial gift today@str.org donate Would you like a
- [30:20]
Greg Koukl
Stand a Reason speaker at your event? Greg Alan, Tim, John, Megan and I Tripp are available in person or online just email bookingstr.org our team speaks on a wide range of topics from issues in bioethics, gender and science to topics in apologetics, theology and philosophy and how to respond to other worldviews, all from a Biblical perspective. Whether it's a conference, youth event or Sunday service, we're here to give confidence for every Christian, clear thinking for every challenge, courage and grace for every encounter. You know, the way I answered that last question is in keeping with a very specific approach that I guess I have adopted for much of my Christian life. But I didn't get reflective on it until probably 20 years ago when my daughter asked me how do we know that God is true? And she was about 8 years old or whatever and I thought about it for a few moments and it just occurred to me the reason that I believe that God is true, in other words, the beliefs we had about God are sound, accurate, factual, is because he's the best explanation for the way things are. He's the best explanation for the way things are. And that was my strategic motif that I was using in answering that. A last question from Gail regarding the challenges that his non religious or atheistic friend had offered him about God. So I guess he wouldn't be an atheist, would he? Because he believes an architect of the universe, but probably in a more deistic sense that God made the universe, wound it up and then left it, and has shown no interest in being involved in human beings. But it may be that God says different about himself and I think that's the case Scripture all right, let's look at KP here and interesting question. KP
- [32:29]
Stand to Reason Announcer
hello Greg, My name is kp, I'm from Cambodia and I recently came across a video on TikTok saying that there is such a thing as toxic gratitude. And basically the video goes on to imply that it is hypocritical for Christians to talk about Being grateful for the basic things that we have access to when so much of it is gained through the suffering of others and so many people are also suffering. So how would you respond to something like that? And is it truly wrong to be vocal about the things that we're grateful for just because other people are suffering?
- [33:11]
Greg Koukl
Well, KPH Omrip Sua, which is the little bit of Cambodian that I know. I worked at a Cambodian refugee camp for seven months many years ago. But I do remember some of the basics, and I'm very glad to get your question here. I have actually never heard of this phrase toxic gratitude. I understand what you're saying and how many things that we're grateful for were and through the suffering of others. And there's also lots of other suffering going on in the world. I'm not exactly sure why gratitude, even so, even with what you just described, why gratitude would be a wrong response. The world is the way it is. It's broken and it's fallen, and virtually everything you touch that is beneficial to you, from the iPhones to technology that you use, to the automobile you drive or to the food that you eat, somewhere along the line, one can imagine, and maybe not just imagine, but discover, that there has been some abuse or injustice or inequality or something like that that's associated with the enterprise, and that's the way the world is. Now. I count gratitude to be a virtue that people are grateful for what they have. Now, there could be some. What? There might be some examples to the contrary. I'm imagining, for example, a Nazi concentration camp where the commandant of the camp is using concentration camp interns, basically slaves, to take care of his home. And he's so thankful that he has slaves to take care of his home. Now, that's weird. I can see the objection there. And I think that if one directly builds his wealth and his prosperity on the backs of others, that he is directly oppressing, then I think that if he's grateful for that, he's grateful for injustice or the fruits of injustice. And I think then you have a point. But I don't think characteristically this is helpful to be grateful. So many things we're grateful for. You end up saying, well, that's toxic because other people are suffering. Well, that's part of the reason. You're grateful because you're not suffering like they're suffering just because other people are suffering. Why would that we should be sensitized to that and sympathetic to that and help those that we can help. Yet at the same time, why does that require that we don't be thankful for what it is that we do have properly obtained. I don't really understand that now if what we have is directly obtained through radical injustice. And I think a lot of the prosperity of the south was like that in the antebellum south before the Civil War. I think that's a problem, that the genteel life that they were able to live was because of enslavement of other human beings. And so there was nothing ultimately genteel about it at all. So that would apply this objection, though toxic gratitude sounds a bit like critical theory stuff. And think of everybody that's ever been oppressed by the thing that in order to provide the things that you enjoy and are thankful for, therefore you shouldn't be thankful. Your thankfulness is toxic. I guess I just don't buy that. It does not ring true to me. Now, kp, you sound younger. So. And your English is flawless. So you may it doesn't sound like you emigrated from Kampuchea, Cambodia. And so you may remember though, what your maybe parents or grandparents certainly experienced during the time of the Pol Pot and the terrible things that were done to them there. And I think they're probably very grateful that they were able to escape that oppressive circumstance. It was terrible. But is their gratitude toxic because so many didn't escape? It doesn't resonate with me. It doesn't make sense to me. I don't see that at all. Anyway, Akon Jaran for your. Thank you for your your question and I hope that's helpful to you. Here's Jim. He has a question about AI. Probably getting more of these as time moves on. Jim.
