John Lennox Warns AI Worship Threatens Human Worth and Rationality

John Lennox 警告：崇拜 AI 威胁人类价值与理性 牛津大学数学家 John Lennox 认为，唯物主义无神论与超人类主义削弱了科学的理性基础，而耶稣的复活则为人类的死亡与道德败坏提供了真正的解决之道。 John Lennox 教授指出，AI 与超人类主义的迅猛兴起折射出古代自我神化的冲动，并对崇拜人造技术的危险发出警告。他针对苦难问题、信仰的地理分布以及地狱的本质等针对基督教的主要哲学异议，强调了基于证据的信靠，以及恩典有别于论功获救宗教的独特性。Lennox 断言，尽管 AI 能够模拟智能，但它缺乏意识体验与感受质（qualia），真正的人类尊严依然牢牢植根于人是按上帝形象所造这一根基。 数学描述物理世界的惊人效力以及生物 DNA 中蕴含的信息代码，揭示了宇宙建立在“话语”（Word）的基础之上，为存在一位理性造物主提供了有力的逻辑依据。 (2:27) 超人类主义试图通过技术解决肉体死亡并将人类升级为神，这在本质上折射了古代自我神化的野心；与此同时，技术的指数级扩张正与滞后的伦理监管框架形成危险断层。 (4:29) 人工智能仅是在模式识别层面模拟智能，缺乏真正的主观意识、感质（qualia）与情感体验；盲目将其神化构成了将人造物置于造物主之上的现代技术偶像崇拜。 (12:33) 唯物主义无神论在逻辑上动摇了科学与理性的根基：如果人类认知机制纯粹是无目的、随机演化的产物，人们便失去了信赖自身大脑结论的理性支撑。 (21:48) 与通过恪守规条赚取认可的功利性宗教不同，真正的基督教核心在于预先赐予的恩典；面对世间的苦难与自然之恶，十字架彰显出上帝选择直接参与并承担人类的痛苦。 (50:28)

Oxford mathematician John Lennox argues that modern culture's reverence for artificial intelligence and transhumanism reflects a flawed reductionism that dismantles human rationality and intrinsic worth. He contends that Christian theism, rather than conflicting with science, provides the only coherent foundation for human reason, consciousness, and hope in the face of suffering. The Technocratic Impulse Toward Self-Deification (4:29) Lennox observes that modern cultural enthusiasm for Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and transhumanism revives an ancient pattern of human self-deification. Referencing Yuval Noah Harari's Homo Deus and forecasts by Astronomer Royal Martin Rees, Lennox notes that secular technologists increasingly view biological death as an engineering glitch and seek digital immortality. Concurrently, AI systems project divine attributes like apparent omniscience and omnipresence, drawing users into synthetic relationships and emergent worship groups. Lennox warns that society is sleepwalking into an ethical crisis, as exponential technological capabilities far outpace governance frameworks. While Narrow AI offers immediate benefits in diagnostics and data analysis, it simultaneously empowers authoritarian surveillance and social control. In Lennox's view, transhumanism attempts to engineer perfection while ignoring moral failure, whereas Christian theology holds that mortality and moral guilt were historically resolved through the resurrection of Christ rather than technological intervention. Consciousness, Qualia, and the Computational Limit (12:33) Lennox insists on a strict division between simulated machine intelligence and conscious awareness. While algorithms can recognize complex patterns or generate creative-looking outputs, they lack subjective internal experience (qualia) and sensory understanding. Reducing humans to complex biological mechanisms or "hackable animals" ignores the fact that modern science cannot explain or synthetically manufacture consciousness. Citing psychiatrist Iain McGilchrist's research on brain hemisphere asymmetry, Lennox argues that Western civilization has spent centuries overemphasizing the left hemisphere's narrow, reductionist focus at the expense of holistic meaning and relational context. Lennox asserts that functionalist metrics, such as Alan Turing's imitation game, focus purely on output while erasing the essential qualitative dimensions of human dignity, love, and spiritual relationship. The Rationality Paradox in Materialist Science Addressing the assumption that scientific rigor leads naturally to atheism, Lennox notes that modern science was founded by believers like Johannes Kepler who viewed empirical observation as uncovering divine order. The mathematical intelligibility of physical reality and the biological code of the human genome support what Lennox terms a "word-based universe," mirroring the biblical claim that meaning preceded matter. Furthermore, Lennox argues that materialist atheism logically undermines the validity of human thought. He points out that no scientist would rely on a computer produced solely by mindless, unguided, random mechanisms, yet materialism demands that exact trust regarding the human mind. He distinguishes genuine Christian faith from blind belief or merit-based religious moralism, framing it instead as an evidence-based trust rooted in objective historical claims and unmerited grace. The Reality of Suffering and Divine Restoration (50:28) When addressing natural evil, such as congenital blindness or earthquakes, Lennox acknowledges that neat intellectual explanations cannot dispel emotional anguish. He states that every worldview must grapple with a world exhibiting both "beauty and barbed wire." Rather than presenting a distant God, Lennox argues that the Cross demonstrates God entering human suffering directly. While an atheistic universe leaves suffering individuals with total annihilation and no ultimate resolution, Lennox argues that divine resurrection offers concrete hope for ultimate justice and compensation beyond death. He rejects deterministic views of damnation, framing hell as God respecting human free will by granting people the eternal separation from Him that they deliberately chose. Lennox concedes that theoretical absolute certainty is unattainable, which often keeps open-minded skeptics suspended in agnosticism. However, he maintains that the cumulative weight of historical, mathematical, and experiential evidence offers sufficient practical certainty to anchor human hope outside transient technological systems.

牛津大学数学家约翰·伦诺克斯（John Lennox）在节目中主张，唯物主义与崇拜人工智能的技术狂热不仅削弱了人类理性和尊严的基础，也无法解决人性的道德创伤；唯有植根于历史事实与超越性恩典的基督教信仰，才能为人类意识、苦难以及终极希望提供自洽的解释。 技术崇拜与超人类主义的技术神化 (4:29) 现代社会正涌现出将人工智能视作神祇的崇拜倾向。OpenAI的萨姆·奥尔特曼（Sam Altman）与部分前谷歌工程师曾指出，AI凭借看似无所不知的信息检索和无所不在的网络接入，显现出类似神明属性的特征。伦诺克斯警告，这种把人类造物推崇为神的做法属于经典的偶像崇拜，其根源在于将人类自身降格为机器。尤瓦尔·赫拉利（Yuval Noah Harari）在《未来简史》中提出的两大21世纪诉求——攻克肉体死亡与将人类升级为神，以及英国皇家天文学家马丁·里斯（Martin Rees）关于机器霸权未来的预测，实质上都是古代君王自我神化冲动的技术再现。 伦诺克斯指出，超人类主义试图绕过人类道德缺陷，单靠生物工程和机械植入追求数字永生。然而，基督教早在两千年前就通过耶稣基督的复活宣告了死亡问题的解决，其核心在于神道成肉身以处理人类深层的罪与道德败坏，而非让人类在未解决自身败坏的前提下企图升格为神。此外，专用人工智能（Narrow AI）在带来早癌筛查等益处的同时，也正被用于监控与信用评级，使社会在伦理滞后的状态下面临向全方位监控和极权主义滑坡的危险。 心智模拟、感官意识与人类尊严的边界 (12:33) 针对人工智能对脑力和体力劳动的替代，伦诺克斯划定了功能模拟与真实意识的绝对界限。根据艾伦·图灵（Alan Turing）的“模仿游戏”和彼得·诺维格（Peter Norvig）的实用主义定义，AI能够通过重组既有数据生成画作或文本，但这并不等同于人类意识。机器并不具备感受质（qualia），无法感知“红色的红”，也没有味觉、触觉等连接主观经验的感官知觉。即便图像识别系统能够标注“儿童”，它本身对儿童的含义毫无理解。 伦诺克斯引用精神病学家伊恩·麦吉尔克里斯特（Iain McGilchrist）的大脑分工理论，批评过去五个世纪西方文明过度偏向左脑的还原主义与分析思维，导致社会“知晓万物的运作机制，却丢失了全部的意义”。将人类简化为“可被侵入的动物”或纯粹的物理化学过程，实质上抹杀了人类独特的道德感、反思力与艺术体验。他强调，人类不可替代的尊严源自其是“按照神的形象（Imago Dei）”受造，具有直接的关系性与灵性向度。 理性根基的自我瓦解与基于证据的信仰 对于自然主义无神论，伦诺克斯提出了根本性的理性诘难：如果人类大脑仅仅是盲目、无导向且随机的演化过程的副产物，那么由其产生的认知结论便缺乏被信任的逻辑根据。他常向顶尖科学家提问，是否会信任一台由盲目随机过程构成的电脑，得到的回答全是否定的；因此，企图捍卫纯粹理性的物质主义反而在逻辑上瓦解了科学研究赖以建立的理性基础。理查德·道金斯（Richard Dawkins）所引领的“新无神论”正是因此显露颓势。 面对主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）对信仰循环论证与不可知论的审视，伦诺克斯澄清，基督教信仰绝非盲目的盲信，而是类似于其58年婚姻中建立的客观与主观经验累积证据。他借助“食谱比喻”说明真正基督教与功利宗教的差异：世俗宗教大多要求信徒像遵照食谱做苹果蛋糕一样，靠累积道德善功换取接纳；而基督信仰则是基于十字架的恩典，信徒在关系初始即获得无条件的完全接纳，从而在安全感中生活。对于“出生地理彩票”决定宗教信仰的质疑，伦诺克斯在与彼得·辛格（Peter Singer）辩论时指出，无神论者同样在很大程度上继承了父母的世界观，无神论本身就是一种信念体系。 苦难图景、历史复活与超越性的公义 (50:28) 面对自然界中令人费解的残酷现象，例如导致婴儿失明的眼部寄生虫或毁灭性的新西兰地震，伦诺克斯承认任何世界观都必须正视“美丽与铁丝网（或炸弹）”并存的混合现实。理查德·费曼（Richard Feynman）提醒人们要警惕自我欺骗，而纯粹从等式中剔除神并不能减轻受苦儿童的痛苦，只会让苦难以绝对的虚无收场。伦诺克斯明确拒绝神预定特定灵魂灭亡的绝对宿命论，并指出神对个体的审判完全基于当事人所获得的光照与具体知情程度。 基督教对苦难的终极回应在于十字架与复活。十字架表明神并非冷眼旁观，而是亲自进入人类的痛苦之中；而复活则是打破死亡藩篱的历史枢纽。道金斯在辩论中将复活斥为狭隘琐碎的主题，但伦诺克斯援引C.S.路易斯（C.S. Lewis）的见解强调，若复活属实，死亡便不再是终局，超越今生的世界能为受难者带来真正的补偿与公义。关于地狱，伦诺克斯解释圣经中耶稣主要用此警告伪善的宗教狂热者；地狱本质上是人自由选择与神隔离的客观呈现，神尊重人的自由意志而不施加勉强。在俄罗斯重刑犯监狱中杀害12名女性的死囚悔改经历，以及十字架旁获饶恕的强盗表明，神圣的恩典与公义超越了世俗功利的度量衡。 巴特利特承认，道德直觉与理性疑虑间的张力使他依然停留在不可知论的篱笆上，但伦诺克斯平静从容的生命状态展现出超越论辩的说服力。双方讨论留下了一个核心悬念：在深度伪造蔓延、算法侵蚀传统认知指标与社会意义感的时代，人类究竟会顺应还原主义滑向机器化与极权监控，还是能够在超越性信仰中重新找回人类独有的灵性锚点与终极希望。

## Background 本期内容由知名播客频道 The Diary Of A CEO（由 Steven Bartlett 主持）于 2026 年 6 月 4 日在 YouTube 平台发布。节目简介指出，在圣经销量激增、全球诸多顶尖思想家重返信仰的背景下，牛津大学数学家兼基督教护教学家约翰·伦诺克斯（John Lennox）深入探讨了为何追求“解决死亡”的技术狂热早已晚了两千年、机器为何永远无法复制人类意识、AI 对人性的启示，以及历经 70 年信仰淬炼后他对真理与人类不可替代性的终极审视。 ## TL;DR 在长达近一个半小时的深度对话中，伦诺克斯教授以深厚的数学与科学哲学训练为基底，正面迎战现代无神论、超人文主义及通用人工智能（AGI）热潮。他指出无神论在逻辑上瓦解了人类理性本身，而超人文主义试图将人类“自我神化”的技术野心回避了根本的道德缺陷。伦诺克斯深入剖析了意识与模拟智能的本质区别、宗教出生彩票论、恶与苦难的奥秘以及基督教恩典观与一般功利道德宗教的根本差异，力证唯有奠基于基督超越维度的生命确据，才能在算法与监控极权隐现的动荡时代为人类赋予真正的尊严与盼望。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场对话在知性交锋与温润长者的精神定力之间达成了极佳的张力平衡。主持人巴特利特秉持真诚求真的不可知论视角，以连环杀手救赎、寄生虫苦难及唯功能主义等尖锐议题层层推进；伦诺克斯则兼具学者的严谨逻辑与历经风霜的长者风范，既有在黑板前般的缜密拆解，又有探访俄罗斯死囚牢房时的沉痛动容。现场氛围从最初对科技异化的理性警惕，逐渐过渡到对生命存在本质的温情省思，不仅展现出罕见的从容、自洽与平安，更给观众带来一种穿透智识困惑、直抵心灵的厚重感与沉浸感。 ## Bulletin - [04:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=269s) 牛津大学数学家约翰·伦诺克斯（John Lennox）警示，以超人文主义与 AGI 为代表的科技浪潮正试图将人类推向“人造神（Homo Deus）”，然而机器仅能模拟智能却无主观意识（Qualia），无法取代按上帝形象受造的人类独特性。 - [02:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=147s) 伦诺克斯从理性与数学视角反驳极端还原主义，指出宇宙的高度理性法则与生物遗传密码（DNA）展现了“以话语为基础的宇宙”，恰与《约翰福音》中的“太初有道”相互印证。 - [50:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=3028s) 针对苦难与全知全能的经典神学张力，伦诺克斯提出“十字架”表明上帝亲自承担受难而非冷眼旁观，并且复活的超验维度为今生一切无辜苦难提供了终极永恒补偿的可能。 - [01:13:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=4414s) 面对 AI 带来的大规模失业、深度伪造以及隐秘的极权监控威胁，单纯的技术再培训已显不足，人类亟需摆脱屏幕异化并重建超越物质世界的内在希望根基。 ## Key takeaways - [02:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=147s) 数学在客观现实中的非凡有效性以及宇宙的精密秩序，证明宇宙本质上是神圣理性与“以话语为基础”（word-based）的产物。 - [04:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=269s) 超人文主义试图将死亡归结为技术问题并通过人机融合实现肉身成圣，这在神学上本质是对古老“自我封神”冲动的重演，彻底冲击了人作为“上帝形象（Imago Dei）”的先验尊严。 - [10:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=609s) 专用人工智能（Narrow AI）已在医疗与安防深度应用但伴随监控风险，而通用人工智能（AGI）仍在竞逐中，技术伦理已严重滞后于权力掠夺的研发节奏。 - [16:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=982s) 机器拥有计算和模式识别能力，但毫无主观感受性（Qualia）和真正的意识（Consciousness）；公众过度拟人化机器正在消解人类的自身价值。 - [18:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=1081s) 部分科技领袖与群体对 AI 的狂热展现出类似全知、全在的崇拜特征，其本质是一种现代偶像崇拜（Idolatry），是用人造物取代造物主。 - [19:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=1187s) 现代社会深陷左脑驱动的机械还原主义牢笼；如果大脑仅仅是随机无序自然演化的副产物，无神论就从根基上摧毁了人类从事科学所需的理性可信度。 - [27:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=1663s) 超人类主义对肉体延寿与意识上传的狂热是“迟到了两千年的追赶”，因为基督的复活已在历史与源头上彻底解决了物理死亡的权势。 - [32:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=1970s) 基督教信仰与传统“功利本位宗教”存在根本分野，它不依赖善恶相抵的天平考核，而是建立在毫无保留的“恩典（grace）”与已被成就的救赎起点之上。 - [36:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=2190s) 信仰绝非盲目的黑暗飞跃，而是如同长达数十年的婚姻信任一样，是基于历史文献、理性反思与亲身涉水验证所累积的确据。 - [43:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=2595s) 出生地理决定论不仅适用于宗教信徒，同样适用于在无神论家庭长大的学者，无神论本身也是一种必须接受理性检验的信念系统。 - [50:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=3028s) 面对世间“美丽与铁丝网”并存的苦难现实，基督在十字架上的受难表明上帝亲自涉足人间苦痛，而复活为今生的残酷提供了不可磨灭的永恒盼望。 - [57:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=3436s) “做个好人”无法替代信仰救赎，因为依据绝对道德律（如《登山宝训》），人类凭自身努力根本无力自救，核心在于承认过犯并领受赦罪恩典。 - [58:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=3533s) 三大一神宗教在耶稣受死与复活的客观历史事实主张上逻辑互斥，主观的心理抚慰与意义感无法替代对客观真理的检验。 - [01:03:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=3833s) 地狱的本质并非外力强加的刑具折磨，而是人类出于自由意志拒绝造物主后，上帝对人远离祂的永恒选择的成全与退让。 - [01:07:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=4046s) 连环杀手在死囚牢房的痛悔与十字架上强盗的赦免展现出恩典超越人类道德功利的深邃与沉重。 - [01:10:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=4240s) AI 技术带来的深度伪造与失真使得索尔仁尼琴“不靠谎言活着”的箴言更为迫切，且监控工具正诱使现代文明滑向隐秘的技术极权主义。 - [01:17:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=4656s) 机器的拼凑组合不能等同于人类右脑富含情感与感知的真正创造力，面对算法时代的迷茫，唯一的解药是寻回超越现世的真正希望根基。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=0s) 崇拜人工智能的危险与基督信仰的反思 在节目的开篇剪辑中，牛津大学数学家兼基督教护教学家约翰·伦诺克斯（John Lennox）直言不讳地指出，当下甚至已经出现了崇拜 AI 的群体。之所以产生这种现象，是因为人工智能展现出了某些过去人们通常只会与上帝联系在一起的特质。尽管部分人乐见其成，认为这是人类演进的必然方向，但伦诺克斯警告，将这些外表类人的机器视为具有意识的存在，是一种极其危险的倾向。在这场技术狂热中，基督教信仰对于人性的独特性有着极其重要的话语权。 主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）对此感到好奇：在公众的普遍印象中，数学家和科学家往往倾向于无神论，而伦诺克斯却是一位坚定的信仰者。伦诺克斯反驳了这一刻板印象，指出现代科学的诸多伟大先驱其实都是有神论者。他坦言自己在过去 70 多年里从未停止过对真理的自我拷问，让自己彻底置身于理性的审视之下。他之所以坚信基督，是因为基督赐予了他别人无法给予的内在平安与真正的赦免。 为了展现这种宽恕的力量，伦诺克斯回忆起一段令人震撼的亲身经历：他曾探访过一所戒备森严的俄罗斯死囚牢房。透过铁门，一名残忍杀害了 12 名女性的死刑犯走到他面前，坦然说道：“我罪有应得，理当待在这里。”随后，那名男子的脸上浮现出一种混杂着战栗与解脱的“惨然微笑（ghastly smile）”，对伦诺克斯说：“我在这里遇见了耶稣，他宽恕了我。”史蒂文随即抛出核心追问：一个双手沾满鲜血的连环杀手真的能被上帝赦免并进入天堂吗？人又该如何确证自己托付一生的信仰是真实的？伦诺克斯给出了肯定的回答：那些深沉而切实的生命经验，足以向他证明“这些都是真实不虚的”。 随后，主持人插入了一段简短的频道订阅呼吁，请求观众检查是否开启了订阅，以支持团队继续邀请重量级嘉宾展开深度对话。 --- ### [02:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=147s) 数学、基因与“话语立基的宇宙” 节目正式开始后，史蒂文列举了伦诺克斯深厚的学术背景：发表过 70 多篇经同行评审的数学论文，在《牛津数学专题论文集》（Oxford Mathematical Monograph Series）中合著了两部研究专著，并在牛津大学执教多年。面对这些耀眼的学术光环，伦诺克斯谦逊地表示，学术论文和国际声誉固然重要，但数十年的数学研究所赋予他最核心的财富是严格的逻辑训练。 在伦诺克斯眼中，“数学之所以在客观世界中如此有效”，正是宇宙背后存在神圣理性的最强有力证据之一。他将其称为一个“以话语为基础的宇宙（word-based universe）”。正是因为宇宙本身蕴含着精密的理性法则，人类才能借助抽象的数学公式去精准描述星辰与物质的运行规律。正如天文学家开普勒（Johannes Kepler）的那句传世名言：“科学研究不过是追随上帝的思路，重新思考祂所想过的事（Thinking God's thoughts after him）。” 不仅物理宇宙如此，现代生物学革命更进一步印证了这一点。