0:00

I'm Amy Hall

0:02

and I'm here

0:04

with Greg Kokel

0:06

and you're listening

0:09

to Stand to

0:11

Reason's hashtag, S-T-R-S-K

0:14

podcast. Yep. Now,

0:17

Greg, today we

0:19

have kind of

0:22

more practical,

0:24

tactical kind of...

0:27

Advice? All right. And this first

0:29

question comes from Rick. Rick. With

0:31

AI being able to search the

0:33

scriptures instantly, we can ask

0:36

the question, what would Jesus

0:38

have me do in this

0:40

situation like never before? What

0:42

discernment skills should we develop

0:44

to make sure we are

0:46

getting wise answers to our

0:48

questions and not being led astray? I

0:50

would not use AI for this purpose

0:53

at all. AI is programmed by people.

0:55

And AI is going to

0:57

give answers that are consistent

0:59

with their programming. Now, what AI

1:01

can do is give you every

1:03

instance of a certain kind of

1:05

thing, presumably, that you're looking for

1:08

in scripture. I don't know if

1:10

you are, I don't think you

1:12

were in the group many years

1:14

ago that was at my home

1:16

where we did this study on

1:18

prayer in the New Testament. No,

1:20

I wasn't in that one. And

1:22

what we did is we looked

1:24

up all these references to prayer.

1:26

Now, of course, not all the references

1:28

to prayer have the word prayer in

1:30

them. You can't, so you can't use

1:32

a concordance looking for the word prayer

1:35

or prayer. You have to look at

1:37

the text because when it says, well,

1:39

this is, I bend my knees before

1:41

the father to this end, you know,

1:43

and so. What we did then is

1:45

we broke up the passages and each

1:47

person took a couple of books and

1:50

we read through carefully and again through

1:52

and found all of the verses. Now

1:54

I don't know that AI is capable

1:56

of doing that because it requires

1:58

making certain judgment. that I

2:00

don't think that artificial

2:02

intelligence is capable

2:04

of doing. I don't know, maybe I'm

2:07

giving it the short drift,

2:09

but nevertheless I wouldn't trust

2:11

it to do that. How

2:13

about that? Because what you're

2:15

doing is you're asking it

2:17

to do an analysis and then

2:19

in light of its

2:21

analysis, make recommendations on

2:24

behavior consistent with the character

2:26

of Christ. That's one problem.

2:29

What would Jesus do is

2:31

not the appropriate question

2:33

for us to ask in

2:35

every circumstance, because Jesus wasn't

2:38

just the perfect human being.

2:40

He was also the Messiah

2:42

and the incarnate Son of God.

2:45

And so therefore we're going

2:47

to have Jesus manifesting different

2:49

behaviors and different circumstances in

2:51

virtue of those other offices,

2:54

not in virtue of the

2:56

humanity. You're Chuck Lee now. Because to

2:58

be fair, he said, what would Jesus

3:00

have me do in this situation?

3:02

Oh, I see. Okay, well, thanks

3:05

for that clarification. All right, forget

3:07

everything I just said. So,

3:09

but it is, but that's actually,

3:11

that even complicates the matter more.

3:14

That requires an assessment.

3:16

That requires a kind of

3:18

a judgment of weighing all of

3:20

these other things that have to

3:22

do with Jesus' behavior and

3:25

making application to our life

3:27

in light of a very specific

3:29

issue. So it's not just

3:32

what Jesus had me do, and

3:34

it's a general thing. It's like,

3:36

I'm facing this circumstance right now.

3:38

I'm being asked to do thus

3:40

and so, or I have to

3:42

make this decision. So, AI, in

3:44

light of all the things we

3:47

know about Jesus, what would Jesus

3:49

tell me that I should do? Now

3:51

that also presumes that there is a

3:53

precise solution to these

3:55

decision-making problems that only Jesus

3:58

knows, or at least... We

4:00

could come to a conclusion of

4:02

based on an inappropriate exegesis of

4:04

Jesus' teaching. But that's not the

4:06

case in so many different things.

4:08

Look at your choice to get

4:10

married. Okay, whether you should get

4:12

married or not, Jesus isn't going

4:14

to tell you that. How do

4:16

I know? Because in First Corinthians

4:18

7 we have a whole chapter

4:20

Paul talks about marriage and the

4:22

decision to be married or not

4:24

to be married in the moral

4:26

obligations of both the advantages and

4:28

the disadvantages and the disadvantages. And

4:30

he says, do what you want

4:32

in light of these constraints. In

4:34

light of these constraints. But he

4:36

said, I'll think you'd be happier

4:38

if you stay single like me,

4:40

is what he said. But so

4:43

happiness is a factor. But that's

4:45

an analysis, that's a gesture, that's

4:47

a discernment you have to make

4:49

from the information. And there is

4:51

no right answer to that issue

4:53

that Jesus would give any individual.