- [38:49]
AJ
Hi Greg. I was wondering if you might be able to offer some principles to equip believers to be prepared to live in a world with AI. I know that's a big topic nowadays and it really seems to be something we don't have a lot of time left before it becomes a really prominent part of our daily lives.
- [39:14]
Greg Koukl
Yeah.
- [39:15]
AJ
So how would you equip believers to avoid some of the pitfalls and to even be successful in their Christian walk in light of such a world? I teach kids elementary, upper elementary kids in Sunday school. I'm thinking about perhaps looking for some ways to equip them in that. But even just more generally, believers of all ages, how would you suggest equipping them for that? Thanks a lot.
- [39:46]
Greg Koukl
You're welcome. Jim, this is a question that I never expected I'd have to field because this issue is new and they've been talking about AI for a long time, but it has reached proportions now that are unbelievable. ChatGPT was the first, I guess popular AI tool that people could use. I remember two or three years ago my brother in law saying hey man, I can ask this question. I get a whole article that they write about the history of your hometown or something like that. He said it's unbelievable. And I didn't pay much attention at that time. I wasn't interested. I do my own writing, my own research, so didn't need that. And of course now we had an explosion in AI vehicles. ChatGPT, what is it? Grok. Grok, Is that it? Yeah. And then is it Claude? Who is that one I read about last week or. Yeah, a couple weeks ago. And when I read some of the stuff that's produced, I'm actually stunned about what it's capable of doing and actually as a writer, how good the writing is in some cases. Now sometimes it's a little bit weird and stilted and you can see that, oh, this is AI stuff. But I have found when I do a Google search, a lot of times they give an AI summary of a question I'm asking and I always think the summaries are really helpful. So I don't actively use AI, though I think everybody on our team does in some way. They don't use Google searches anymore, they use AI searches and it's more effective now. Google incorporates AI, so I guess I'm benefiting from that without realizing it. But I'll tell you, this is a concern because their computers have a capability to do something far beyond what we thought was ever going to happen. And we're still getting used to this, right? Hey, remember. Well, remember, you wouldn't remember this, but as it turns out, when automobiles were invented, everybody thought it was crazy, get a horse. And now nobody rides horses for 100 years. Now everybody or more automobiles. So we adapt to the technology, find ways of using it. I think this is in a different category because so much of reality can be manipulated by AI, it requires that we be much more careful. Now what you asked for, Jim, is some principles to equip believers to be prepared to live in a world with AI and to avoid the pitfalls and be successful in their Christian walk. So I guess the first principle is be really careful how you ever use it. I don't use it actively. I don't go to AI devices and have them do research for me. But I know people who have done that. My nephew has a whole business that he is the craft. He Markets a craft item that he's produced. And it's remarkable. But AI has put together his whole website and everything and almost effortlessly. And when he didn't like what he saw, he just said, hey, AI, do it differently. And gave it more detailed instructions and bada boom, there it is. So there's no questioning the value to it. And of course it's going to put some people out of work. But that's true of all technology. So, I mean, handheld, they don't make slide rules anymore. Who even knows what those are? I do, but that's because I was born in 1950. But now the calculations, complex calculations, are done differently. We got calculators, handheld or whatever. And so we get used to this technology. But my encouragement, part of what this technology does is the result is you become. The people who use it become mentally lazy. And this is one reason I want to avoid it. I want to do my own work. I want to do my own writing. I was talking with my wife about some book that we just discovered. It looked like it was great. And it turns out this is a total sham. AI wrote this thing. It's a spiritual book. It's educating young people, even children, about theology. And it, wow, it looked great. And then I find out it's a total ripoff and all the details were taken from somebody else's book. And now it's selling great, a best seller on Amazon, and it's all a sham. Now, the content in it is sound, but it's stolen. And the execution actually is a little bit sloppy. But this is what's happening. AI is able to do all of this