人类基因组（DNA）的破译揭示出生命的核心其实是由遗传密码编码的信息，这意味着生物学同样是“基于话语/语言”的。伦诺克斯指出，这一重大科学发现与《圣经》新旧约的启示惊人契合，尤其是《约翰福音》开篇第一句震撼人心的宣言：“太初有道（In the beginning was the Word，道即话语/理性）”。 听到这里，史蒂文分享了自己的成长背景。他出生于一个基督教家庭，但大约在 18 岁时失去了信仰。他和他的几位兄弟在数学上都极具天赋，思维方式高度理性，甚至理性到了可能带来偏见的程度。史蒂文坦承，正是这种科学至上的理性倾向让他逐渐走向怀疑，因此他迫切希望探讨：为何在科学界与数学界普遍倒向无神论的大环境下，伦诺克斯依然坚信上帝？ --- ### [04:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=269s) 超人文主义的诱惑：人类想把自己变成神 当话题转向伦诺克斯的著作《上帝、AI 与历史的终结》（*God, AI and the End of History*）时，史蒂文询问为何一位顶尖数学家会对人工智能产生如此深切的忧虑。伦诺克斯解释说，他所关心的从来不只是技术本身，而是那个更为宏大的图景：任何触及“人类本质与身份（human identity）”界限的问题。当前，以萨姆·奥特曼（Sam Altman）等人为代表的科技巨头正在疯狂追逐通用人工智能（AGI），而在这股浪潮的最深处，潜藏着一种名为“超人文主义（Transhumanism）”的激进思潮。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 超人文主义的核心诉求与基督教神学视角的对比 accDescr: 图表展示了超人文主义追求技术肉身成圣的两大目标，以及其与基督教神学关于神之形象的冲突。 subgraph Transhumanism["超人文主义的核心议题 (尤瓦尔·赫拉利)"] A["技术路线：人机融合与基因工程"] --> B["目标一：攻克物理死亡 (视死亡为技术故障)"] A --> C["目标二：提升幸福感与自我神化 (人造神 Homo Deus)"] end subgraph Conflict["神学与文明的冲突"] B & C --> D["自我封神 (Self-Deification)"] D -->|根本颠覆| E["创世记核心教义：人类依照上帝的形象受造 (Imago Dei)"] end ``` 伦诺克斯引用了英国皇家天文学家马丁·里斯（Martin Rees）的预测：在遥远的未来，主宰世界的可能不再是碳基有机大脑，而是机器硅基大脑。许多严肃的科学家真诚地相信人类终将与机器融为一体，创造出兼具人类特质与超凡算力的“超人类（Transhuman）”。与此同时，以色列历史学家尤瓦尔·诺亚·赫拉利（Yuval Noah Harari）在畅销书《未来简史》（*Homo Deus*，意为“人神”）中系统描绘了这幅愿景。赫拉利指出，21 世纪人类面临两大核心任务： 1. **解决物理死亡**：将死亡视为单纯的“技术问题”并通过科技加以攻克； 2. **追求快乐与自我神化**：借助生物工程、半机械人技术（Cyborg）和机械植入物，将人类转变成小写的“诸神（gods with a small g）”。 赫拉利从无神论视角认为，盲目的自然演化将人类带到了今天，接下来人类必须接管进化过程，亲手重构自身的超人未来。这番言论让伦诺克斯警铃大作。他指出，人类历史上“自我封神（Self-deification）”的冲动屡见不鲜——从古巴比伦帝王到古罗马皇帝，无不自立为神。但在伦诺克斯看来，超人文主义所鼓吹的造神运动正在动摇西方文明的核心基石：即《圣经·创世记》中确立的根本信条——**人是按照上帝的形象（Image of God）被创造的理性与道德主体**。 伦诺克斯谈及自己涉足该领域的起因：起初是一些基督教领袖希望举办一场关于 AI 的研讨会，邀请他这位兼具深厚科学背景与神学造诣的学者提供指引。在深入调研后，他意识到问题的严重性。尽管真正的 AGI 目前仍是镜花水月，但当前已经落地的“专用人工智能（Narrow AI）”已经在多个层面对人类社会构成了深刻冲击。为了向大众讲清其中的利弊，他在 2020 年出版了《2084：人工智能与人类的未来》（*2084: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Humanity*），并在 2024 年推出了内容翻倍的修订第二版。伦诺克斯客观地肯定了 AI 在医疗诊断等领域的巨大应用价值，但也警告其带来的社会异化与生存威胁正在将世界推向一个极具反乌托邦色彩的境地。 --- ### [10:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=609s) 概念厘清：专用人工智能（Narrow AI）与通用人工智能（AGI） 为了确保观众能在清晰的技术语境下跟上讨论，史蒂文在此处对关键术语做出了精炼的界定，并得到了伦诺克斯的高度认可： | 概念类型 | 定义与核心能力 | 现实应用与典型代表 | 当前技术状态 | |:--- |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **专用人工智能 (Narrow AI)** | 专注于在特定垂直领域内解决单一明确问题的系统；其能力高度局限，不具备跨领域的理解力。 | 诊断肺癌的医学影像算法、Apple Watch 上的生物体征监测、人脸识别。 | **已高度成熟并广泛商用**；也是当下带来社会伦理冲击的主要技术形态。 | | **通用人工智能 (AGI)** | 能够胜任人类所能从事的**任何**智力任务，且运行速度远超人类的超级智能系统；相当于在所有学科上都拥有博士学位。 | 目前各大顶尖科技公司（如 OpenAI 等）正在倾力竞逐的终极技术目标。 | **尚未完全实现**，仍处于激烈研发与争论之中的前沿方向。 | ### [10:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=654s) 专用人工智能与通用人工智能：一把双刃剑 对人工智能概念的区分是理解当下技术变革的前提。专用人工智能（Narrow AI）只能完成单一任务——尽管这项任务通常需要人类智能才能胜任；而通用人工智能（AGI，Artificial General Intelligence）则能够包揽人类智能所能做到的一切，甚至更多。约翰·伦诺克斯（John Lennox）在自己的著作《2084》中便指出，在当下对 AGI 的狂热追逐中，许多根本性的担忧正被公众与业界忽视。 伦诺克斯提到科技记者凯伦·郝（Karen Hao）所著的书籍，书中提出了一个极为精妙的比喻——“对机器神（Machine God）的追求”，这极其准确地概括了当前科技巨头们的行事逻辑。伦诺克斯将人工智能比作一把锋利的手术刀：如果落入良医手中，它可以用来拯救生命；若落入凶徒手中，它就是致命的凶器。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: AI双刃剑效应与社会风险 accDescr: 展示狭义AI在社会中的正面与负面应用，以及由此导致的失控风险。 subgraph DualNature["AI 的双重属性（如同一把锋利的刀）"] Positive["正面应用<br/>（如：足球场人脸识别锁定恐怖分子）"] Negative["负面应用<br/>（如：社会信用体系、少数族裔打压与极权监控）"] end subgraph Consequences["长期系统性风险"] DataHandover["持续让渡数据、信息与控制权"] BadActors["被恶意行为者（Bad Actors）利用"] Sleepwalk["社会『梦游式』滑向全方位受控的未来"] end Positive -.-> DataHandover Negative --> BadActors DataHandover --> Sleepwalk BadActors --> Sleepwalk ``` 以专用人工智能为例，它既能精准地在庞大的足球场人群中识别出恐怖分子，也能在极权统治下通过社会信用体系对少数族裔进行无孔不入的严密监控。令人担忧的是，人类正处于一种“梦游”（sleepwalking）状态，在不知不觉中逐步让渡自身的控制权、个人隐私和海量数据，最终可能将足以摧毁自身自由的工具拱手让给恶意行为者。 ### [12:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=753s) 人形机器人、失业危机与“权力对抗真理”的永恒审判 随着超级智能与具身智能的双重突破，人类的存在意义面临着前所未有的挤压。斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）提到了一段引发广泛讨论的真实直播画面：一台人形机器人在流水线上连续工作了整整 8 天，其效率彻底碾压了人类工人，因为它既不需要睡觉休息，每次只需充电几小时就能满血复活。人类正面临“双重颠覆”： 1. **超级智能（AGI）** 正在侵蚀和取代人类的大脑与智力； 2. **人形机器人与精密机械** 正在替代人类的肌肉与身体机能。 两者的结合预示着前所未有的全方位失业潮，冲击的绝不仅是底层的机械重复工种，更会迅速蔓延至律师、分析师等传统高薪知识密集型职业。伦诺克斯指出，这里存在一个根本性的伦理死结：**技术的进步速度远远超越了与之相匹配的伦理学发展**。掌握巨大权力的科技巨头往往一边宣称“需要伦理管控”，一边却要求“先放手让我们推进研发以确保安全”，这在本质上是一场赤裸裸的权力掠夺（colossal power grab）。 面对科技沦为“终极真理来源”的狂妄趋势，伦诺克斯借用了两千年前耶稣受审的历史公案，深入剖析了“权力”（Power）与“真理”（Truth）的永恒对抗： | 审判者 / 受审者 | 代表立场 | 核心对话与逻辑 | 历史与现实寓意 | |:--- |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **罗马巡抚彼拉多 (Pontius Pilate)** | 帝国世俗权力 / 暴力垄断 | 质问：“你是王吗？”并傲慢警告：“难道你不知道我有权钉死你，也有权释放你吗？”在得到回答后讥讽：“真理是什么？” | 象征掌握技术与政治垄断权力的统治集团；迷信暴力与控制，将真理视作虚无或权力的附庸。 | | **耶稣 (Jesus Christ)** | 绝对真理 / 超越性权威 | 回应：“我为此而生，也为此来到世间，特为给真理作见证……若不是从上头赐给你的，你就毫无权柄办我。” | 象征超越世俗力量的客观真理；指出一切世俗权力皆有其来源与边界，真理不因强权意志而改变。 | 伦诺克斯强调，“为真理作见证”构成了他一生的核心动力。而当下人工智能浪潮最令人不安的倾向，正是这种将人类扁平化为纯粹机械的**还原主义（Reductionism）**。 ### [16:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=982s) 意识与智能的区别：为什么机器不是人？ 人工智能专家与公众在认知上存在巨大鸿沟。伦诺克斯郑重指出，人类必须彻底厘清“人工智能是什么，不是什么”： - 机器终究只是机器，**机器不会思考**； - 机器没有**感质（Qualia）**，它们根本无法体验或理解“红色的红”意味着什么； - 机器没有情感，更没有任何科学意义上的**意识（Consciousness）**。 上帝造人的奇迹在于将“意识”与“智能”结合在了一起。当今的科学家和工程师从根本上并不知道意识的科学本质究竟为何，因此他们并没有真正创造出具有意识的智能，而只是竭尽所能地在机器中**模拟智能（simulate intelligence）**。 最致命的认知陷阱在于人类泛滥的**拟人化心理（Anthropomorphization）**——盲目地把无意识的机器当作有意识的生命体去对待。人类真正无可替代的尊严与价值，恰恰来源于我们是有意识的存在。如果人类将自己贬低为纯粹的机器或仅仅是一种动物，便是在自我剥夺生命的神圣价值；一旦丧失了这种先验的位格，人类将再无处找寻自身存在的终极意义。 ### [18:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=1081s) 人造的机器神：从技术崇拜到新偶像主义 斯蒂芬·巴特利特援引了三位思想家与行业领袖的尖锐言论，揭示了科技界正呈现出极度狂热的宗教化倾向： - **尤瓦尔·赫拉利（Yuval Noah Harari）** 直言不讳：“人类现在已沦为可被黑客破解的动物（hackable animals）。关于人类拥有灵魂、精神和自由意志、内心深不可测的观念已经彻底终结。” - **山姆·奥特曼（Sam Altman）** 曾指出：“最成功的创业者最初追求的不是创办一家公司，而是去建立某种接近宗教的东西；到某个节点你才会发现，注册一家公司只是实现该目标最便捷的途径。” - **前谷歌工程师（安东尼·莱万多夫斯基）** 曾断言：“即将被创造出来的东西实际上就是神——虽然不是呼风唤雨的神，但如果一个存在比地球上最聪明的人还要聪明十亿倍，你除了称它为‘神’，还能叫它什么？” 伦诺克斯对此表示完全赞同，并指出这正是当下的严峻现实：由于现代 AI 系统展现出了传统神学中专属于上帝的某些特征——通过海量数据库展现出看似无所不知（Omniscient）的解答能力，通过互联网展现出看似无处不在（Omnipresent）的网络连接——社会上已经开始涌现出崇拜 AI 的组织和群体。 人们向 AI 敞开心扉、诉说隐秘心事，其姿态与向神明祷告几乎毫无二致。伦诺克斯一针见血地指出，这种行为本质上是一种**现代偶像崇拜（Idolatry）**。人们在向一个远远低于上帝、完全由人造且缺乏神性灵魂的事物屈膝下跪；虽然这对于寻找依靠的人性而言极具诱惑力，但在本质上却是在用赝品取代造物主。 ### [19:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=1187s) 左脑的还原主义与右脑的意义世界：知识分子的信仰回归 斯蒂芬随手展示了一个大脑解剖模型，伦诺克斯借此展开了极为深刻的认知反思。他特别推崇精神科医生兼哲学家伊恩·麦吉尔克里斯特（Dr. Iain McGilchrist）的巨著《事物的本质》（*The Matter with Things*）。 麦吉尔克里斯特指出，大脑的左右两个半球几乎同时参与所有认知过程，但它们对世界的关注方式截然不同： - **左脑**：专注于局部的、狭窄的焦点，偏向理性分析、分类拆解与还原主义； - **右脑**：把握全局与大局观（the big picture），负责情境化（contextualize）、整体感知与意义赋予。 西方文明在过去大约五百年间陷入了一种严重的失衡：整个社会过分迷恋左脑的狭隘、理性和还原主义模式，而彻底遗忘了负责提供整体语境与关联的右脑。其悲剧性后果正如麦吉尔克里斯特所概括的名言：**“我们现在发现自己生活在这样一个世界里——我们几乎懂得所有事物是如何运转的，却对任何事物的意义一无所知（we understand how almost everything works, but we know the meaning of nothing）。”** 麦吉尔克里斯特呼吁打破这一狭隘的认知牢笼，重新向美、文化、艺术、音乐以及宗教敞开怀抱。在这个过程中，人们正在逐步为“上帝”腾出不可或缺的位置，因为唯有至高的超越者才能填补这个由纯理性留下的意义真空。伦诺克斯观察到，正是这种对“宏大图景”的追寻，促使越来越多的当代顶尖知识分子告别虚无，重新以严谨理性的态度审视基督教信仰，试图在技术狂飙的现代社会中重建人类安身立命的根基。 ### [22:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=1326s) 还原主义的困境：无神论如何瓦解理性本身 约翰·伦诺克斯（John Lennox）指出，当代社会长期充斥着一种极其狭隘的还原主义（reductionism）世界观，即认为世间万物“无非就是物理和化学”。这种极端还原的世界对人类而言过于逼仄，最终只会将生活推向虚无主义的黑洞，这也是他坚决拒绝无神论的首要原因。伦诺克斯尖锐地指出，无神论在定义上瓦解了理性本身：如果大脑仅仅是一个盲目、无引导的自然演化过程的副产物，那么由它产生的思考为何具有可信度？ 伦诺克斯常常用一个反问去调侃顶尖科学家：“如果你每天使用的电脑是一个完全随机过程的产物，你还会信任它算出的数据吗？”每一个被问及的资深科学家都斩钉截铁地回答“绝不”。伦诺克斯随即点破他们的逻辑漏洞：如果一台电脑因源于随机而不可信，那无神论科学家为何能够相信那台同样源自无意识过程的“大脑生物电脑”？他认为无神论走向了极端，摧毁了人类从事科学乃至相信无神论所必需的理性根基。理查德·道金斯（Richard Dawkins）及“新无神论”（New Atheism）代表人物高举理性大旗，实际上却在摧毁理性，如今这一思潮正在肉眼可见地式微。相反，基督教信仰同样主张理性与实证，正如医学与科学依赖证据一样，伦诺克斯坚信基督信仰是建立在坚实的证据之上的。 --- ### [24:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=1472s) 从不可知论到行动：“愿意遵行”与“仅仅知道”的区别 当主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）坦承自己目前处于“不可知论”（agnostic）状态、对宏大图景存疑但保持完全开放时，伦诺克斯对此表示高度赞赏。他随即引用了耶稣在历史上面对质疑者时所说的一句关键话语：“人若立志遵着他的旨意行，就必晓得这教训或是出于神，或是我凭着自己说的。” 伦诺克斯特别强调了“立志遵行”与“想要知道”之间的微妙差异。耶稣并没有说“谁想知道就能知道”，而是说“谁愿意照着去做，谁就能知道”。纯粹的知性好奇往往只是把知识当成摆在桌上的观赏品，不付诸行动；而耶稣所期待的，是人愿意放下冷眼旁观的姿态，鼓起勇气迈出信任与跟从的实际步伐。 --- ### [25:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=1557s) 循环论证与红色法拉利：如何走出旁观者的思维困境 史蒂芬提出了许多现代人的深层困惑：无论是面对大爆炸理论还是宗教神学，他总觉得现有的所有宏观解释都“在根本上是不完整的”。科学展示了宇宙膨胀的证据，但在核心问题上依然留有空白；而在宗教领域，信徒常常用《圣经》来证明《圣经》的真实性。史蒂芬拿起面前的纸张打比方：“这就好比我在纸上写‘史蒂芬·巴特利特是一只蜥蜴，且这张纸上写的话保真’，然后用同一张纸来佐证它的真实性，这完全是无效的循环论证。” 面对这一质疑，伦诺克斯抛出了一个生动的“红色法拉利”比喻予以反驳： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 走出旁观者怀疑的行动路径 accDescr: 对比冷眼旁观的死循环与放下距离付诸验证的行动模式 subgraph Mindset["认知模式对比"] A["停留在远处（Skeptai）<br/>坐在房间内争论一千年"] --> B["陷入纯理论推导与循环怀疑"] C["放弃安全距离<br/>亲自走出大门察看"] --> D["通过亲身体验验证真实性"] end subgraph Outcome["最终结果"] B --> E["一无所获<br/>真伪永远悬而未决"] D --> F["确证事实<br/>建立真实的位格关系"] end ``` 伦诺克斯直言：“如果我告诉你门外街上停着一辆属于你的红色法拉利，我们哪怕坐在这里争论一千年，只要你不起身走出大门去亲眼看一眼，你永远不可能知道真假。”他进一步考证了希腊语词源，“怀疑者”（skeptic）源自希腊语 *skeptai*，原意是“从远处观察”。如果一个人永远保持疏离的观察距离，就绝不可能真正认识一个人。认识上帝不是在推导冷冰冰的哲学命题或宗教教条，因为上帝是一个有位格的存在（a person），而建立位格关系的第一步，就是必须放下距离、主动走近。 --- ### [27:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=1663s) 对决超人类主义：被解决的死亡与“上帝降卑为人” 伦诺克斯将基督教与尤瓦尔·赫拉利（Yuval Noah Harari）所代表的超人类主义（Transhumanism）及 AI 狂热进行了深刻对比。当许多热衷科技乌托邦的人宣称“我们即将通过人工智能和生物技术攻克死亡难题、把人类意识上传实现永生”时，伦诺克斯常常报以微笑并直言：“你们来得太晚了（You're too late）。”肉体死亡的难题早在两千年前就已被上帝借着基督的复活彻底解决；而超人类主义者幻想的“数字化意识上传”，比起历史终局时基督再来叫死人复活的终极荣耀，根本不值一提。 | 核心维度 | 现代超人类主义 / 科技乌托邦 | 基督信仰的核心救赎 | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **终极目标** | 人类试图通过技术自我神化，变成“小神明” | 创造宇宙的真神降卑为人，赐下真实生命 | | **解决死亡** | 寄希望于未来的意识上传与肉体延寿 | 两千年前基督复活已从源头上终结死亡权势 | | **核心盲区** | 试图绕过人类道德破损与罪恶直接建造乐园 | 正视人内心的罪性与堕落，提供十字架的赦免 | | **生命状态** | 依赖算法与机器维持的脆弱延续 | 与永生上帝建立永不隔绝的平安与位格关系 | 伦诺克斯指出，超人类主义妄图在完全回避“人性之恶与罪”的前提下构筑伊甸园，这是不可能实现的空中楼阁。人性的根本困境在于每个人内心的道德亏欠与失败。现年 82 岁的伦诺克斯动情地分享，基督信仰没有竞品，因为基督赐予了他其他任何哲学或科技都无法提供的宝物： - **良心的平安**：确知自己的过犯获得了真实的赦罪与洗净； - **终生的良友**：在人生长达数十载的岁月中，拥有一位随时可以倾诉、相伴同行的密友； - **永恒的确据**：纵使已过耄耋之年、寿命是史蒂芬的两倍以上，面对死亡时内心依然充满平安，因为这份确据不是靠自己的德行赚来的，而是基督借由十字架与复活白白赐下的稳固锚点。 --- ### [31:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=1874s) 并非盲目的黑暗飞跃：理性质疑与长达数十载的确据 史蒂芬深有感触地回应，在当今这个日益孤独、人际割裂的世界中，每个人都在极力寻觅这种不可动摇的归属感和永不褪色的安全感；但他大脑中的理性反思机制，始终在不停地拷问这一切是否只是心理幻觉。 伦诺克斯坦率地表示，这绝非按下一个心理开关就能解决的事情。他自己之所以能坐在演播室里坦然见证，正是因为他在过去 70 多年中不断向自己的信仰发问、严密审视证据，甚至毫不退缩地与全球最顶尖的新无神论者展开正面论战。基督信仰绝不是“盲目跳入未知的黑暗”（a leap into the dark），而是基于现有的理性与事实证据，勇敢地向前迈出一步。伦诺克斯以自己长达 58 年的婚姻作比：人对伴侣的全然信赖，并不是盲从，而是基于经年累月的了解与证据所建立的坚定委身。信仰亦是如此——只要怀着开放的心向神祈求显明，在坚实的证据根基上跨出信任的一步，那份超越世界的不动摇之平安便会真实临到。 ### [32:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=1970s) 恩典与功利的鸿沟：基督教为何不同于一般宗教？ John Lennox 指出，自己的信仰建立在“基于证据的信赖”（evidence-based trust）之上，绝非毫无根据地盲从。在科学领域与基督信仰中，这种对事实证据的倚靠完全一致。他甚至坦言，自己在某种程度上并不认为自己是一个狭义上的“宗教人士”。世界上绝大多数宗教的底层逻辑都极其相似：设立一套道德规范，配备导师、大师、伊玛目或神职人员来引导和督促信徒遵行，最终走向末日的审判。他常以“正义天平”来打比方——只要你的善行比恶行重，天平倾斜，便能进入天堂或涅槃。许多自诩为基督徒的人也持有类似观念，当被问及身份时会回答“我在尽力而为，希望上帝宽大仁慈”。但 Lennox 强调，这恰恰是基督教的反面，属于典型的“功利本位宗教”（merit-based religion）。 为了阐明这一点，Lennox 分享了一个风趣的亲身比喻。在他初入剑桥大学的第二天，便在教堂偶遇了一位美丽的女孩（也就是他后来的妻子）。他当即萌生了娶她的念头，于是买下了市面上最贵的一本烹饪书送给她。当女孩惊讶询问时，他一本正经地胡诌道：“我们家族有个传统，成婚前要送准新娘一本食谱。翻到第 152 页，上面是烤苹果蛋糕的规矩，配方包括面粉与糖。如果你在接下来的 40 年里严格遵照这些守则烤蛋糕，我就正式接纳你；倘若做不到，你就回娘家去吧。”听众听到这里往往哄堂大笑，因为谁都知道人际关系绝不可能建立在考核绩效之上，然而绝大多数人却荒谬地用这种“努力表现以求被接纳”的思维去理解上帝。 真正的基督教核心是“恩典”（grace）。健康的伴侣关系始于毫无保留的接纳，这种起点的确立让人获得自由，能够安心生活与施展自我；神与人的关系亦是如此。基督教的信息从来不是靠自己的表现去争取宽恕，而是基于基督已经完成的救赎。接受这份救赎不是狂妄自大，反倒是拒绝恩典、执意要凭一己之力让神满意的做法才是一种傲慢。信靠他人所成就的救恩，正是让生命闭环、获得源源不断前行力量的根基所在。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 功利宗教与基督信仰的核心差异对比 accDescr: 对比传统道德功利宗教与基督教恩典观在接纳时机与人际/神人关系上的根本不同。 subgraph MeritSystem["传统功利宗教体系"] A1["遵守诫命与道德规条"] --> B1["一生努力行善积累功德"] B1 --> C1["末日天平审判"] C1 --> D1["未知与焦虑：希望神施恩准入"] end subgraph GraceSystem["基督教恩典体系"] A2["无条件的接纳（起点）"] --> B2["基督已完成的救赎与恩典"] B2 --> C2["进入自由与爱的关系"] C2 --> D2["出于感恩去生活与践行善工"] end ``` ### [36:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=2190s) 如何确证信仰的真实性？多马的怀疑与涉水之喻 Steven Bartlett 赞叹 Lennox 对基督教真谛的阐述极其优美，但他随即抛出了核心困惑：即便逻辑再动人，又如何能确证它是“真实的”（true）？如果门外停着一辆红色法拉利，人们大可走出去看个究竟，但在耗费七十年深信不疑的信仰面前，究竟该如何确证？又是否存在它根本就是虚假的可能性？ 对此，Lennox 将验证信仰的路径划分为“客观”（objective）与“主观”（subjective）两个维度： - **客观维度的历史考证**：如果有人怀疑历史上是否存在耶稣其人，查阅古典历史学家的文献便可得知，不论是无神论学者还是信徒，几乎普遍承认耶稣真实存在过。 - **面对怀疑的理性包容**：耶稣复活之初，连同行的门徒都觉得荒谬难以置信。使徒多马（Thomas）公开宣称除非亲眼看见并摸到耶稣手上的钉痕，否则绝不相信。耶稣显现时并没有嘲弄多马的客观求证态度，而是坦然对他说：“来，摸摸看。” - **涉水方知深浅**：Lennox 运用生动的比喻指出，“一个人如果不亲自跳进水里，永远不会明白游泳是什么感觉”。上帝绝不会强迫人迈出任何令其理智感到不适的一步，但求索者必须带着问题一步步亲自去涉水尝试。 ### [38:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=2315s) 走过 70 年信仰历程：理论上的可能性与累积的实践确据 当 Steven 追问基督教故事是否可能只是在数十年口口相传中被神化的传说，以及 Lennox 本人是否可能在信念上彻底出错时，Lennox 从学者与实践者的双重身份给出了极为真诚的回答。在纯粹学术理论层面，他的答案是“可能会错”；但在实际生活体验中，答案是坚定的“绝不可能”。 他打了个比方：“这就好比有人问我，‘约翰，你和妻子萨莉（Sally）结婚 58 年了，关于她到底爱不爱你，你有没有可能判断错了？’理论上确实可能错了，但现实生活中所有的证据都指向相反的结论。”这正是他一生积累下来的确信。他鼓励怀疑者去阅读其自传《我的故事》（My Story），书中记载的证据足以让心存疑虑的人认识到信仰并非空穴来风，但终究只有亲自踏入水中的人，才会切实体验到基督在那张开双臂接住自己的真实。 回溯自己的成长轨迹，Lennox 提到自己并非因为生在特定家庭或经历了某种仪式就天然成为基督徒，父母很早便教导他，信仰源于个人对基督的主动托付。他从未经历过戏剧性的顿悟闪电，而是在剑桥求学期间，下定决心公开为信仰站台、与他人分享。正是在一次次的践行与分享中，底层的确据与确定感如同水滴石穿般累积成型，其间多次经历了他只能归结为神圣直接指引的奇妙时刻。 - **结婚年限的佐证**：Lennox 与妻子 Sally 结婚长达 58 年，他以此生动类比基于真实人际证据的深度信赖。 - **理智探索的态度**：鼓励怀疑者持续提问，相信上帝不会逼迫人在违背理性与内心舒适度的情况下盲目跃进。 - **确据的积累方式**：反对盲目继承宗教外衣，确信是通过踏入生活、践行信念并在历程中逐步累积建立的。 ### [40:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=2458s) 节目赞助插播：LinkedIn 招聘工具与安克创新（Anker）世界纪录降噪耳机 在节目的商业赞助环节，Steven 带来了两则品牌信息： - **LinkedIn Hiring Pro**：许多初创企业创始人误以为小团队最大的威胁是产品不够好，但真正的致命威胁往往是招错员工，这会导致团队增长停滞并破坏组织文化。初创团队缺乏 40 个小时逐一面试的从容，容易因急于填补空缺而埋下隐患。赞助商 LinkedIn 的 Hiring Pro 工具通过 AI 驱动的初筛面试与自动化流程，大幅精简撰写职位描述到确定候选人名单的周期。数据显示，近 60% 使用该工具的招聘方能在 1 周内安排候选人面试。 - **安克创新（Anker）Liberty 5 Pro / Pro Max 耳机**：作为技术合作伙伴，安克打破了充电器品牌的固有标签，其 Soundcore 耳机凭借极致的通话降噪技术创下了“全球通话最清晰耳机”的吉尼斯世界纪录（Guinness World Record）。该耳机内置 10 颗传感器与安克自研 AI 芯片，专为机场贵宾厅、火车站台等强风与嘈杂噪音环境设计，攻克了移动办公和商务洽谈中常见的收音痛点。 ### [43:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=2595s) 出生彩票与宗教信仰的地理决定论 史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）回忆起自己在 18 岁之前的基督教成长背景，以及随后转向由理查德·道金斯（Richard Dawkins）和萨姆·哈里斯（Sam Harris）引领的新无神论运动时，曾遇到一个令他深感困惑的统计数据：全球约有 91% 的成年人终其一生都保留着自己从小被抚养长大的宗教信仰。如果一个人出生在印度教或穆斯林家庭，继续留在这个信仰体系中的统计概率高达 99%，只有 1% 的人会改变信仰。道金斯等人据此提出著名的“出生彩票”（birth lottery）论点：一个人生在哪里完全是随机的，如果出生在阿富汗，几乎必然成为穆斯林；那么凭什么出生的地理位置就能决定一个人相信什么、甚至在理论上决定谁上天堂或下地狱？如果上帝真的存在，这是否意味着上帝在以全知全能的方式偏袒某些人，让他们生来就处于容易成为基督徒的优越环境中？ 约翰·伦诺克斯（John Lennox）幽默地回应道，史蒂芬本人其实也享有了同样的“优势”，并指出真正的关键在于人们如何对待自身所拥有的特权。伦诺克斯承认这是一个极难回答的深层问题，并分享了自己与著名哲学家、普林斯顿大学伦理学家彼得·辛格（Peter Singer）在澳大利亚辩论的轶事。辩论开场时，伦诺克斯坦承了自己的基督教成长背景。辛格随后发言称这就是他对宗教最好的反驳证据——人们总是待在自己被抚养长大的宗教中。当伦诺克斯再次发言时，他当场反问辛格：“彼得，我公开了自己的基督教背景，但你对你的家庭只字未提。告诉我，你的父母是无神论者吗？”辛格承认他们确实是无神论者。伦诺克斯立刻指出：“那你不也同样留在了你从小被抚养长大的信仰体系中吗？”辛格抗辩称无神论不是一种“信仰”，伦诺克斯则机智地回应：“彼得，我一直深信你是坚信它的。”这一幽默反击赢得了满堂喝彩，也在网络上引发热烈反响，揭示出即使是顶级哲学家有时也未能意识到无神论本身也是一种信念系统。颇具讽刺意味的是，辛格辩论结束后遇见的第一个人，恰恰是伦诺克斯的一位匈牙利犹太裔朋友，而这位朋友正是后来改信了基督教的典型反例。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 宗教出生彩票论点与反思 accDescr: 展示出生地理决定宗教的传统反驳逻辑，以及伦诺克斯关于信念反思的互动视角。 subgraph S1["出生彩票论点 (新无神论视角)"] A["个体出生地理环境"] --> B["91%-99% 延续家庭宗教传统"] B --> C["决定死后去向 (天堂/地狱)?"] C --> D["质疑: 上帝是否不公与残忍?"] end subgraph S2["伦诺克斯的审视与反击"] E["无神论背景的家庭"] --> F["同样倾向于保留无神论信念"] F --> G["无神论同样属于信念系统 (Worldview)"] G --> H["个体的责任: 检验证据并作出回应"] end ``` ### [46:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=2779s) “美丽与铁丝网”：在苦难与不公中审视信任 针对“善且全能的上帝为何不直接修正这种不公”的世纪争论，伦诺克斯表示，神学和哲学界纠缠于“上帝能够、应该或本可以怎么做”已有数百年之久，却从未得出令人满意的终极答案。作为一名数学家，伦诺克斯主张当一个难题被死磕了几个世纪仍无解时，应当换一个更具建设性的角度来思考。 他提出，每一种世界观都必须面对一个极其复杂的现实图景，他将其形象地概括为“美丽与铁丝网”（beauty and barbed wire）或“美丽与炸弹”（beauty and bombs）。现实世界充满美好，同时也布满残酷，忽视任何一面都是脱离现实。面对这种现实，更切中要害的问题应当是：**在全宇宙中，是否有足够的证据让我们敢于将这一局面托付给上帝？** 伦诺克斯强调，人类无法完全看透或解开这种地理分布与认知差异的奥秘，但我们可以探究上帝最终是否绝对公正。上帝洞悉每个人的内心想法，也完全清楚每个人接触到的真相有多有少；到最后审判时，上帝的判决方式甚至可能会让许多人感到意外。对于个人而言，责任分为两部分：首先是对自己所听见、所领受的证据做出真诚回应；其次是遵循基督的教导，将所信的真理与他人分享。彻底将上帝排除在外的替代方案，所带来的虚无与负面后果远比保留信仰严重得多。 - **现实图景的双重性**：伦诺克斯用“美丽与铁丝网”（beauty and barbed wire）比喻世界的美好与残酷并存，任何成熟的世界观都无法回避这一矛盾。 - **个体的双重责任**： 1. 依据所接触到的证据认真做出回应与抉择； 2. 顺服耶稣基督的呼召，走出去与世界分享信仰。 ### [48:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=2917s) 救赎的排他性、不可知论与自我审视的智慧 史蒂芬进一步提出质疑：圣经中提到进入天堂的唯一道路是藉着耶稣基督，这推导出一个让许多人感到极度不公的结论——只有相信特定教条的人才能获救。这是否意味着要么教条本身是错误的，要么上帝并不像人们想象的那样仁慈，而是在玩一场残酷的游戏？伦诺克斯反驳了“人人都渴望去天堂”的假设，指出许多人在完全听懂基督的教导后仍会选择主动拒绝；但他同时也承认史蒂芬的逻辑推演有其合理之处，因为救赎的某些深层奥秘人类确实尚未完全理解。 伦诺克斯举例说明：在基督教传统中，亚伯拉罕和摩西无疑是蒙上帝拯救的圣徒，然而他们生活在耶稣降生之前，生前根本不知道耶稣其人其事，这本身就证明拯救绝非一种狭隘机械的条文限制。谈及史蒂芬自称“不可知论者”（agnostic），伦诺克斯表示自己非常喜欢这个词，并坦言自己在无数事情上也是不可知论者。古希腊语中的 *ginosko* 意为“认识/知道”，承认自己“不知道”恰恰是求知和学习的开端。然而，如果进一步武断地断言“我不知道，因此任何人都不可能知道”，在逻辑上就站不住脚了——因为既然宣称无知，又凭什么断定别人不可能知晓？ 伦诺克斯在此援引了诺贝尔物理学奖得主理查德·费曼（Richard Feynman）的名言：“**要竭尽全力批判你自己，因为你是最容易被自己欺骗的人。**”（"Bend over backwards to criticize yourself, because you are the easiest person for yourself to deceive."）伦诺克斯赞赏史蒂芬以开放、自省的姿态探讨这些重大命题，认为这种不带先入为主偏见的探索对当下文化极为珍贵。 ### [50:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=3028s) 全知与苦难的张力：食眼寄生虫与十字架的答案 史蒂芬提出了另一个从 18 岁起就困扰他的经典反神论难题：全知（omniscience）与神圣之爱的矛盾。如果上帝全知，祂在创造生命之前就已经确切预知哪些灵魂会拒绝祂、坠入地狱遭受永罚；既然如此，创造一个明知注定毁灭的灵魂，又怎能称之为爱的举动？史蒂芬引用英国喜剧演员瑞奇·热维斯（Ricky Gervais）曾讲过的一个震撼案例：一个婴儿生来眼中就寄生着一种从内部蚕食其眼球的寄生虫。任何有基本道德良知的人目睹这种惨剧都会选择出手干预，全能且全知的上帝既然在创造前就洞悉一切，为何依然允许这种痛苦发生？ 伦诺克斯明确表示自己不赞同机械决定论（determinism），并曾就此主题撰写过厚重的专著。他坦言自己同样能深深感受到这个问题的沉重分量，也理解无神论者对此的愤怒。面对这一困境，伦诺克斯将目光重新拉回到“是否有证据证明上帝值得信赖”这一核心问题上。在他看来，最关键的核心证据正是**基督的十字架**。如果耶稣基督确实如其所宣称的那样是上帝道成肉身，那么十字架就意味着上帝亲自承受了受难之苦。这表明上帝从未置身事外冷眼旁观人类的苦痛，而是亲自进入其中，成为受难的一部分。 伦诺克斯进一步指出，如果彻底抛弃上帝的存在，那个被寄生虫摧残的孩子就只剩下一片虚无——死亡就是终结，受难没有任何意义与希望。但如果上帝拥有让人死而复生的能力，正如祂使耶稣复活一样，上帝就完全有能力给予那个孩子超越今生的永恒补偿。伦诺克斯回忆起与理查德·道金斯的第一场辩论，在辩论仅剩最后两分钟陈词时，伦诺克斯提到了耶稣的复活。道金斯当时讥讽道：大家本在讨论宇宙最宏大的思想，最后却沦落到谈论耶稣复活这种“狭隘、琐碎且配不上宇宙”的话题。伦诺克斯对此深感不以为然：如果耶稣真的从死里复活，那便是人类历史上发生过的最重大的事件，因为它彻底为死后生命的存在与终极苦难的翻转打开了希望之门。 ### [53:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=3219s) 超越今生的视角：苦难、死亡与新西兰地震的见证 约翰·伦诺克斯（John Lennox）谈到 C. S. 路易斯（C. S. Lewis）对自己产生的深远影响，他幽默地自嘲自己年纪大到当年真的亲耳听过路易斯的演讲。路易斯帮助他理解了“超越”与“多重世界”的概念——现代人往往被禁锢在一种狭隘的思维中，误以为眼前的物质世界就是全部。伦诺克斯指出，如果存在另一个来世且有一位充满爱的上帝，那么当人类未来跨入那个世界、看到上帝如何对待那些受尽苦难的无辜孩童时，所有内心的质问都将烟消云散。面对主持人关于“上帝是否会在来世补偿那个孩子”的追问，伦诺克斯坚定地予以肯定，并强调上帝赐予人类最宝贵的礼物正是道德感与爱的能力。我们正是拿着上帝所赋予的能力去反思和质问苦难，甚至在心中对上帝说“如果我是你，绝不会允许这种事发生”；但终有一日，人类会明白上帝为何没有按照人的意志去干预。 为了说明这种对生死的笃定，伦诺克斯分享了极其切身的生死经历。十四年前，他曾濒临死亡，在被推进手术室前甚至与妻子做了最后的道别，当时医生们一度认为他挺不过来。然而在那一刻，夫妻二人心中充满了全然的平安，最终外科医生挽救了他的生命。随后不久，他前往新西兰进行巡回演讲，恰逢当地刚发生严重地震，原本准备的所有讲题瞬间被废弃，广播与电视上唯一的焦点只有“为什么会发生地震”。在面对那些刚刚失去至亲的听众时，伦诺克斯谈及了一位亲自经历苦难并从死里复活的上帝。出乎意料的是，这番话给在场经历创伤的人们带来了莫大的安慰与希望，事后许多人纷纷给他写信表达感激。他坦言，上帝允许这些苦难发生是人类终究必须面对的现实，即便厄运降临在我们自己头上也是如此。 - C. S. 路易斯的思想启发了伦诺克斯对来世与超越性维度的认知，认为永恒维度的补偿能够彻底解开今生苦难的困惑。 - 伦诺克斯十四年前经历重大生死关头，在可能无法生还的手术前夕与妻子体验到了超然的内在平安。 - 新西兰地震期间，面对痛失挚爱的民众，受难且复活的基督形象成为了绝望中最具慰藉力的力量源泉。 --- ### [56:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=3374s) 未听闻福音者与“好人”的迷思 主持人提出了一个经典的神学疑问：那些生活在耶稣降世之前、从未听过福音的人该何去何从？伦诺克斯给出了明确而简洁的回答：“上帝绝不会因为一个人不知道他无从知晓的事情而定他的罪。”这让主持人陷入思考并半开玩笑地自嘲追问：“那我算不算个好人？我能进天堂吗？”伦诺克斯随即引用《圣经》的典故指出，除了上帝以外，没有一个人是真正良善的。 看到主持人正在认真探索这些问题，伦诺克斯鼓励他继续保持这种开放求真的态度。他敏锐地察觉到主持人其实对信仰背景并不陌生，甚至曾经非常接近信仰，如今正处于一段深刻的求索旅程中。他半开玩笑地建议主持人以后一定要写自传，不过“最好再等上几年，多积累些经历”。伦诺克斯极力赞赏这种敢于刨根问底的精神，鼓励他继续用尖锐的问题“烤问”身边的基督徒朋友，因为在追求真理的路上，保持坦诚与探索欲是最为难能可贵的一步。 --- ### [57:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=3436s) 为何仅靠“做个好人”远远不够 主持人提出许多现代人共有的困惑：如果一个人一生行善、待人友善、尽力做好自己的本分，相信上帝真的还有那么重要吗？伦诺克斯一针见血地指出，这正是现代大众最大的认知误区。人们总以为上帝要的只是道德上的表现，但事实上，基督信仰的核心在于上帝透过基督为人类预备了一种与祂和好的全新关系，旨在解决每个人自身难以回避的“罪”的赦免，并赋予人一种全新的生命力量。 伦诺克斯解释道，声称“我只要做好事就行”是站不住脚的，因为人类根本没有足够的能力去过完全圣洁的生活。任何人只需拿《登山宝训》（Sermon on the Mount）的标准审视自己一周的言行，就会立刻发现自身的亏缺与无能。当一个人真正意识到自己内在潜藏的幽暗、以及由于自身过犯而急需被宽恕时，真正的转变才会发生。伦诺克斯以自己在俄罗斯死刑犯牢房等严酷环境中的传道经历为例指出，他亲眼目睹过无数将生活彻底过得一塌糊涂、濒临绝境的人在信仰中被神寻回，生命获得震撼性的翻转，这些真实的救赎就是上帝介入人类生命的有力明证。 - 靠“做个好人”换取拯救误解了信仰的本质，基督信仰提供的是由罪得赦免带来的全新关系与生活力量。 - 若以《登山宝训》的高道德标准自我衡量，人类依靠自力行善的局限性与不足便会显露无遗。 - 伦诺克斯利用自身掌握的俄语走访俄罗斯死囚牢房，见证了信仰在绝境罪犯身上产生的重生式转变。 --- ### [58:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=3533s) 心理慰藉还是客观真理？不同信仰的核心分歧 主持人援引统计数据指出，当人处于绝望或意义危机时，皈依宗教的概率会大幅上升；而且数据显示，无论信仰伊斯兰教、印度教还是基督教，人们获得的心理慰藉与生活意义感提升似乎别无二致——这难道不证明宗教纯粹是一种心理学机制吗？如果连花园深处的矮精灵传说都能给人带来慰藉，主观的情感体验又如何能证实信仰的真假？ ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 核心亚伯拉罕宗教对耶稣结局的主张分歧 accDescr: 展示犹太教、伊斯兰教与基督教在历史事实上不可调和的逻辑冲突 subgraph Claims["对历史事实的不同主张"] J["犹太教立场: 耶稣受死，但未曾复活"] I["伊斯兰教立场: 耶稣未曾真正受死"] C["基督教立场: 耶稣既经历了死亡，又从死里复活"] end J --- Conflict["逻辑互斥：三者在客观历史上不可能同时为真"] I --- Conflict C --- Conflict ``` 伦诺克斯承认信仰具有心理层面的抚慰作用，但他对“所有宗教都能提供同等平安”的观点表示审慎。他首先厘清了道德与教义的区别：C. S. 路易斯在 20 世纪 40 年代曾研究过 40 种不同的宗教与哲学，发现几乎所有体系中都存在“己所不欲，勿施于人”的“黄金法则”（Golden Rule），这表明道德感是人类内在共通的构造。因此，探讨教义分歧绝非鄙视异教徒的道德品格，许多异教徒的道德行为甚至足以让基督徒汗颜。 然而，在客观历史事实的层面，各个宗教之间存在着不可调和的互斥性。例如关于耶稣的历史事实： 1. 犹太教朋友认为耶稣死了，但并未复活； 2. 穆斯林朋友认为耶稣根本没有死在十字架上； 3. 基督徒则确信耶稣既真实受死，又真实复活。 这三者在逻辑上不可能同时为真。即便虔诚的穆斯林或印度教徒在问卷中汇报了与基督徒相同的“幸福感”与“意义感”，主观感受也无法证明某一观念在客观上是否真实。如同观看虚构电影同样能让人热血沸腾、感到与宇宙相连一样，情感体验会强化真理，但不能替代真理的检验。伦诺克斯强调，每个人都必须像古代的门徒多马（Thomas）一样，不盲从他人的主观叙述，而是亲自去寻求坚实客观的证据，直到找到能带来真正内在笃定与确据的基石。 --- ### [01:02:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=3756s) 赞助插播：Cometeer 咖啡与人际连接的起点 访谈在此时切入赞助环节。主持人史蒂文（Steven）现场冲泡 Cometeer 咖啡，向工作人员分享这款改变其生活方式的咖啡产品。作为该品牌的早期投资人与节目赞助商，他详细介绍了其创新的制作工艺：每份咖啡均以常规浓度的十倍进行高精度萃取，随后立即采用液氮深冷急冻技术锁住香气与新鲜风味，并通过干冰将其装入可回收铝制胶囊配送至用户手中。只需将冰冻胶囊取出加入热水或冷饮搅拌，便可迅速还原出高品质的黑咖啡或冰咖啡。随后，史蒂文回顾了自己完成近 700 场深度访谈的心得，指出人与人之间深层连接的敲门砖正是展现自身的脆弱（Vulnerability），而这正是两三个小时深入对话能让人心产生共鸣的秘密所在。 ### [01:03:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=3833s) 对话卡片与关于“地狱”的本质讨论 史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）首先介绍了《CEO日记》（The Diary Of A CEO）的对话卡片，该卡片收录了历任嘉宾留在节目日记本里的精选提问，旨在帮助伴侣、团队或家庭在数字时代放下屏幕，进行真诚的人与人之间的沟通。随后，史蒂文将话题拉回到前文关于“行善与信仰”的沉重命题：圣经似乎暗示，哪怕一个人一生行善，只要他不信上帝，死后就会坠入地狱；他提到身边一位最善良、一生无可挑剔但并不信主的长辈离世，这是否意味着她注定身陷地狱？ 约翰·伦诺克斯（John Lennox）对此给出了深刻且反直觉的剖析。他指出，凡人无法代替上帝下定论，但圣经中有一个极为关键的细节：耶稣在世时，唯一谈及地狱的对象，是那些自以为义、面临沉沦危险的“宗教狂热分子与伪善者”（religious bigots），而不是那些在怀疑中挣扎、难以建立信任的普通人。 伦诺克斯赞同 C.S. 路易斯（C. S. Lewis）关于地狱的洞见：地狱并非上帝或恶魔残酷地将肉体扔进烈火中折磨，而是“没有上帝的同在（absence of God）”，且这是一种出于人类自由意志的选择。如果一个人一生决意不要上帝进入自己的生活，上帝最终会尊重并赋予他们所选择的结果，因为上帝绝不会强行闯入一个抗拒祂的人的生命中。伦诺克斯列举了耶稣在世时的举止——祂医治病人、带来平安，但当人们要求祂离开时，祂便默默离去，从不强求。在新约圣经中，那位生前漠视穷人、死后沦落阴间的财主，甚至从未祈求离开那个地方，而只是请求让亚伯拉罕去警告他的弟兄们别来此地。因此，地狱的核心正是人类对“远离上帝”这一抉择的永恒成全。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 基督教神学中关于地狱本质的理解 accDescr: 对比传统观念中被动受罚的地狱形象与C.S.路易斯及伦诺克斯阐述的基于自由意志选择的地狱本质。 subgraph Popular["大众传统观念"] A["不信神的好人"] --> B["被上帝/恶魔强行投入地狱"] B --> C["外在酷刑折磨"] end subgraph Lennox["伦诺克斯与C.S.路易斯的阐释"] D["人类自由意志"] -->|选择拒绝神| E["上帝尊重人的决定与界限"] E --> F["地狱：上帝同在的彻底缺失"] D -->|悔改与渴求神| G["恩典赦免与同在"] end ``` ### [01:07:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=4046s) 连环杀手的临终悔改与救赎的奥秘 史蒂文紧接着抛出了一个极具道德张力的难题：如果按照基督教教义，只要悔改、认罪并承认上帝，罪孽就能被赦免，那么一个终身杀人的连环杀手在临终前悔改是否能够进入天堂？而一个一生致力于治愈儿童癌症却不信神的医生，反倒要堕入地狱？这种巨大的道德反差常常让他在不可知论（Agnosticism）的藩篱上摇摆不定。 伦诺克斯承认这种个案在人类道德直觉中极具争议，但重申审判权在上帝手中。他以耶稣受难时的历史细节为例：与耶稣同钉十字架的两个人并非寻常盗贼，而是背负命案的叛乱分子或恐怖分子。其中一人肆意嘲讽辱骂，另一人则坦诚认罪说“我们受刑是理所当然的”，并请求耶稣在降临神国时记念他；耶稣随即当面许诺：“今日你要同我在乐园里了。”连杀害过诸多早期信徒的使徒保罗，同样得到了完全的赦免。 为了展现这一神学逻辑在现实中的震撼与沉重，伦诺克斯分享了自己亲历的一段往事： - 在苏联解体后的访问中，他是英国代表团中唯一懂俄语的人，曾获准踏入一所戒备极其森严的俄罗斯死囚牢房，那里的恶臭宛如噩梦。 - 一名面容憔悴、即将被执行死刑的囚犯走到牢门前，平静地对伦诺克斯承认：“我罪有应得，我杀了大约12名女性。” - 随后，那名囚犯脸上绽放出一抹令人不寒而栗却又无比真实的微笑（"ghastly smile"），说道：“我在这里遇见了耶稣，祂赦免了我。” - 囚犯还指着身旁另一位躺着的死囚，说他也经历了同样的救赎。 伦诺克斯坦言，当时自己带着沉重至极的心情离开，这种恩典的深邃超越了人类理性所能简单衡量的尺度。面对史蒂文因试图理清所有终极问题而陷入的认知混乱，伦诺克斯温和地建议：不要试图一次性解决所有难题，人类过于复杂，应当每次专注于最核心的一个疑问；同时，他盛赞史蒂文不带偏见地采访各方人物并执着追寻真理的态度，鼓励他永不放弃对真理的探索。 ### [01:10:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=4240s) 索尔仁尼琴的告诫、AI 时代的虚假与极权阴影 谈及对真理的执着，伦诺克斯引述了著名作家亚历山大·索尔仁尼琴（Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn）被驱逐出苏联时的名言——“绝不与谎言为伍，不靠谎言活着”（Live not by lies）。他警示，当今时代比以往任何时候都更需要这种清醒，因为人工智能（AI）最可怕、最悲剧的能力之一，就是以空前的规模制造并扩散谎言、深度伪造（Deepfakes）与虚假信息；伦诺克斯透露，甚至就在上个月，他本人也成为了此类 AI 仿冒欺诈的受害者。 史蒂文随后将讨论引向 AI 对人类生存意义和就业前景的颠覆性冲击。面对白领工作乃至内容创作（如 Spotify 宣布推出 AI 自主生成播客）可能被大面积替代的未来，人类应如何在巨变中寻找生活的目标？伦诺克斯坦言自己的儿子也已开始担忧技术会取代工作。尽管历史上的每一次工业革命都伴随着岗位的颠覆，但 AI 的颠覆规模前所未见。更残酷的现实在于全球发展的不平衡：伦诺克斯在南非交流时，当地学者曾直言，外界高谈“对劳动力进行再培训”，但在缺乏教育基础设施的贫困地区，技术断层只会急剧拉大贫富差距。 在社会政治层面，伦诺克斯最深层的忧虑在于**极权主义的悄然蔓延**（creeping totalitarianism）。他指出，人类正在“梦游”般步入技术监控与控制的陷阱。他援引一位中国观察学者的犀利警告提醒西方社会：“你们与我们的唯一区别在于，你们拥有所有的监控与控制技术，只是暂时还没有一个中央集权政府来强行实施它；但千万要小心，只是‘尚未’而已。”科技赋予了权力空前的操控手段，若不保持高度警惕与广泛的公共探讨，人类文明将被这种隐秘的技术极权彻底吞噬。最后，伦诺克斯提到了英国著名教育家安东尼·塞尔登爵士（Sir Anthony Seldon），引出关于教育与制度应对的深层反思。 ### [01:13:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=4421s) 深度伪造与失真的世界：AI 对教育与真实的冲击 约翰·伦诺克斯（John Lennox）谈到自己曾就人工智能对教育的影响写过一本书，并指出 AI 正在教育领域引发颠覆性、甚至破坏性的后果。如今在大学与学校里，学生们普遍使用 AI 工具代写，何为真正的“论文”已被彻底模糊，人们越来越难辨别一篇作品究竟出自人类大脑还是算法。 这种虚实难辨的混乱甚至直接波及到了伦诺克斯本人。几周前，一家出版商联系伦诺克斯，询问能否出版他近期一场演讲的逐字稿，因为对方觉得讲得极好。伦诺克斯对此一头雾水，自己近期根本没发表过相关演讲。他上网一查，赫然发现一个名为“Lennox Logic”的网站，页面上赫然放着他的照片，然而从头到尾全是由深度伪造（Deepfake）生成的 AI 内容，充斥着他绝不可能说出口的言论，甚至被塞满了政治化观点与偏激立场。这引发了一个更根本的哲学危机：在一个真假难辨的 AI 时代，我们究竟该如何确证什么是真实、什么是谎言？ ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: AI时代真实性危机 accDescr: 展示生成式AI与深度伪造技术对真实知识、教育以及个人身份认同带来的冲击。 subgraph S1["技术失真与泛滥"] A["生成式 AI 渗透教育"] --> B["学生代写导致论文意义瓦解"] C["Deepfake 伪造身份"] --> D["未发表的演讲与虚假人设"] end subgraph S2["认知与哲学危机"] B --> E["虚实边界彻底模糊"] D --> E E --> F["根本拷问：人类如何确证何为真理？"] end ``` ### [01:14:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=4474s) 回归具身经验：屏幕异化与人性的找回 史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）顺着这个话题提出了一个深刻的设想：过去许多科技都曾承诺让我们“更有生机、更有人性”，最终却适得其反，使人类陷入前所未有的孤独与隔绝。既然如此，AI 的到来是否可能成为一种契机——它把人类从终日坐在屏幕前敲击键盘的无休止数字劳作中解脱出来，逼迫我们退回到人类真正不可替代的领域，即在现实世界中彼此相伴、面对面建立真实的爱与关系？ 伦诺克斯完全赞同这一洞察。他认为人类生来就不是为了整日盯着屏幕的，当下已有许多人意识到这种生活方式的匮乏。以近年来许多家庭的实践为例，不少家长带着孩子去乡下度假一周，并强制没收所有智能手机。起初孩子们抱怨连连、极度抵触，但仅仅一周后，当他们重新融入大自然，体验到真实的触觉、味觉与泥土的气息后，几乎整个人都被重塑了，甚至不再渴望依赖手机。伦诺克斯强调，机器根本不具备人类这般与意识紧密相连的五感；机器没有真正的触觉与味觉，也不懂得生命的实感。 ### [01:16:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=4565s) “看”与“模式识别”：意识的“困难问题” 关于机器是否具有意识，史蒂文提出反问：既然 AI 能够识别人脸与物体，我们为什么说它“看不见”？伦诺克斯澄清，AI 所谓的“看”仅仅是被程序设定的算法模式识别，它对“看见”这一过程本身毫无主观意识与体验。人类看到红色时，体验到的是主观感受性（Qualia），我们知道看见红色究竟意味着什么。在科学界，意识被公认为“困难问题”（The Hard Problem of Consciousness），迄今为止没有任何人弄清楚其物理机制，自然也绝不可能在机器上被简单复制。 史蒂文随即从功能主义的角度提出质疑：如果结果是完全一致的，内在的“理解”究竟为什么重要？比如将一个马克杯展示在面前，指着它问“这是什么”，AI 识别并输出“这是一个马克杯”，而人类也说出“这是一个马克杯”。两者的输出结果一模一样，过程中的“主观理解”对于现实世界而言真的至关重要吗？ 