4:55

By the way, that's just the

4:57

question of getting married versus being

4:59

single. That's not the question of

5:01

whether you decide to get married,

5:03

who is it that you choose

5:05

as a spouse? So I don't

5:07

think there's too much judgment and

5:09

assessment that's required here, and it

5:11

also presumes that I don't think

5:13

AI is capable of making up

5:15

properly. And this also presumes that

5:17

the questions related to what should

5:19

we do are going to be

5:21

determined in a more weighty sense.

5:23

by what scripture says. Some things,

5:25

yes, don't sin. If this thing

5:27

you're thinking about doing is sin,

5:29

you don't do it. Okay, that

5:31

kind of thing. But a lot

5:34

of times we have a variety

5:36

of different principles that we have

5:38

to weigh in making the critical

5:40

decisions that we faced our life.

5:42

And I just want to say,

5:44

I have discovered, there's something you

5:46

have to keep in mind. AI

5:48

has to give you an answer.

5:50

Whether it really has an answer

5:52

or not. So what I found

5:54

is that sometimes it makes things

5:56

up. I have seen this happen

5:58

and then when you challenge it

6:00

and say, no, that's not true.

6:02

It will say, oh, you're... right

6:04

and then it'll give you a

6:06

different answer. You cannot count on

6:08

AI, I'm sorry. And I don't

6:10

like the idea of outsourcing our

6:12

discernment to anything that's inhuman. It's

6:14

just, it's not a good idea

6:16

and we cannot trust, especially now.

6:18

Well, might things change in the

6:20

future? I don't know. But it

6:22

doesn't always know the answer, but

6:25

it's so very confident when it

6:27

gives you the most answer. Sure.

6:29

By the way, you said anything

6:31

that's in human in a way

6:33

that's, it's not quite the case

6:35

because what is responding to is

6:37

programming by humans. And so it's

6:39

going to reflect, maybe in a

6:41

very clever way, all of this

6:43

information. It's like Google, Google, it

6:45

goes every, knows everything it seems.

6:47

But Google doesn't always get everything

6:49

right. Okay, so because it's all

6:51

this input by other individuals. And

6:53

so this reminds me of Psalm

6:55

one, blessed as the man who

6:57

does not walk in the council

6:59

of the witness, stand in the

7:01

seat of, stand in the path

7:03

of centers or sit in the

7:05

seat of scoffers. Okay, is that

7:07

where we want to get our

7:09

council from AI that is programmed

7:11

by people who have no commitment

7:14

to spiritual truth or to truth

7:16

at all? Well, that sounds like

7:18

a violation with Psalm 1 says.

7:20

So I share your same suspicion

7:22

of the source, but because it's

7:24

not just mechanical, it's a mechanistic

7:26

response as a result of the

7:28

information that has been input into

7:30

it by non-believing people. Now, it

7:32

could be that an AI is

7:34

created by people who only input

7:36

the Bible into that system or

7:38

only input... theology you would agree

7:40

with into that system. I mean

7:42

that that could happen and that

7:44

could be possible, but again, it

7:46

makes things up. I've seen it.

7:48

This happened to me just a

7:50

couple of days ago. I asked,

7:52

just out of curiosity, I said,

7:54

can you tell me a church

7:56

near me? a conservative evangelical church

7:58

near me that has a service

8:00

at in the evening on Sundays

8:02

and it gave me it was

8:05

very confident oh this is your

8:07

best shot right here and they

8:09

have their service at this time

8:11

so I go to their website

8:13

there's no service I come back

8:15

and I say there's no service

8:17

at that time and it says

8:19

oh you're right why don't you

8:21

try this one why did you

8:23

tell me that one right right

8:25

so You just, you can't count

8:27

on it. So then the question

8:29

becomes, well actually his question originally

8:31

is what discernment skills should we

8:33

develop? And here is my advice

8:35

for that. Discerman comes, it comes

8:37

from training and shaping your mind

8:39

into the form of God's word.

8:41

That's where it comes from. Having

8:43

your sense is trained to discern

8:45

good and evil is as in

8:47

Hebrews 5, right? And that comes

8:49

from spending time in God's word,

8:51

thinking about him, thinking about theology,

8:54

but mainly in reading the Bible.