work for somebody and they steal things left and right, then make money off of it. And it bothers me as an author because the things that I work on, I work to craft my own pieces. And it's like computer generated art. If you're an artist and you're working hard at creating your own art, and then computers could generate art that looks as good as yours, that would be a little bit frustrating because yours is the result of a creative process where the other is not. It's an expression of something deep inside of you where the other is not. And so you can see the problem there, at least for people who like writers or artists who are being outpaced by a computer. So I think AI can be doing many things that are good, but at the same time, we have to be careful that it doesn't make us lazy. Do your own work. Do your own work. Use resources that can help, but do your own work. Don't let the resources, the artificial intelligence do the work for you. And by the way, the A stands for artificial. It isn't real intelligence. It will never be conscious. Amy and I fielded a question this morning in Strask about AI being able to read your thoughts. This is not possible. And I explain the reason why it's not possible for it to eventually be able to read your thoughts. Just like no matter how intelligent you are, you will never be able to pick up a Chinese book and then be able to learn Chinese just by looking at the characters in the book. You need a code, you need a translator. In any event, do your own work. And especially don't use AI as a resource and then pawn what AI gives you as your own work. That is a big concern to me. Here's the second thing. Don't use it, except for in limited cases, do your own work. And secondly, don't trust it. Don't trust it. Now, if you want to know what are the capitals of all 50 states, bang. There you're going to get that. If you want them to organize some things in a certain order, mathematical computations or whatever, bang. You're going to get that. If you want factual information, you're going to get that. If you want judgment calls, AI is an echo chamber. So Tim has been, Tim Barnett, Mr. B, has been giving talks at Reality this year and talking about how a Muslim woman on AI asks ChatGPT on film what is the most reliable religious book from antiquity? And chatgpt said, the Quran. And so she's on camera, she's going see ChatGPT, like the omniscient source of fully accurate, unbiased information. Well, Tim took his own phone, went to ChatGPT, asked the exact same question, and ChatGPT told him it's the Bible. Now why did the same question get two different answers? Because ChatGPT in both cases understood the searches and activities and everything and the beliefs reflected in that of the people asking the question. And so it's an echo chamber. They told the people what they want to hear. Now, this kind of thing happens all the time, all the time. Because to some degree, obviously, AI is programmed by somebody and also it's drawing from a whole host of different sources for information to pull all this together, okay, to come to its conclusion. But if it's making a judgment call, how is it weighing the alternatives fairly and evenly? In many cases it's not. It's satisfying the consumer. And as I read an article regarding this piece that this ripped off piece for young people's theology that I mentioned a few moments ago. It turns out that there's all kinds of chicanery going on in Google searches and people are paying to get front and center on the search. The way algorithms are manipulated. There's all kinds of stuff where manipulation is happening to sell stuff or because something has been sold. That is a place on Google. And many of these things are being influenced by political biases. Forget about Wikipedia. Wikipedia made a decision a long time ago to skew the research or the searches and everything so that the correct and their view, political view got prominence. So what can you trust anymore? You can trust maybe your own research, but you've got to keep. If you're going to use AI sources, you got to go the extra mile. Go the extra mile and touch base with a number of different things. So it just comes down to doing more work. Don't trust it, don't use it. Don't trust it when you do. I'm not saying everything's bad. Obviously when I do a Google search, there's a summary, but I look for factual things. How can I print this report out on my Quicken? Boom, boom, boom, abcd. Okay, that stuff is great. I have no trouble with that because there's no judgment calls involved telling you how something works. You start asking questions that require judgment calls. Don't trust it. All right. Best I can do with that, Jim. Hope it's helpful. Here's Alex. And we've got about six minutes in the show. Alex has a question about total depravity. Alex.