伦诺克斯斩钉截铁地指出，这正是核心区别所在： * **机器本质**：只是被动响应他人编写的指令与算法，对其所做的一切毫无自觉。 * **意识存在**：对自身的所作所为拥有清晰的自觉意识（Awareness），这属于全然更高阶的存在维度（A totally higher level of being）。 ### [01:17:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=4656s) 创造力争辩：图灵的模仿游戏与左右脑的危机 史蒂文拿出手头的具体画作作为直观例证：一幅是由人类画家绘制的家庭与小狗肖像，另外两幅则是由不同 AI 生成的同主题作品。既然 AI 能够将各种从未如此组合过的元素拼合在一起创造出新图像，它难道不算具备创造力吗？如果最终作品在视觉呈现上无可挑剔，过程的差异为何仍有意义？ 伦诺克斯回应称，这完全取决于你如何定义“创造力”。AI 确实能够拼凑、组合出前所未见的形态，但它完全不知道自己在画什么，它根本不理解画中那是“孩子”，因为机器不具备人类意义上的“认知”。史蒂文所主张的“只要输出相同，过程无关紧要”，恰恰是艾伦·图灵（Alan Turing）在提出“模仿游戏”（图灵测试）时所秉持的唯功能论立场。正如被誉为现代人工智能圣经编写者的彼得·诺维格（Peter Norvig）及其同僚所言，AI 学界的目的并不是制造有意识的机器——他们甚至不知道那意味着什么——他们只要模仿得足够好就心满意足了。 然而，伦诺克斯警告，这种还原主义视角会剥夺生命的一切深层意义： * **意识的丰富内涵**：人类意识不仅关乎解题，更关乎对生命、大自然与美的体会，关乎对他人的感知，以及对上帝的感知。人类心智的某些维度是任何机器在算力上无论如何提升都无法模拟的。 * **左右脑失衡的危险**：神经科学家伊恩·麦吉尔克里斯特（Iain McGilchrist）对 AI 提出了强力批判。AI 的本质是极端的左脑机械还原主义，它正在蚕食人类右脑所负责的情感、具身体验、关系网络与生命丰厚性。这种对生活经验的矮化与侵蚀极其危险，必须引起警惕。 ### [01:20:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=4856s) 人性的神圣源头与终极寄托 当史蒂文询问“在这样一个世界里，究竟是什么让人类保持独特”时，伦诺克斯坚定地认为是真实的人际关系，以及人与人之间展开如他们当下这般深邃、有灵魂对话的能力。虽然 AI 如今也能组织语言聊天，但其表现依然空洞浅薄；而且人类必须清醒地意识到，AI 的全部能力最终依然是人类赋予的。 伦诺克斯在此点出了两者的本质分野：AI 是“照着人的形象被造的”（Made in the image of humans），这潜藏着巨大的伦理危机与失控风险；而人类则是“照着上帝的形象被造的”（Made in the image of God）。相比于将未来寄托给受造的冰冷机器，他更愿意坚守人作为神圣造物的尊严。史蒂文也补充道，随着技术演进，人类或许不久后就会像同情动物甚至一棵被无故砍倒的树木一样，对机器人产生复杂的伦理同情，这必将引发更深刻的哲学追问。 在对话走向尾声之际，史蒂文请伦诺克斯指出整场访谈中遗漏的、但最至关重要的一件事。伦诺克斯微笑着坦言，或许最重要的事情，就是史蒂文能找到那个触动内心的“触发点”，勇敢跨出关键的一步，真正走进基督教信仰。他赞赏史蒂文在整场对谈中所展现的开放与真诚，并感慨由于自己年事已高，不知未来是否还有机会再聚，但他深感荣幸能参与这场对话。随后，史蒂文拿出了《CEO日记》的标志性环节——由上一位匿名嘉宾留给下一位访客的手写问题卡，准备抛出最后的终极拷问。 ### [01:23:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=4994s) 重建超越世俗的希望：生命气质作为信仰最有力的见证 当主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）问及在当今迷茫与动荡的时代，究竟该如何重建人们内心的希望并重新激发对生活的投入时，约翰·伦诺克斯（John Lennox）直截了当地指出，核心在于“给人们一个超越这个世界的真正希望根基”（"Give people a real basis for hope that transcends this world"）。在他看来，世俗物质与技术承诺终究无法提供终极支撑，而他所知道能够找到这种坚实盼望的唯一所在，就是基督与基督教信仰。 巴特利特由衷感叹道，伦诺克斯所呈现关于上帝以及信仰世界观最有力、最令人信服的论据，其实甚至不是他写在书里的严密论证或口中所讲的深奥哲学，而是“伦诺克斯整个人本身”。巴特利特分享了自己的采访体验：在他对话过的无数嘉宾中，伦诺克斯身上散发出的那种深沉的平安、满足与自洽（peace and contentment）极为罕见，但他却几乎在每一位受访的基督徒学者身上都能清晰地感受到这一点。巴特利特特别提及近期受访的加拿大基督教护教学者韦斯利·哈夫（Wesley Huff），形容对方同样散发着这种通透、圆融而踏实的幸福感。伦诺克斯笑着回应“我们这类人其实有很多”，并解释这种内在平安对他至关重要；更关键的是正如对谈伊始所探讨的，当他面对眼前的巴特利特时，他看到的不是一个普通的访谈对象，而是一个“按上帝形象所造、拥有无限价值的生命”（"someone who's of infinite value made in the image of God"）。因此，他对他人说出的每一句话、心中的每一次考量都无比慎重，并真挚地为对方献上祝福。 - **超验的希望基础**：伦诺克斯强调，任何仅寄托于有限现世世界的希望都会在苦难与死亡面前瓦解，唯有源于基督信仰的超验基石能赋予持久的盼望。 - **信仰者的内在定力**：巴特利特观察到基督教辩护者身上普遍存在一种现代人极度渴望却难以寻得的“内心锚定感”（anchoring），展现出罕见的从容、满足与精神圆融。 - **上帝形象与无限价值**：伦诺克斯将自己的处世态度归结为基督教的人观——将每一个人视为承载神圣形象、具有不可剥夺的无限尊严的存在，这是人际真诚与善意的根本源泉。 --- ### [01:25:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=5110s) 著作推荐与对话结语：从个人自传到《2084》的人工智能反思 在节目的尾声，巴特利特向观众极力推荐伦诺克斯的著作。虽然伦诺克斯著作等身，但巴特利特特别强调了其最新出版的精神与思想自传《我的故事》（*My Story: A Spiritual and Intellectual Autobiography*）。巴特利特认为，伦诺克斯横跨数学、科学哲学与基督教神学的非凡跨学科背景与思维维度，使这部自传具有极高的启发性。 对于关注人工智能技术与人类前途的受众，伦诺克斯亲自推荐了自己的著作《2084：人工智能与人类的未来》（*2084: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Humanity*）。巴特利特再次表达了对伦诺克斯的敬佩与感谢，称赞他拥有罕见且深厚的技能储备、阅历积淀与看待世界的独特视角。在节目收尾环节，巴特利特幽默地提到 YouTube 基于 AI 算法和用户观看习惯所提供的个性化视频推荐机制，引导被本期深度对话打动的观众继续探索相关内容。 - **推荐著作《我的故事》**（*My Story: A Spiritual and Intellectual Autobiography*）：记录了伦诺克斯横跨七十年学术研究与信仰求索的心路历程，展现其科学与信仰交融的独特世界观。 - **推荐著作《2084》**（*2084: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Humanity*）：结合技术洞察与圣经启示，深度剖析狭义人工智能、AGI 以及超人类主义对人类生存本质的终极挑战。 - **跨学科视角的价值**：牛津数学家与护教学家的双重身份，为探讨算法时代的人性独特性、痛苦意义及人类希望提供了不可多得的穿透力。 ## Notable quotes > [02:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=147s) 科学研究不过是追随上帝的思路，重新思考祂所想过的事 — 约翰·伦诺克斯（引用开普勒） > [19:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=1187s) 我们现在发现自己生活在这样一个世界里——我们几乎懂得所有事物是如何运转的，却对任何事物的意义一无所知 — 约翰·伦诺克斯（引用伊恩·麦吉尔克里斯特） > [24:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=1472s) 人若立志遵着他的旨意行，就必晓得这教训或是出于神，或是我凭着自己说的。 — 约翰·伦诺克斯（引用耶稣） > [25:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=1557s) 如果我告诉你门外街上停着一辆属于你的红色法拉利，我们哪怕坐在这里争论一千年，只要你不起身走出大门去亲眼看一眼，你永远不可能知道真假。 — 约翰·伦诺克斯 > [27:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=1663s) 你们来得太晚了 — 约翰·伦诺克斯 > [48:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=2917s) 要竭尽全力批判你自己，因为你是最容易被自己欺骗的人。 — 约翰·伦诺克斯（引用理查德·费曼） > [56:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=3374s) 上帝绝不会因为一个人不知道他无从知晓的事情而定他的罪。 — 约翰·伦诺克斯 > [01:07:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=4046s) 我在这里遇见了耶稣，祂赦免了我。 — 俄罗斯死囚（约翰·伦诺克斯转述） > [01:10:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=4240s) 绝不与谎言为伍，不靠谎言活着 — 约翰·伦诺克斯（引用亚历山大·索尔仁尼琴） > [01:10:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=4240s) 你们与我们的唯一区别在于，你们拥有所有的监控与控制技术，只是暂时还没有一个中央集权政府来强行实施它；但千万要小心，只是‘尚未’而已。 — 中国观察学者（约翰·伦诺克斯转述） > [01:23:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM&t=4994s) 给人们一个超越这个世界的真正希望根基 — 约翰·伦诺克斯 ## Mentioned 约翰·伦诺克斯 (John Lennox), 史蒂文·巴特利特 (Steven Bartlett), 开普勒 (Johannes Kepler), 萨姆·奥特曼 (Sam Altman), 马丁·里斯 (Martin Rees), 尤瓦尔·诺亚·赫拉利 (Yuval Noah Harari), 凯伦·郝 (Karen Hao), 安东尼·莱万多夫斯基 (Anthony Levandowski), 伊恩·麦吉尔克里斯特 (Dr. Iain McGilchrist), 理查德·道金斯 (Richard Dawkins), 萨姆·哈里斯 (Sam Harris), 彼得·辛格 (Peter Singer), 理查德·费曼 (Richard Feynman), 瑞奇·热维斯 (Ricky Gervais), C. S. 路易斯 (C. S. Lewis), 彼得·诺维格 (Peter Norvig), 艾伦·图灵 (Alan Turing), 亚历山大·索尔仁尼琴 (Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn), 安东尼·塞尔登爵士 (Sir Anthony Seldon), 韦斯利·哈夫 (Wesley Huff), 《上帝、AI 与历史的终结》 (God, AI and the End of History), 《2084：人工智能与人类的未来》 (2084: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Humanity), 《我的故事》 (My Story: A Spiritual and Intellectual Autobiography), 《未来简史》 (Homo Deus), 《事物的本质》 (The Matter with Things), LinkedIn, 安克创新 (Anker), Cometeer, Spotify, OpenAI ## Video description Bible sales are soaring, and the world's leading thinkers are quietly returning to faith. Oxford mathematician and Christian apologist John Lennox explains why the race to "solve death" is 2,000 years too late, why no machine can ever replicate human consciousness, what AI reveals about God, and what it truly means to be human in a world where artificial intelligence can do almost everything we can. Professor John Lennox is Emeritus Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University and President of The OCCA Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics. He is also the author of books such as ‘God, AI and the End of History’ and 'My Story: A Spiritual and Intellectual Autobiography'. He explains: ◼ Why scientists predict humans will merge with machines and where that leads ◼ The eerie list of AI promises that sound exactly like the promises of God ◼ Why AI will wipe out your job and what it can never take from you ◼ What makes you irreplaceable when AI can do your job better than you ◼ Could John be wrong after 70 years of believing? His honest answer 00:00 Intro 02:27 Is Mathematics Evidence Of God? 04:29 The Biggest Concern About AI 10:09 What Is The Difference Between Narrow AI And AGI? 12:33 Where Does Humanity Exist In A World Of AI? 18:01 Surprising Parallels Between AI And God 19:47 Is Our Society Becoming More Narrow Minded? 21:48 The Real Problem With Atheism 25:57 Convince Me To Become A Believer 36:30 How Do I Know If The Christian Faith Is True? 38:35 Could You Be Wrong About Your Beliefs? 40:58 Ads 43:14 Do People Just Stay In The Religion They Are Brought Up With? 46:19 Why Can't God Fix Pain? 50:28 Why Do People Suffer If God Exists? 56:14 What About The Humans Before Jesus? 57:16 If I Am A Good Person, Is It Necessary To Believe In God? 58:53 Do All Religions Provide Meaning And Psychological Comfort? 01:02:33 Ads 01:04:48 If I Do Not Believe Am I Going To Hell? 01:07:26 If A Serial Killer Repented Would They Be Forgiven? 01:11:11 How Do We Survive Job Loss From AI? 01:14:34 Will AI Restore Humanity Or Destroy It? 01:16:56 Is AI Conscious? 01:17:36 Can AI Be Truly Creative? 01:20:56 What Makes Humans Special In An Age Of AI 01:22:57 What Can We Do To Restore Hope? Follow John: X - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/3ostzOF Website - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/DAaqhXl Instagram - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/39FBaP5 You can purchase John’s book, ‘God, AI and the End of History: Understanding the Book of Revelation in an Age of Intelligent Machines’, here: https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/5eIJfK0 You can purchase John’s book, ‘My Story: A spiritual and intellectual autobiography’, here: https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/FTujQEA The Diary Of A CEO: ◼ Join DOAC circle here - https://doaccircle.com/ ◼ Buy The Diary Of A CEO book here - https://smarturl.it/DOACbook ◼ The 1% Diary is back - limited time only: https://bit.ly/3YFbJbt ◼ The Diary Of A CEO Conversation Cards: https://linkly.link/2io2A ◼ Get email updates - https://bit.ly/diary-of-a-ceo-yt ◼ Follow Steven - https://g2ul0.app.link/gnGqL4IsKKb Sponsors: Linkedin Talent Solutions - http://linkedin.com/DOAC Anker - https://linkly.link/2k4Ny Includes an AI Notetaker on screen with Liberty 5 Pro Max On Amazon: https://linkly.link/2k4O4 Cometeer: https://cometeer.com/steven for $30 off your first order Conversation Cards: https://linkly.link/2io2A [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrvJeSugkM)

[2:27] 约翰·伦诺克斯（引用开普勒）: 科学研究不过是追随上帝的思路，重新思考祂所想过的事 [19:47] 约翰·伦诺克斯（引用伊恩·麦吉尔克里斯特）: 我们现在发现自己生活在这样一个世界里——我们几乎懂得所有事物是如何运转的，却对任何事物的意义一无所知 [24:32] 约翰·伦诺克斯（引用耶稣）: 人若立志遵着他的旨意行，就必晓得这教训或是出于神，或是我凭着自己说的。 [25:57] 约翰·伦诺克斯: 如果我告诉你门外街上停着一辆属于你的红色法拉利，我们哪怕坐在这里争论一千年，只要你不起身走出大门去亲眼看一眼，你永远不可能知道真假。 [27:43] 约翰·伦诺克斯: 你们来得太晚了 [48:37] 约翰·伦诺克斯（引用理查德·费曼）: 要竭尽全力批判你自己，因为你是最容易被自己欺骗的人。 [56:14] 约翰·伦诺克斯: 上帝绝不会因为一个人不知道他无从知晓的事情而定他的罪。 [67:26] 俄罗斯死囚（约翰·伦诺克斯转述）: 我在这里遇见了耶稣，祂赦免了我。 [70:40] 约翰·伦诺克斯（引用亚历山大·索尔仁尼琴）: 绝不与谎言为伍，不靠谎言活着 [70:40] 中国观察学者（约翰·伦诺克斯转述）: 你们与我们的唯一区别在于，你们拥有所有的监控与控制技术，只是暂时还没有一个中央集权政府来强行实施它；但千万要小心，只是‘尚未’而已。 [83:14] 约翰·伦诺克斯: 给人们一个超越这个世界的真正希望根基

[2:27] Johannes Kepler: Thinking God's thoughts after him. [4:29] John Lennox: Evolution, ungated natural processes have brought us to this point. Now we're going to take it into our hands and we're going to engineer humanity into the future very rapidly... [12:33] John Lennox: Machines do not think. Machines do not have qualia. They do not understand the redness of red. They do not experience emotion. They have no consciousness. [36:33] John Lennox: When you say to me, 'Could you be wrong?' My academic mind says theoretically, yes. But practically, no. [36:33] John Lennox: You never know what swimming is until you get into the water. [36:33] John Lennox: It would be like asking me, 'John, you know, you've been married to Sally for 58 years. Could you be wrong that she loves you?' [46:19] John Lennox: Every worldview must face a mixed picture. I call it beauty and barbed wire or beauty and bombs. [46:19] John Lennox: Is there anywhere evidence enough to trust God with that situation? [46:19] John Lennox: If God isn't fair in the end... we'll be surprised maybe at what he does because he can measure how much people know. [49:02] Richard Feynman: Bend over backwards to criticize yourself, because you are the easiest person for yourself to deceive. [70:33] Alexander Solzhenitsyn: Do not compromise in the least with lies. Live not by lies. [74:34] John Lennox: AI is a machine. It doesn't have any of our five senses which are all connected with our consciousness. It doesn't see. It doesn't hear. It doesn't taste... It can be programmed to recognize patterns, but it has no awareness of what the process of seeing is. [77:36] John Lennox: There's a huge difference in being a machine and responding to a program created by others and being aware of what you're doing consciously. That's a totally higher level of being.