8:56

And what you'll find is you

8:58

don't always even know exactly what

9:00

it is you've learned as you're

9:02

reading, but what it's doing is

9:04

it's shaping the way you view

9:06

reality. And as you do that,

9:08

when you hear something that doesn't

9:10

fit into that, it feels jarring.

9:12

Sure. So the more that you're

9:14

reading, the more that you're meditating

9:16

on God's word, the more you're

9:18

thinking about it and it's shaping

9:20

you, the more these foreign ideas

9:22

will bounce off of you and

9:24

they'll just feel out of place.

9:26

Even if you can't necessarily explain

9:28

why, you'll recognize that something doesn't

9:30

feel right in terms of the

9:32

morality of it or whatever. Even

9:34

if you can't necessarily put your

9:36

finger on what the problem is.

9:38

Sure. Your mind is being... renewed.

9:40

And that's what Paul talks about

9:42

number of places. By the way,

9:45

there's a book that just, I

9:47

just received, I don't even, I

9:49

don't think I asked for it,

9:51

but I got it sitting in

9:53

my room by John Lennox, the

9:55

Oxford mathematician on AI. And it's,

9:57

there's a lot of people who

9:59

have endorsed it, and some have

10:01

said, if this is the only

10:03

book you read an AI, if

10:05

you only read one book, this

10:07

is the book. So I'm going

10:09

to, I know almost nothing about

10:11

it, you know, and I pontificated

10:13

a little bit based on the

10:15

limited knowledge I have, but I

10:17

want to learn more. But I

10:19

think it's a problem. And I,

10:21

at this point, I refuse to

10:23

use it. Of course, who knows

10:25

how much AI is operating in

10:27

the background of a thing you

10:29

already use, but I refuse to

10:31

let that do any of the

10:33

kind of work for me that

10:36

I can do for myself, like

10:38

analyzing Bible verse. Look, and I

10:40

can put a verse in the

10:42

Bible. I remember kind of a

10:44

verse, I go into Google, and

10:46

I type what I remember, and

10:48

it shows me where it's at.

10:50

Oh, thank you very much. Now

10:52

I can go back to the

10:54

reference, I can go back to

10:56

the text and go back to

10:58

the text and get it exactly.

11:00

digital concordance. But I'm not going

11:02

to go to some machine that's

11:04

been programmed by who knows who

11:06

and let that do the heavy

11:08

lifting for me to put together

11:10

whatever it is I need. I

11:12

want to do that myself. Form

11:14

it, I want it to be

11:16

my words, my ideas, my thoughts,

11:18

and I want to be, I

11:20

do not want to be shortchanged

11:22

on the learning process that I

11:25

go through in gathering that information

11:27

myself. And this is what you're

11:29

referring to a few moments ago

11:31

about scripture. And I think that's

11:33

a great point. If we're not

11:35

going to be conformed to this

11:37

world, and AI is by nature

11:39

the wisdom of the world, I'm

11:41

not sure we want to ask

11:43

it. It's taking in all that

11:45

information from other people, from other

11:47

sources. and it's conformed to the

11:49

world. You know, I saw a

11:51

conversation between AI and a Christian,

11:53

Bill Dempsey, okay, the artificial, the

11:55

intelligent design movement. And he posted

11:57

the whole conversation because he started

11:59

by asking. questions of AI, whatever

12:01

that feature is, about intelligent

12:03

design and the evidence for

12:06

intelligent design. And it kept

12:08

pumping back to him all

12:11

of the conventional materialistic metaphysical

12:13

point of view. All right?

12:16

Oh, that's just religion disguised

12:18

as science. You know, all of

12:20

this kind of stuff. And he kept

12:22

hammering away, hammering going back and having

12:24

this. conversation, so to speak with it,

12:27

until he finally got it to admit

12:29

it didn't know what he was talking

12:31

about and it couldn't solve the problems

12:33

that somebody like Bill Dembski, who was

12:36

one of the fathers of the

12:38

intelligent design movement, knew were there

12:40

in the Darwinian project and the

12:42

origin of life, all of that

12:45

other stuff. So when you see

12:47

the whole dialogue in this posting

12:49

that he did, that's by somebody

12:51

who knows how to test it

12:54

properly, that's when you see the

12:56

liabilities and how biased AI can be,

12:58

at least on certain issues.

13:00

Mm-hmm. Let's go to a question

13:02

from Mitch. Hello, Greg and

13:04

Amy. Speaking from the perspective

13:07

of a young Christian, how

13:09

do you overcome confirmation bias

13:12

when evaluating claims related to

13:14

theism in Christianity? Is it

13:17

possible to have strong beliefs

13:19

and still be objective? Well,

13:21

the simple answer is yes.