- [51:52]
Alex
Hey, Greg. So I have a question about Calvinism. I've heard you're a Calvinist, so I'm curious how you would respond to this. So Calvinists claim that we are all born totally depraved and unable to understand spiritual truths. So my question is, how then does a Calvinist know he's saved? Now, I know Calvinists usually answer by saying something like, well, I know I'm saved because God has opened my eyes to spiritual truths. But then the question becomes, how do you know that's not your total depravity deceiving you? I asked this question recently to a Calvinist friend of mine, and his reply was, we presuppose we are correct. Really? Is that what Calvinism is ultimately grounded on presuppositions? How is that any different than a Mormon saying, I know Mormonism is correct because I have a burning in my bosom?
- [52:50]
Greg Koukl
Yeah.
- [52:51]
Alex
Just curious how you'd respond, Greg, thanks.
- [52:54]
Greg Koukl
Yeah, Alex, thank you for the question. And yeah, we presuppose we are correct. People say crazy things about their views and beliefs on both sides of the aisle here. By the way, point of information, I'm not a Calvinist. Strictly speaking, though I think it's, you know, I understand why people would say that I'm Reformed. I believe in sovereign grace. A Calvinist believes everything that Calvin teaches. And Reformed theology is much broader than just Calvin. Lutherans are Reformed also, but Lutherans believe in Luther and they are wedded to Luther's systems and beliefs. So it's more accurate to refer to me as Reformed. That is, I believe that God's grace is something he distributes as he wills and he chooses those who he will save. Okay, just for a quick thumbnail sketch there, but I'm not going to fuss about the word right now. I do want to talk about total depravity because what you've described for me, Alex, and maybe there are reasons that you said these things because of some so called Calvinists that you've talked to, but it's a radical straw man. And what I mean by that is it seems like a radical mischaracterization of Reformed thinking. The first, your characterization of total depravity means. Well, just to clarify, total depravity doesn't mean that we are as bad as we can get or we can't think for ourselves. What it means is that every area of our lives, of our being, from our physical experience and our noetic structure, that's the structure of our minds, all of these things, the totality of our life is influenced by the Fall. There is nothing about being human that has escaped the influence of the Fall. I guess total depravity is maybe an unfortunate way of putting it because people will draw their own conclusions from it. But if you look historically at what has always been characterized at this as total depravity, it's what I just described. And the additional element is that there's nothing in us. There's no way that we are going to save ourselves. Now it just turns out that a whole lot of Arminians hold the same view that our entire self and our world are influenced by the Fall and that on our own we're not going to be able to save ourselves. That would be Pelagian, not even Arminian. Okay. And certainly not Reformed or Calvinistic. All right. And it does not mean, I'm amazed here at this characterization that one is unable to understand spiritual truths. Of course they could understand spiritual truths. It doesn't mean they hold to them or fulfill them, but they certainly can understand them. So if those statements about total depravity and this and also the characterization that from people you've talked to that apparently that we are unable to understand spiritual truths, if those characterizations are just false, in other words, it doesn't follow from Reformed theology, then the kind of self contradictory element that you described doesn't follow either from an accurate understanding of Reformed theology. I really am surprised that some people have characterized it to you this way. You've asked of your Calvinist friends and they're like they don't know what to say. Well, it's not Calvinism that you're unable to understand spiritual truths. That isn't what total depravity means. So you might want to look at something that Michael Horton has written, for example, a contemporary Reformed theologian. There's a lot of stuff he's written and somebody like that or others in WGT Shedd Shedd's Dogmatics, Alan Gomes has edited that. This is a big one. It's a dogmatic theology book. And then you will get a more precise characterization of that. And I think once you get that, you will not be falling into this kind of what appears to be a contradictory state of affairs from the way you characterized Calvinism or Reformed theology. Hope that helps. Alex. Greg Koukl Here for stand a reason Give them heaven friends. Bye bye now.
- [57:47]
Gail
It.