[0:00] There are [music] worship groups that [0:02] worship AI because it's got some of the [0:05] qualities we normally associate with [0:07] God. And some people welcome this and [0:09] say this is the way we should go. But [0:11] the danger is we treat these human-like [0:13] robots as if they're conscious beings. [0:15] This is a seriously important thing. And [0:18] I do feel that the Christian faith has a [0:20] great deal to say about this. [0:22] >> And it's fascinating to me that you are [0:24] very religious, you believe in God, [0:25] because typically I think that [0:26] mathematicians lean more towards [0:28] atheism. [0:29] >> Great pioneers of modern science were [0:33] all believers in God. And I've [0:35] interrogated myself about its truth for [0:37] over 70 years. I've made myself totally [0:40] vulnerable, and I find that Christ [0:42] offers me something nobody else offers [0:44] me. [0:45] Peace in my heart. The peace of knowing [0:48] that I have real forgiveness. Things [0:50] like, for example, others met people and [0:52] even in death row. And I never forget [0:55] looking through the door of Russian [0:57] security death row. I went up to the [0:59] door, and a chap came over and looked at [1:01] me. He killed 12 women. He said, "I [1:03] deserve to be here." And then his face [1:06] just burst into what I can only describe [1:08] as a ghastly smile. And he said, "I met [1:11] Jesus here, and [music] he forgave me." [1:13] >> So, on this point of forgiveness with a [1:15] serial killer, be forgiven and allowed [1:17] into heaven. And then how do you know [1:19] that this thing you've committed [1:20] yourself to is true? [1:21] >> So, I have had several experiences [1:23] [music] [1:24] enough to tell me, "Look, this stuff is [1:27] real." [1:28] Okay, so. [1:33] >> This is super interesting to me. My team [1:34] gave me this report to show me how many [1:36] of you that watch this show subscribe. [1:37] And some of you have told us, according [1:39] to this, that you are unsubscribed from [1:41] the channel randomly. So, favor to ask [1:43] all of you, please could you check right [1:44] now if you've hit the subscribe button [1:46] if you are a regular viewer of the show [1:47] and you like what we do here. We're [1:48] approaching quite a significant landmark [1:50] on this show in terms of a subscriber [1:52] number. So, if there was one simple free [1:54] thing that you could do to help us, my [1:56] team, everyone here, to keep this show [1:58] free, to keep it improving year over [2:00] year and week over week, it is just to [2:02] hit that subscribe button and to double [2:03] check if you've hit it. Only thing I'll [2:04] ever ask of you. [2:06] Do we have a deal? [2:07] If you do it, I'll tell you what I'll [2:08] do. I'll make sure [2:10] every single week, every single month, [2:11] we fight harder and harder and harder [2:12] and harder to bring you the guests and [2:14] conversations that you want to hear. [2:15] I've stayed true to that promise since [2:16] the very beginning of The Diary of a [2:17] CEO, and I will not let you down. Please [2:20] help us. Really appreciate it. Let's get [2:22] on with the show. [2:26] >> [music and singing] [2:27] >> John Lennox, yes, you've published over [2:29] 70 peer-reviewed mathematical papers, [2:32] co-authored two research texts at the [2:34] Oxford Mathematical Monograph Series, [2:37] and you've really become a pioneer in [2:39] many domains through your career. But, [2:41] for anyone that doesn't know you, what [2:43] is the most important context they need [2:45] to understand the reference points, [2:46] experience, education that you're [2:48] pulling on [2:50] that that is going to inform all of the [2:52] subjects we talk about today. [2:54] >> I mean, I've written a number of papers. [2:56] I got a certain amount of [2:58] international recognition. I chaired [3:00] Oxford and all the rest of it. But, I [3:02] think the real value of that [3:06] has been the training in logic. [3:09] Really saying that mathematics works. [3:13] The fact that it works is for me one of [3:15] the strongest evidences that this is [3:18] what I call a word-based universe. [3:20] We can use mathematics to describe [3:23] things about how the universe works. [3:25] Thinking God's thoughts after him, [3:27] Kepler's famous statement. But, also, [3:30] we've lived to see a biological [3:33] revolution where we discovered biology's [3:35] word-based as well with the human [3:37] genome. And that to me resonates [3:41] with the explanation given in both the [3:45] Old Testament and the New. Language of [3:47] John's Gospel, "In the beginning was the [3:50] word." [3:51] >> I am I don't know a ton about the Bible. [3:53] I do come from a religious family, so [3:55] >> Do you? [3:55] >> with um [3:56] >> Right, okay. [3:57] >> up as Christians. I think I I lost my [3:58] face faith at about 18 years old cuz you [4:01] know, me and my my brothers are [4:03] extremely good at math. They're very [4:05] uh rational thinking, maybe to a fault. [4:08] And I think maybe I am a little bit, [4:09] too. [4:09] >> I am, too. [4:10] >> You are. This is why I find it so [4:12] fascinating cuz you know, typically the [4:14] scientific community lean more towards [4:16] atheism. [4:17] >> [clears throat] [4:17] >> And typically, I think that [4:18] mathematicians [4:20] lean more towards atheism. Just to sense [4:22] check if that's true or not, we'll throw [4:24] the numbers up on the screen. So, I I [4:25] find that to be a fascinating [4:27] conversation, which I'm looking forward [4:28] to have with you today. [4:29] Interestingly, you wrote this book and [4:33] the word [4:34] AI is on it. It says God, AI and the end [4:38] of history. Why are you so [4:41] concerned, dare I say, about artificial [4:44] intelligence as a [4:46] leading pioneer in math maths and sort [4:49] of philosophical thinking? [4:51] >> Well, because I'm interested in the [4:54] bigger picture. Anything [4:57] that raises questions about [5:00] the nature of human identity. And I was [5:04] first struck by the drive for artificial [5:07] general intelligence. It's really become [5:10] one of the It looks as if it's the prime [5:12] motivation of people like Sam Altman and [5:15] so on. It is really hitting the [5:16] headlines. But, [5:18] within that, [5:20] there's the notion of transhumanism. [5:23] >> What does that mean? [5:24] >> The idea is that we go beyond the human. [5:28] One of our most famous astronomers, a [5:31] royal, [5:32] he put it this way. He says, "In the [5:34] distant future, it won't be organic [5:37] brains. It'll be machine brains." And he [5:40] seriously believes, as do a number of [5:42] scientists who are not science fiction [5:44] authors, [5:46] that there will be some kind of merger [5:48] between humanity and machines to have a [5:52] transhuman, something that's beyond the [5:55] human, and something that is, they hope, [5:58] superintelligent, [6:00] got all the human properties and much [6:03] more. Now, [6:06] one of the people who's spreading that [6:08] kind of transhumanist vision is the [6:11] Israeli historian Yuval Noah Harari, and [6:15] he's written a book called Homodeus, the [6:18] man-god. [6:20] And that really made me prick up my ears [6:23] because I know enough about this book [6:25] here in the Bible to realize [6:27] that the drive for humans towards [6:31] self-deification [6:33] >> Self-deification? [6:34] >> Yes, making themselves gods. And you see [6:37] it all through history. The ancient [6:39] Babylonian emperors were regarded as [6:42] gods. The Roman emperors started calling [6:44] themselves gods and all the rest of it. [6:47] And what Harari says is the 21st century [6:52] has two big purposes. Number one, [6:55] to solve the problem of physical death [6:59] as a technical problem. [7:00] >> To solve death? [7:01] >> Yes, solve death. Physical death is, in [7:04] his view, a technical problem and we'll [7:06] solve it. The second agenda item, and he [7:09] calls them agenda items for the 21st [7:11] century, [7:12] is to increase [7:14] human happiness by bioengineering, [7:18] cyborg engineering, mechanical implants, [7:22] all this kind of thing, and turning [7:24] humans, quote, [7:26] into gods with a small g. In other [7:30] words, this is the drive for a [7:32] superintelligent human. We've only got [7:35] started. And his point is, [7:37] and from his atheist perspective, one [7:40] can understand it [7:42] Evolution, ungated natural processes [7:45] have brought us to this point. Now we're [7:47] going to take it into our hands and [7:49] we're going to engineer humanity into [7:52] the future very rapidly to approach this [7:56] superhuman [7:57] thing. Now, I hear that and I see that, [8:02] but I see that as huge implications [8:06] for one of the fundamental teachings [8:09] that's behind, I would argue, [8:12] Western civilization. [8:15] And that is the notion that humans [8:19] like us are made in the image of God as [8:22] rational moral beings. Now, I got into [8:26] this because some Christian leaders [8:29] wanted to have a conference on AI and [8:32] they wanted it introduced from someone [8:35] who knew something about the teaching [8:38] of the image of God in Genesis [8:41] and who had a scientific background and [8:43] who could perhaps begin to lead them in [8:45] to what was going on in the AI field [8:49] around. And once I got into it, I [8:51] realized this is a seriously important [8:54] thing because [8:56] we haven't got to our artificial general [8:58] intelligence yet. That's still a pipe [9:01] dream, but it's improving all the time. [9:05] But we've got far enough. That is to [9:08] what's called narrow AGI, [snorts] which [9:10] most of the stuff that works is. [9:14] And that is posing a threat [9:17] to human beings at all kinds of levels. [9:21] And I began to see that that was [9:22] seriously important for everybody to [9:24] take it board. So I wrote two books, one [9:27] 2020, called 2084 is the title of my [9:32] book, Artificial Intelligence and of of [9:35] humanity. And then [9:38] the publishers asked me to update it in [9:41] 2024. So, there's a second edition twice [9:44] as big. And it is my main work on AI. [9:46] That is not. That is a work on the Book [9:49] of Revelation with reference to AI. The [9:52] other is directly going into AI, [9:55] pointing out its values, which I think [9:58] are immense, particularly in medicine, [10:01] but pointing out its dangers, which I [10:03] think are immense, for bringing about a [10:06] state in the world that none of us, I [10:08] think, want. [10:09] >> So, let me just give some definitions, [10:11] then. [10:11] >> Yeah, sure. [10:12] >> You use the term narrow AI. [10:14] >> Yes. [10:14] >> Um my definition of that is, and I'll [10:16] put something on the screen for those of [10:18] you watching, is AI that's focused on [10:20] solving a very particular problem. So, [10:22] AIs that might be able to diagnose lung [10:25] cancer, or that do some sort of um [10:29] biometric data on your Apple Watch, very [10:30] focused on solving a particular problem. [10:33] AGI is artificial general intelligence, [10:36] which is what's being built at the [10:37] moment, and all the big AI companies are [10:39] in a race to accomplish, which is a [10:41] machine that could do any intellectual [10:43] task a human can, faster than any human, [10:46] um and would be super intelligent. So, [10:48] that, you know, maybe one way to think [10:50] about it, it would have a PhD in [10:51] everything. [10:52] >> That's right. That's a very fair [10:54] summary. Narrow AI system does one and [10:58] only one thing that normally requires [11:01] human intelligence. [11:03] AGI does the lot [11:06] and more. [11:07] >> You wrote this book, 2084. You [11:09] highlighted in there some of the [11:10] concerns that you think are being [11:11] overlooked in this race for AGI at the [11:15] moment. [11:16] >> Well, they're not overlooked by [11:17] everybody. There is huge concern. [11:19] There's been a very interesting book [11:21] published not long ago by Karen Hao. [11:24] >> Oh, she was here. She's fantastic. [11:26] >> Well, there you are. And she has got [11:29] some very interesting metaphors. Uh the [11:31] pursuit of the machine God, which I [11:34] think is a brilliant summary of what's [11:36] going on. And I found it very [11:39] illuminating because she's obviously got [11:41] very close to the the major operators in [11:43] this. But if I step back from it, [11:47] I look at AI like a knife. A good knife, [11:51] you can use it for surgery or you can [11:53] use it for murder. [11:55] And that leads us into it immediately. [11:58] AI, narrow, brilliant for picking out a [12:01] terrorist in a football crowd. [12:04] Also brilliant for suppressing a [12:06] minority in China [12:08] and bringing in a totalitarian state [12:10] through social credit systems and all [12:12] the rest of it. [12:13] And in a way, [12:17] we're sleepwalking into a future where [12:20] we are gradually seeding control and [12:24] information and data all the time, which [12:29] could be used by bad actors against us. [12:32] And this is the problem. [12:34] >> I I really this question of what it [12:36] means to be human in a world of AI, I [12:38] think it's been really front of mind for [12:39] a lot of people. And like, where do we [12:41] live or exist or find our purpose in a [12:44] world where theoretically these super [12:47] intelligent