13:23

And the best protection against

13:26

confirmation bias is an

13:28

awareness that it exists. The word

13:30

objective can be used in different

13:33

ways. Here it's talking about the

13:35

frame of mind of the person

13:37

who's doing the assessment. Can they

13:39

be objective? And some people think

13:41

that means that you can't have

13:43

a point of view, because if

13:45

you have a point of view, you

13:47

have a bias. All right. Now there

13:49

are different types of biases. I think

13:51

I talk about this in the tactics

13:53

book. But there are some biases that

13:56

reflect a point of view. And then

13:58

there are other biases that... distort.

14:00

So let's say, I don't know, Kobe

14:02

Bryant's mom, I think she probably thinks

14:05

he was a great basketball player.

14:07

Oh, she's biased, that's his son.

14:09

Well, she might be biased, but

14:11

she's also right. He was a

14:13

great basketball player. All right? So there

14:15

is a bias that a

14:18

person has that doesn't necessarily

14:20

distort because it's consistent with

14:22

the facts demonstrably so. And then

14:24

there's the bias to distort. And

14:26

this is something that JP Moreland...

14:29

pointed out for me first. And

14:31

it was raised regarding, I guess,

14:33

a gal came to him and

14:36

she said she's studying science or

14:38

something in college and the professor

14:40

said you can't be a scientist.

14:42

Why not? Well, because you're

14:44

Christian and Christians are biased.

14:47

And this is where JP

14:49

made the distinction. When it

14:51

comes to explanations of

14:53

the material world, which is

14:56

what science engages in, pursues,

14:58

The Christian actually has an

15:00

advantage because what they can

15:03

do is follow the materialistic

15:05

evidence to a materialistic conclusion

15:07

when it's warranted. But their

15:09

point of view is also open to an

15:11

additional possibility if the

15:14

materialistic explanation is not adequate

15:16

to the task. And by the

15:18

way, that's what forensic pathology is

15:21

about. This is where scientists try

15:23

to figure out whether an agent

15:25

was involved in the death of

15:27

a person. fall play, or whether

15:29

the death was natural causes. It's

15:31

a standard thing. But when it

15:33

comes to other areas in the

15:36

scientific enterprise, those are disqualified. And

15:38

so the materialist then has a

15:40

bias to his view, and the

15:42

Christian has a bias to theirs.

15:45

But the bias for the Christian

15:47

opens up the possibilities so that

15:49

they can follow the evidence where

15:51

it leads, and the bias of

15:54

the materialist scientist does not

15:56

allow him. to follow the evidence

15:58

where it leads. him to

16:00

follow the evidence to certain

16:03

types of conclusions that are

16:05

philosophically and metaphysically acceptable

16:08

to him. So that's, I mean,

16:10

that's an important factor here. I'm

16:12

trying to remember now what the

16:14

original question was. How do

16:16

you overcome confirmation bias? So being

16:18

aware of fit and being in

16:20

a position where you can say

16:22

to yourself, all right, you don't

16:24

have to get rid of your

16:27

points of view. You just want

16:29

to ask the question whether the

16:31

evidence at hand significantly justifies your

16:33

point of view or significantly

16:36

undermines it. Now sometimes,

16:38

you know, that's going to be

16:40

tricky, but if you're deliberate

16:43

about it, intentional about

16:45

it, it's going to

16:47

be much easier. Everybody

16:49

has a tendency to

16:51

conformational bias. Everybody does, okay?

16:53

If we look at whatever it

16:55

is that we want to be

16:57

true, that would the bias in that

16:59

direction, and then be open

17:02

to challenges against it,

17:04

that will significantly overcome

17:07

conformational bias. And you'll

17:09

know that you've overcome

17:11

it when you can give concrete-specific

17:15

substantial evidence

17:17

in favor of the view that you

17:19

have, or rebuttals... of the alleged

17:22

evidence against your view. If you go

17:24

through that process, then chances are really

17:26

good. You're going to figure it out.

17:28

People are able to overcome their biases.

17:31

They are able to find out true

17:33

things about the world. Okay? It happens

17:35

all the time. Our lives depend upon

17:37

that. Okay? And lots of people

17:39

have changed their mind. Whether it's

17:42

on religion or politics or whatever,

17:44

when confronted with new information. And

17:46

incidentally, this is very important. It's

17:49

also a philosophical concept that may

17:51

be esoteric for system, but it's

17:54

called dauksastic volunteerism. Okay, dauksastic has

17:56

to do with belief forming, and

17:58

volunteerism means you choose it. The

18:01

fact is you don't choose your beliefs.