systems will reach AGI, [12:49] which means they're more intelligent [12:51] theoretically than any human on Earth. [12:53] But at the same time, you've got these [12:54] other [12:55] advancements in technology like humanoid [12:57] robots. [12:58] >> Mhm. [12:59] >> Where these humanoid robots there was a [13:00] a live stream I've talked about a few [13:01] times that I'll just throw it up on the [13:03] screen really quickly that shows last [13:05] week a humanoid robot working on a [13:07] production line for 8 days straight. And [13:10] they show it up against a human being [13:12] and it beats the human being on the [13:13] production line cuz it doesn't need to [13:15] sleep. It just needs to be charged [13:18] for a couple of hours to full power. And [13:20] so you combine these two forces, super [13:22] intelligence and the disruption, you [13:24] know, you can think of it like [13:26] one is disrupting [13:28] this thing here, the brain, and the [13:30] intelligence within the brain. And then [13:31] the other technology that's [13:34] emerged at the same time is disrupting [13:38] my muscles and my mechanics. And the two [13:40] come together to make voilà. [13:43] >> Absolutely. So, you face joblessness at [13:45] all kinds of levels. [13:47] And people are only going beginning to [13:50] realize the implications of that. And [13:52] not just low-level repetitive jobs, as [13:55] high-level jobs like lawyers. And [13:57] there's a deep-seated [14:00] ethical problem running through all of [14:02] this. And it's very simple one. It's [14:04] that technology advances much faster [14:07] than the ethics that's needed to [14:08] underpin it. [14:10] And the difficulty is the people that [14:13] have all the power will say, "Well, we [14:15] need some ethical control of all of [14:17] this. But we need to get on with the [14:19] research to make it safe for you. So, [14:21] let us get on with it." And [14:24] you can be a bit skeptical about the [14:26] motivation there. It's a colossal power [14:30] grab. And I do feel that [14:34] uh the Christian faith has a great deal [14:36] to say to this arms race, if you like. [14:40] The [14:42] power that is being [14:44] forced in to having a technology that [14:48] becomes the ultimate source of truth. [14:51] Now, those two concepts, power and [14:52] truth, clashed centuries ago in a very [14:55] famous trial. [14:57] And it's the trial of Jesus. [14:59] >> [snorts] [14:59] >> And I used to wonder a lot, you know, [15:02] why is there such detail about the trial [15:04] of Jesus? Until I realized what it was [15:07] about. [15:09] Jesus was put on trial for political [15:11] terrorism, to put it in modern [15:13] terminology. He was a threat to the [15:16] Roman power base. [15:18] And Pilate, the governor at the time, [15:21] put him on trial and conducted the trial [15:24] himself, which was most unusual, and [15:26] said, "Are you a king?" [15:28] And Jesus looked at him and said, "Well, [15:31] not in the sense you mean. [15:33] To this end I was born and to this end I [15:35] came into the world that I would bear [15:37] witness to the truth." [15:40] And uh Pilate famously responded, "What [15:42] is truth?" [15:43] and went out and declared Jesus innocent [15:46] of the charge. And then he said to him, [15:50] just a bit later, "Don't you know I have [15:52] power to crucify you?" And Jesus quietly [15:55] said, "You would have no power against [15:58] me unless it's been given to you from [16:00] above." So, there's one of the most [16:02] famous confrontations between power and [16:05] truth. [16:06] And that statement that Jesus made, [16:10] "I have come to bear witness to the [16:12] truth." I regard that as the main [16:14] motivation for my life. I'm trying to [16:16] bear witness to truth as I see it at all [16:19] kinds of levels in my own limited way. [16:22] And that's what bothers me about AI. [16:26] It's a reductionist. We're reducing [16:28] people to machines. And you said to me a [16:31] few moments ago that [snorts] flagged up [16:34] a [clears throat] thing in my mind [16:35] that's very important. We need to be [16:37] very clear what AI is and what it isn't. [16:41] This is a machine. [16:44] Machines do not think. [16:46] Machines do not have qualia. They do not [16:50] understand the redness of red. They do [16:53] not experience emotion. They have no [16:57] consciousness. [16:59] And you see, I believe that the genius [17:01] of God is that he's made you and me. [17:04] And he's connected [17:06] in us [17:07] consciousness [17:09] and intelligence. [17:11] The machines are not conscious, [17:13] but they simulate intelligence. [17:16] And [snorts] the experts are very clear [17:18] that they're not trying to construct [17:21] intelligence for a very simple reason. [17:23] They have no idea what consciousness is [17:25] from a scientific point of view. [17:27] But they're trying to simulate [17:29] intelligence and go as far as they can. [17:33] And therefore, [17:35] the danger is we anthropomorphize [17:37] everything. We treat them as if they're [17:39] conscious beings. [17:41] And we need to step back and realize [17:44] that we are conscious beings. And that [17:47] gives us a supreme dignity and value. To [17:50] reduce ourselves to merely machines or [17:53] on the other hand merely [clears throat] [17:55] animals is to demean our value. And then [17:58] where are you going to get value from? [18:01] >> I've got a quote here that's linked to [18:03] what you just said. It's from Yuval Noah [18:05] Harari. He mentioned he says, "Humans [18:07] are now hackable animals." [18:09] >> Yes. [18:09] >> The whole idea that humans have this [18:11] soul or spirit and they have free will [18:14] and nobody knows what's happening inside [18:15] them. That is over. [18:19] And Sam Altman said the most successful [18:20] founders do not set out to create [18:22] companies. They're on a mission to [18:24] create something closer to a religion. [18:26] And at some point it turns out that [18:27] forming a company is the easiest way to [18:29] do so. And lastly, a former Google [18:31] engineer said, "What is going to be [18:33] created will effectively be a god. It's [18:36] not a god in the sense that it will will [18:38] make lightning or cause hurricanes. But [18:40] if there is something a billion times [18:42] smarter than the smartest human, [18:45] what else can you call it? [18:47] >> Heads on. Thank you for quoting that [18:49] because I was going to quote it to you. [18:51] The Sam Altman's point about about [18:54] making a religion. [18:56] And that is what is happening and people [18:58] pointed out the obvious. Here you have a [19:00] system even now that has got some of the [19:03] qualities we normally associate with [19:06] God. It appears to be omniscient. You [19:08] can ask it any question. [19:10] It is omnipresent through the internet, [19:13] etc., etc. And therefore, already [19:17] there are worship groups to worship AI. [19:21] And some people welcome this and say, [19:23] "Well, this is the way we should go." [19:25] And other people say, "Just wait a [19:26] moment. There's [snorts] something very [19:29] strange going on here." And in the end, [19:32] you are bowing down to something that in [19:35] the end is idolatrous because it is less [19:38] than God. But it's very tempting to do [19:41] that. [19:41] >> I mean, people are basically praying to [19:43] it now. They're confiding in it in a way [19:45] that they might have. [19:45] >> Perhaps absolutely doing it. And you [19:47] know, [19:48] I'm fascinated by this. I've never seen [19:51] one of these before, but I like it. Let [19:53] me tell you why I like it. [19:54] >> So, for people that can't see what we're [19:56] doing, it's a brain. [19:57] >> It's a brain. And it's got two halves. [20:01] And one of the people who've influenced [20:04] my thinking about AI a lot [20:07] is uh Dr. Iain McGilchrist, the author [20:10] of this fascinating book called The [20:12] Matter with Things. And he has studied [20:15] the fact that this brain has two [20:17] hemispheres. [20:19] >> Mhm. [20:19] >> Two halves. Both halves are involved in [20:22] almost every cognitive event, but the [20:24] two different halves have different ways [20:28] of paying attention to the world. One is [20:31] narrow focus, the left side of the [20:33] brain. And the other is the big picture. [20:37] And he says what has happened [20:38] historically in the West is for the last [20:40] five or so hundred years, we have [20:42] concentrated [20:44] on the narrow, rationalist, [20:46] reductionist, left side of the brain. [20:50] And we've forgotten the right side that [20:53] contextualizes everything. So that, [20:56] quote, [20:57] we now find ourselves in a world where [21:00] we understand how almost everything [21:02] works, but we know the meaning of [21:04] nothing. [21:05] >> [snorts] [21:05] >> And what he calls for is to open the [21:08] sphere up. And of course that includes [21:11] to beauty, culture, art, music, and [21:15] religion. Step by step he appears to be [21:19] creating more room for God because God [21:24] makes sense of the space he feels is [21:27] very necessary to fulfill. And I find [21:31] that absolutely fascinating. And you've [21:33] probably noticed that too, the number of [21:35] intellectuals who are step by step [21:37] taking [21:39] the Christian faith more seriously as [21:41] giving a rational account of what's [21:44] going on that makes very big sense of [21:47] the big picture. [21:48] >> What is going on in society because it [21:50] does feel like more and more people have [21:52] these sort of existential questions [21:54] about meaning and they might be turning [21:56] to Christianity or Islam or other. But [21:58] what is from a 30,000 foot perspective [22:01] happening to us which is making us ask [22:03] some of these questions? [22:05] And for you know, younger generations it [22:06] might be spirituality, however they [22:08] define that. But there's certainly a [22:10] a macro picture here of something [22:12] happening. [22:12] >> Oh, there is. I agree with you entirely [22:14] and I think it's because we've had [22:17] pushed at us for too long a very [22:20] reductionist view of the world. It's [22:22] nothing but physics and chemistry. It's [22:24] nothing but this and that. [22:26] And people rightly feel it's too small a [22:28] world to live in. They're looking to [22:30] break out of this. Isn't there a bigger [22:32] picture that [22:34] can make sense of my world and make [22:37] sense of my life and giving some meaning [22:40] because if you reduce everything, it [22:42] ends up a black hole of meaninglessness. [22:46] And that's one of my [22:48] uh top reasons for not being an atheist [22:50] because it destroys rationality by [22:53] almost by definition. Because it tells [22:55] me that my brain [22:57] which does all the thinking is not my [23:00] mind, it's connected, and those are two [23:03] different things, and that's another big [23:04] story. But, this is the end product of a [23:08] mindless, unguided uh process. And, I [23:11] have fun with scientists, you know, [23:13] sometimes. I ask them uh about the brain [23:16] and how it arose, and they tell me [23:18] something like that. And, I said, "And, [23:20] you trust it?" [23:22] Tell me, [23:23] "If the computer that you use every day, [23:26] if you knew it was the end product of a [23:29] random process, would you trust it?" [23:32] Every single scientist, and some of them [23:35] are very high-powered, that I've asked [23:37] that question to have said, "No, I would [23:39] not." So, I say, "You've got a problem, [23:41] haven't you? Your atheism goes too far. [23:45] It undermines [23:48] the very rationality we need [23:51] to do science, let alone to believe in [23:53] atheism. [23:55] And, [snorts] [23:55] that's my main beef with people like [23:58] Richard Dawkins and the new atheists, [24:00] but I see they're fading. They're [24:01] fading. So, here's the irony. [24:04] Atheism, claiming rationality, destroys [24:08] it. [24:09] Whereas, I believe the Christian faith [24:11] also claims rationality, in all in the [24:14] sense that [24:15] evidence-based. We shout about that a [24:18] lot in science and medicine, and rightly [24:20] so. What we trust in ought to be [24:22] evidence-based. I claim exactly the same [24:25] thing for Christianity. And, that's why [24:27] I'm a Christian, because I believe the [24:29] evidence supports it. Otherwise, I [24:31] wouldn't. [24:32] >> So, I guess how do I identify? Maybe as [24:35] someone that's agnostic? Like, I'm I [24:37] don't really know. [24:38] >> Well, that's okay. [24:40] But, does that mean you're open to know? [24:43] You'd like to know? [24:45] >> Well, that's [24:46] >> I'm always open. [24:47] >> That's that's wonderful to see. That's [24:50] That seems to me to be exactly the right [24:53] attitude. [24:54] Jesus actually challenged someone in his [24:57] day and says if anyone wants to do the [25:00] will of God, he shall know [25:03] of the teaching whether I'm speaking for [25:06] myself or whether it's from God. I [25:08] notice what it doesn't say. He doesn't [25:11] say if anyone wants to know, he will [25:13] know. [25:14] If anyone wants to do, he will know. And [25:17] the difference between the two, and I'd [25:19] be interested in your response to it, is [25:21] that being prepared to do something when [25:24] you know it [25:26] is more than just knowing it and [25:27] possibly just leaving it on the table. [25:30] In other words, Jesus is interested in [25:33] people who are going to take the step of [25:35] trust and following him. And that's the [25:37] big deal. [25:39] >> There should be a button just down below [25:41] here. And if it says subscribe, you're [25:43] already subscribed. If it says subscribe [25:45] buh, that means you're not yet. And if [25:47] you're not subscribed, please could you [25:48] do us a favor and hit that button. It [25:50] helps to show more than you know. And [25:51] according to the algorithm, you're [25:53] someone that watches our show, but you [25:54] haven't yet hit that button. Thank you [25:56] so much. [25:57] Do you know what it is? I find all I [25:58] find all explanations as to like the [26:00] bigger picture to be like fundamentally [26:02] incomplete. [26:03] >> Yes. [26:04] >> Because there's many things you said [26:05] about the nature of Christianity and [26:07] religion that I go, "Amazing. Yes. Yes. [26:09] Yes." And then there's a couple things I [26:10] go, "Ooh, well, hmm." [26:11] Uh and the same when I sit here with a [26:13] physicist that's telling me about the [26:14] Big Bang. [26:15] >> Yes. [26:15] >> I have the same thing where I'm going, [26:16] "Yes. Yes, of course. Yes. Oh, we've got [26:18] evidence that the universe is expanding. [26:19] Okay, mate." And then they'll say other [26:21] things and I go, "Well, that's not [26:23] complete." [26:24] And so I find myself sat on the fence. I [26:26] would love you to convince me. I mean, [26:28] it's not your responsibility to do so, [26:30] but where does that journey of [26:32] of believing begin for someone like me? [26:36] Because, you know, people say the Bible [26:38] and I go, "Well, it's kind of like what [26:40] you said about the computers. It's like [26:42] if you're using something to justify [26:44] the same thing is true, [26:46] >> Yes. [26:47] >> then that's circular reasoning I find to [26:49] be incomplete cuz I could write on this [26:50] piece of paper, [26:51] uh Steven Bartlett is a lizard. [26:53] >> Yes. [26:54] >> And [26:56] this piece of paper is true. [26:59] And then [27:00] you then use that same piece of paper to [27:02] justify the validity of that same piece [27:04] of paper. [27:05] >> Mhm. [27:05] >> And I go, "Well, that's that's not solid [27:07] reasoning." [27:08] >> No, but you see, I could say, "Steven [27:12] Bartlett, [27:13] there's a red Ferrari parked in the [27:15] street outside." [27:17] >> Yeah. [27:18] >> And it's yours if you want to take it. [27:21] We could sit and discuss it [27:23] for a thousand years. You would never [27:26] know whether I was true or not unless [27:28] you went and looked. [27:29] >> Mhm. [27:30] >> And it seems to me [27:31] the word skeptic is a very interesting [27:33] one. I regard myself as a skeptic, but [27:36] in Greek, skeptai means to look at [27:39] something from a distance. [27:41] Now, [27:43] if you are ever going to get to know a [27:46] person, [27:49] you've got to begin to give up your [27:52] distance. You will know that from [27:54] everyday life. [27:55] >> Mhm. [27:56] >> And it seems to me one of the things to [27:58] try to begin to grasp is God is not a [28:00] proposition or a philosophy or even a [28:03] religion. God is a person. [28:06] And as a person, he has entered our [28:09] world. However incredible that may seem, [28:11] although this is the irony of the Harari [28:15] position, if I may just say it on the [28:17] side, people come to me as they've done [28:19] with their transhumanist [clears throat] [28:21] agenda and say, "You know, we're going [28:22] to solve the problem of death and we're [28:25] going to increase human happiness." And [28:27] I look at them and I smile and I say, [28:29] "You're too late." [28:31] And they say, "What? We haven't got [28:32] there yet." I said, "You're too late." [28:34] "What do you mean we're too late?" Well, [28:36] I said, "The problem of physical death [28:38] was solved when God raised Christ from [28:40] the dead 20 centuries ago. [28:42] And as for human happiness and uploading [28:46] us into eternity, You know, I'm waiting [28:49] for the biggest uploading that's ever [28:51] going to happen in history when Christ [28:52] returns and raises me from the dead [28:55] because that is precisely what he [28:57] promises. And it's most interesting [28:59] watching people. [29:01] And I say, "Isn't it fascinating that [29:04] your transhumanism consists in humans [29:07] reaching out to become little gods? [29:10] Whereas Christianity is the exact [29:12] opposite. It talks about a God who [29:14] became human so that he could give us [29:17] life and give us a new relationship with [29:20] him. What really completes the circle [29:24] for me [29:25] is that my relationship with God is a [29:29] relationship which is based [29:32] on the solution to the really hard [29:35] problem. [29:36] And that is the problem that [29:39] I [29:40] by nature [29:42] have not always done good. [29:45] And by my own standards, I've failed. [29:48] Now, all this talk of transhumanism, AI, [29:50] and everything else, what it's trying to [29:53] do is to build paradise, utopia, without [29:56] facing the problem of the damage that [29:59] humans have caused to themselves and one [30:01] another. They will not face the sin [30:03] problem. Christianity [30:06] to me doesn't compete with any anything [30:08] else [30:09] because Christ offers me something [30:11] nobody else offers me. [30:13] Nobody else offers me peace. The peace [30:16] of knowing that I have real forgiveness. [30:20] The peace of knowing that I have a [30:22] friend and a companion to whom I can [30:24] talk all the time. That's been so [30:25] meaningful in my life as I spell out in [30:28] detail my autobiography. [30:30] And the peace of having been given a new [30:32] life that will not end when I die. I'm [30:35] 82 now and probably more than twice as [30:39] old as you are. As I look towards the [30:41] future, I have in my heart a certainty. [30:44] Not because I've merited it. [30:47] The exact opposite, because I couldn't [30:50] merit it, but because Christ has done [30:53] something for me through the cross and [30:55] the resurrection. That may sound all [30:57] mumbo jumbo at the moment. But has done [31:00] something that enables me to have a [31:02] relationship that is secure, that floods [31:06] over the whole of life and has made my [31:08] life what it is for the last [31:11] 70 years, more or less. [31:13] >> I think everybody, especially in a world [31:15] that's getting increasingly lonely and [31:16] disconnected and isolated for many [31:18] reasons, is looking for that secure [31:21] relationship. [31:21] >> They are. [31:22] >> They're looking for their own, you know, [31:24] a home that can't fall down. [31:26] >> Yes. [31:27] Yes, and a peace that doesn't fade and a [31:30] an inheritance that doesn't Exactly. [31:32] You're dead right. [31:33] >> If I could choose that, if I could press [31:35] a button and have it, I would have it. [31:38] But there's this other part of my brain [31:40] which [31:43] will naturally interrogate whether it's [31:44] real [31:45] or it's true. [31:46] >> right. [31:47] Why am I sitting in front of you talking [31:49] about this stuff? Because I've [31:51] interrogated myself about it and it's [31:53] truth for [31:56] over 70 years. [31:58] I've made myself totally vulnerable. [32:01] That's why I got into all the debates [32:02] with new atheists and all the rest of [32:04] it, because I want to be sure. But it [32:07] won't come [32:08] about by pressing a button. [32:11] It will come about [32:13] if you're open enough to say, "God, I'm [32:15] open. Reveal yourself to me and I'm [32:18] prepared to take the steps [32:21] that I feel are leading me onto solid [32:24] ground." I do not believe that this is a [32:26] process of taking a leap into the dark, [32:29] but it's making a commitment on the [32:31] basis of what you know already and [32:33] taking a step further forward. And the [32:36] interesting thing about this is [32:40] the trust that's at the heart of [32:42] everything. [32:44] I trust my wife. I've been married to [32:47] her for 58 years this year. [32:50] It's evidence-based trust. I don't trust [32:53] for no reason. [32:55] And the [snorts] same is true of my [32:57] friends, as would be the case with you. [33:00] Evidence-based trust in science [33:03] and in Christian things. I don't regard [33:06] myself as religious particularly, and [33:09] the reason is this, and it's an [33:11] important reason. [33:13] Most religions prescribe a moral way [33:16] that you try to follow, [33:18] and you have teachers, gurus, imams, all [33:20] the rest, priests, to keep you on the [33:22] way, and then you come to a judgment at [33:24] the end. And I usually draw a scale of [33:27] justice. And if your good deeds tip over [33:30] the bad deeds, then you get into [33:31] whatever it is, heaven, nirvana, all the [33:33] rest of it. That's religion. It's not [33:35] Christianity, though many people think [33:37] it is. [33:39] Because if you ask them, "Are you a [33:41] Christian?" they'll say, "Well, I do my [33:42] best, and I hope that God will be kind." [33:44] That isn't Christianity. It's the exact [33:47] opposite of Christianity. That's a [33:50] merit-based religion. [33:53] And you see, [33:56] the irony of all this is is [33:59] that we would never, at least I don't [34:03] know, some people might, but in a human [34:05] relationship, [34:07] we don't base our affection and [34:09] relationship with someone on the basis [34:12] of their merit. I have a little analogy [34:14] I use that sometimes tickles people's [34:16] minds. I say that I met a beautiful girl [34:19] on my second day at Cambridge. [34:22] I'd been warned she might be there, and [34:24] she was, sitting in church. [34:26] And [34:28] I decided that I'd like to marry her. [34:30] So, [34:31] I bought the most expensive cookery book [34:33] I could and I came and I handed to her [34:37] and she said, "What's that?" Well, I [34:38] said, "You know, we have a interesting [34:40] tradition in our family, you see. [34:43] And if anybody gets married, they give [34:45] the potential bride a cookbook." "Why?" [34:47] "Well, look at page 152. Here's the [34:51] the laws for making an apple cake and I [34:53] like apple cakes. So, law 1 2 2 2 takes [34:56] a what's flour, sugar, sugar." Now, I [34:58] said, "It's going to be like this. [34:59] If you keep those rules for the next, [35:02] let's be generous, 40 years or so, I [35:04] will accept you. [35:06] Otherwise, you can go back to your [35:07] mother." Now, when I say that to an [35:09] audience, they rock about with laughter, [35:12] but it's exactly the way many of them [35:15] have been taught to think about God. [35:18] Keep the rules as best as you can [35:20] and hope that God is generous. When [35:23] actually [35:25] I did no such thing, have given my wife [35:27] several cookbooks, but they're not the [35:29] basis of the relationship. [35:31] >> [snorts] [35:31] >> And because the relationship is based on [35:33] acceptance that comes at the start of [35:36] the common journey, [35:38] it sets her free to live and do other [35:41] things that she wants to do. [35:43] >> [snorts] [35:43] >> And I have noticed often that once [35:45] people begin to realize that, they're [35:47] beginning to understand a basic concept [35:49] which is grace. That God does [35:53] everything. [35:55] And if we trust him, he does that gives [35:58] us the