18:03

Your beliefs happen in light of the

18:05

evidence that's placed before you. So I'm

18:07

not choosing to believe that I'm sitting

18:10

in a studio talking with you. It's

18:12

an automatic thing based on the evidence

18:14

that's presented to me right now. All

18:16

right? And so this is true in

18:19

lots of people's lives. No, it's possible

18:21

to resist good evidence because of informational

18:23

bias. But characteristically, people change their minds

18:25

because They've been given good reasons to

18:28

change their minds. And that leads to,

18:30

I think, one of the biggest ways

18:32

you can prevent this is by interacting

18:34

with those who disagree with you. So

18:37

you read their arguments and you interact

18:39

with somebody who has those arguments and

18:41

you see if your argument stand up

18:44

to that. If you want confirmation bias

18:46

happens when you only accept... what is

18:48

appealing to what you already believe. So

18:50

the way to get outside of that

18:53

is to interact with people who disagree

18:55

with you. Yeah, yeah. And keep your,

18:57

also, you need to be alert, especially

18:59

to informal fallacies, you know, like name

19:02

calling and genetic fallacy and circular reasoning

19:04

and self-refuting points of view and things

19:06

like that. Some of that stuff is

19:08

in the tactics book. But you need

19:11

to be aware when people's... arguments go

19:13

south and if you're familiar with some

19:15

of those informal fallacies you're going to

19:18

see these things right away and so

19:20

you know what doesn't count as good

19:22

evidence for another person's view or for

19:24

your own for that matter. And the

19:27

other thing I think is really important

19:29

is you have to care about truth.

19:31

It's a huge problem in our culture

19:33

today that I don't think people really

19:36

care about truth. They care about promoting

19:38

their view and so what they do

19:40

is... They try and make what, say

19:42

whatever they need to say, even if

19:45

it doesn't reflect the truth, in order

19:47

to convince people to come over to

19:49

their view. You have got to... love

19:51

truth more than your own view even.

19:54

And you have to be willing to

19:56

go wherever the truth leads. Now ironically,

19:58

I think this love of truth can

20:01

only come from somebody who believes God

20:03

exists because otherwise it's all about whatever

20:05

you want to convince people to do.

20:07

It doesn't really matter. But when we

20:10

believe in a God of truth and

20:12

we believe in a God that loves

20:14

truth, then... We have nothing to fear,

20:16

number one. And number two, we love

20:19

truth because it shows us what God

20:21

is created, who he is, what is

20:23

true about the world. So you have

20:25

to love truth. You have to interact

20:28

with others. And also, the question about

20:30

can you have strong beliefs and still

20:32

be objective. I think that depends on

20:34

why your beliefs are strong. Is it

20:37

simply that you're just holding on to

20:39

it for all? and you don't really

20:41

have good reasons. Or you're socialized by

20:44

social forces to hold out of that

20:46

view because of pressure from others, that's

20:48

another factor. In that case, you might

20:50

isolate yourself from other views because you

20:53

don't want to have that tested. However,

20:55

if you have strong views because you

20:57

have a wide foundation of facts that

20:59

you've already considered that you've incorporated into

21:02

your view of the world, then those

21:04

strong views are based on... the conversations

21:06

you've already had about truth. They're based

21:08

on thinking, they're based on ideas that

21:11

have been tested. That actually helps you

21:13

to evaluate new ideas, because if you've

21:15

already thought about all these other areas

21:18

and you're solid on all of these

21:20

other ideas, then as new ideas come

21:22

in, you can see, all right, this

21:24

sounds interesting, but it completely contradicts this

21:27

other very well... attested idea and so

21:29

the the greater your foundation is the

21:31

wider your foundation is in all sorts

21:33

of of truth, the

21:36

better that is

21:38

for evaluating new ideas

21:40

about truth. truth. And

21:42

And the better you

21:45

can see if there's

21:47

a problem with

21:49

another area of life

21:51

life that it just

21:54

doesn't fit with. fit with.

21:56

So again, it just it

21:58

just depends on why

22:01

you have strong

22:03

beliefs and how well

22:05

how well they're in what

22:07

is already true. true.

22:10

We're out of of time,

22:12

Greg. Went fast. fast. Rick

22:14

you, Rick and Mitch.

22:16

We appreciate hearing

22:19

from you. Send us

22:21

your question on

22:23

X with the X with

22:25

the hashtag STR go to

22:28

our website our website STR.org

22:30

send us your

22:32

question. This is This and Hall

22:34

for Stand to Reason. for stand to reason.