certainty. So, it's not arrogance [36:01] to accept it from him. It's arrogance [36:04] actually to reject and say, "Oh, no, no, [36:06] I'll go my own way and I'll try my best [36:08] and hope that you will accept me." And [36:11] the heart of the Christian message which [36:13] I believe is there [36:15] is that the trust is based on what [36:18] someone else has done, what Christ has [36:20] done, not what I have done. And that's [36:22] what's given me the power and as I said [36:25] earlier, completed the circle and [36:28] enabled me to live. [36:30] >> That was a really beautiful description [36:33] and definition of what the Christian [36:35] faith is about. [36:38] It still leaves me with a question about [36:41] whether it's true. [36:42] And this is the sort of central question [36:44] that I need to find my way over. [36:45] >> Yeah, I agree with you. [36:47] Absolutely. [36:48] >> And this is I find myself often I've sat [36:51] with a few uh Christian apologists and [36:53] asked them similar questions about like [36:54] how do I know if it's true? [36:57] And I guess so so far I've got, you [36:59] know, if there's a red Ferrari outside, [37:01] you'd have to go outside and see for [37:02] yourself. That's the only way you're [37:03] going to know. [37:04] But what [37:05] how do you know that this thing you've [37:07] committed yourself to and you've [37:08] believed and you know talked about for [37:10] 70 years of your life [37:12] is true? And could it be the case that [37:15] it's not true? [37:16] >> Okay, let's handle that. That's a hugely [37:19] important question. [37:21] I have two approaches to this which I [37:23] call roughly speaking objective and [37:25] subjective. [37:27] And it depends entirely where someone's [37:29] coming from. They may start very far [37:32] back and say, "Look, we read about this [37:33] chap Jesus. How do we know he ever [37:35] existed?" Well, then you go to the [37:37] ancient historians and you find that [37:39] most of them, whether they're atheists [37:40] or not, believe that he existed and so [37:43] on. [37:43] >> I accept that he existed. [37:45] >> Yes. [37:45] >> Yeah. [37:45] >> Okay, well, that's a good start. You [37:47] know, some of the disciples when Jesus [37:50] rose from the dead, they just didn't [37:51] believe the story. Ridiculous. [37:53] And there's a famous story of Thomas [37:56] who said to the others, he said, "Unless [37:58] I see the marks in his hands and so on, [38:00] I won't believe." And then Jesus stood [38:02] among them [38:03] and [38:05] he didn't [38:07] make fun of Thomas's objective. He said, [38:09] "Thomas, come and have a look." [38:11] You never know what swimming is until [38:13] you get into the water. [38:16] Isn't that true? [38:17] >> It is true. [38:18] >> And [38:19] all I can say is that step by step, keep [38:23] asking your questions. Absolutely. [38:27] I don't believe that God will ever ask [38:29] us to take a step [38:31] with which we should be uncomfortable. I [38:33] just don't believe that. [38:35] >> Could you be wrong that Christianity So, [38:37] could it be the case that Christianity [38:40] was [38:42] was about a real guy called Jesus? [38:44] Uh based on a real guy called Jesus, but [38:46] the stories told, you know, there was [38:48] decades passed between the things that [38:49] happened and people [38:51] >> Not so much as you'd think, actually. [38:53] >> You think what? For four decades for the [38:54] first time? [38:54] >> When you When you say to me, "Could you [38:56] be wrong?" [38:57] My academic mind says theoretically, [39:00] yes. [39:01] But practically, no. [39:04] Could I be wrong? It would be like [39:06] asking me, "John, you know, you've been [39:08] married to Sally for 58 years. [39:11] Could you be wrong that she loves you?" [39:14] Well, theoretically, yes. [39:16] But actually, [39:18] the evidence all points in the other [39:19] direction. And that's what I would say [39:22] that I have built up in my life. And I'd [39:26] love you to ask me that question when [39:28] you've read that autobiography. [39:30] >> Why would you think it would reach [39:31] >> Because I I think what I relate there is [39:34] enough evidence for someone outside [39:36] who's skeptical [39:38] to say there may well be something in [39:40] that. But in the end, you won't know [39:44] until you step into the water. [39:47] And then you find that Christ is there [39:49] to catch you. [39:50] >> And what did you find in the water when [39:51] you stepped into the water? [39:52] >> Well, I was very young. You see, my [39:55] parents taught me quite clearly that [39:58] I wasn't born a Christian. You become a [40:01] Christian by trusting Christ. That's [40:05] To have somebody born or made a [40:07] Christian by some ceremony is absurd to [40:10] my mind. And so, in my simple way, [40:14] I responded as a child. I didn't have [40:16] any great feelings or anything else. But [40:19] what happened to me as I grew and [40:21] especially as I went to university in [40:24] Cambridge and I decided, "Look, I really [40:27] believe this stuff is true. [40:29] I'm going to stand for it." [40:32] And it was when I began to stand and [40:35] share with others that [40:37] a great deal of the underpinning came in [40:40] and the certainty came. [40:42] Cumulatively, not all a big I've never [40:45] had these big [40:47] flashes of anything, but I [40:49] have had several experiences of what I [40:52] can only put down to direct [40:55] divine guidance [clears throat] and I [40:57] record them in the book. [40:59] >> Never talked to any founders, they all [41:00] carry the same belief that the biggest [41:02] threat to their small business is having [41:04] a bad product. It's not. The biggest [41:06] threat they face is hiring the wrong [41:08] person for their small team because bad [41:10] hires put the handbrake on growth and [41:12] rapidly infect company culture. And I [41:14] get it. When you're starting out, you [41:16] need A-players to grow your company, but [41:17] you don't have 40 spare hours to spend [41:20] sifting through interviews. So you hire [41:22] fast to fill the seat, but this ends up [41:23] costing you even more in the long term. [41:25] What any small business actually needs [41:26] is a reliable and efficient way to find [41:28] the right talent without stalling [41:29] momentum. That's where our long-term [41:31] sponsor LinkedIn and LinkedIn Hiring Pro [41:33] can help you. It streamlines the entire [41:35] hiring process from drafting a job [41:37] description to shortlisting candidates [41:39] and conducting AI-powered interviews for [41:41] initial screenings. Nearly 60% of hirers [41:44] who've used this tool have found it to [41:46] interview within a week. Hire right the [41:48] first time around and get started by [41:50] posting your first job for free at [41:52] linkedin.com/doac. [41:54] That's linkedin.com/doac. [41:56] Terms and conditions apply. [41:58] If I asked you to picture a Guinness [42:00] World Record Holder right now, you would [42:02] not be picturing a phone charger [42:05] company. But our sponsor Anker, yes, the [42:08] charger brand and one of our technology [42:10] partners, just set a world record. Their [42:13] Soundcore earbuds hold the Guinness [42:16] World Record for the world's clearest [42:18] calls. [42:20] Did you hear that? That is what [42:21] obsession sounds like. Most brands think [42:24] that earbuds are as good as they can be, [42:25] so they compete on the surface. They [42:27] compete on bass, battery, colors, but [42:30] not Anker. The Liberty 5 Pro and Pro Max [42:34] earbuds use 10 sensors and Anker's own [42:37] AI chip to help you keep your voice [42:39] clear in noisy places, which sounds like [42:42] an unreasonable amount of engineering [42:43] for a small problem, until it's your [42:45] problem, until you're trying to win a [42:47] pitch from an airport lounge or station [42:49] platform, and all they can hear is wind [42:51] or traffic. Anker obsessed over the [42:53] tiny, invisible, maddening, difficult [42:56] environments that we find ourselves in [42:58] all the time and how those environments [43:00] stand in the way of the communication [43:01] that we want to have. And when you try [43:03] Anker for the first time, you, like me, [43:05] will probably think, "Thank god that [43:08] somebody cared this much." Click the [43:11] link below to try them for yourself now. [43:14] I've got some some of the questions that [43:15] really stumped me when I was So, I was I [43:17] was Christian up until the age of about [43:19] 18. Then I went into the whole like new [43:21] atheist movement with Richard Dawkins [43:22] and Sam Harris and that little phase of [43:24] my life. But one of the stats that used [43:26] to get me when I went through that new [43:28] atheist movement [43:29] was that [43:31] globally, 91% of adults simply adopt and [43:33] keep the religion they were raised in. [43:36] And if a person is born into a Hindu or [43:37] Muslim household, there is a 99% [43:41] statistical probability they will remain [43:42] in that faith. Only 1% switch out. And [43:45] then the argument, I think it came from [43:47] Dawkins or someone else, was that [43:50] is it fair that there's this birth [43:51] lottery determining who ends up [43:53] believing what or theoretically getting [43:56] into hell or heaven? [43:57] >> Yes. [43:59] >> Because if I was born in, I don't know, [44:01] Afghanistan, the probability says I'd [44:03] probably be Muslim. [44:04] >> Yeah, well, I I take that. Absolutely. [44:07] >> So, God gave you an advantage in this [44:09] context because he he he allowed you to [44:10] be born [44:11] his in his all-knowing, all all [44:14] understanding way, put you to be born in [44:17] a place where you were likely to be [44:18] Christian. [44:19] >> to me as if he gave the same advantage [44:20] to you. [44:22] >> [laughter] [44:22] >> So, the question is, what do we do with [44:26] that privilege? Now, I know [44:29] that there are hard problems around the [44:30] edge here. There are really hard [44:33] problems, not only where you're born and [44:35] what you believe. [44:37] This was the argument that Peter Singer [44:40] advanced to me. He had a debate. I don't [44:42] know whether you've heard about it. [44:44] Peter Singer, you know, the [44:46] Princeton ethicist who [44:49] really was one of the new atheists, but [44:51] not quite. Very famous for his views on [44:54] dealing with the unborn and the rest. [44:56] Well, we had a debate in Australia, and [44:59] I started, as I always do, by being [45:02] upfront about my background. [45:05] And he, when he got the chance to speak, [45:07] he said, "Well, there was my [45:09] best objection to religion. People [45:12] always stay in the religion which [45:14] they're brought up, you see." When I [45:16] next got a chance to speak, I said, [45:18] "Peter, [45:19] I told the audience [45:22] about my Christian background, but you [45:24] said nothing about yours. Now, tell me, [45:26] were your parents atheists?" [45:29] He said, "They were." "Oh," I said, [45:31] "then you remained in the faith in which [45:34] you were brought up." "Oh," but he said, [45:36] "it isn't a faith." And I said, "Peter, [45:39] I was I was convinced that you believed [45:42] it." [45:43] I brought the house down, of course. [45:44] This cyberspace went mad. [45:47] And the point was made repeatedly all [45:49] over the internet. Here's one of the [45:51] world's top philosophers. He doesn't [45:53] understand that his atheism is a belief [45:55] system. [45:56] And the irony was the very first person [45:59] he met after that debate was a fellow [46:02] Hungarian Jew [46:04] who was a friend of mine. And then my [46:06] friend said, "And I became a Christian." [46:08] So, the very first person he met was [46:11] someone who had transitioned from his [46:13] background. That doesn't answer your [46:15] question. It's a question I ask often [46:20] >> because God could correct this. [46:21] >> Well, this is just the point. And we [46:25] have had these arguments and debates [46:27] a good God and all powerful God would [46:30] could should all this kind of stuff. And [46:32] we never get [46:34] a satisfactory answer to that. So, I've [46:37] come up with another problem possibly [46:39] because I'm a mathematician and we when [46:41] we've hammered at one problem for [46:42] centuries [46:44] we usually stop and try a little one. My [46:46] other problem is just as hard but I [46:49] think it gets me a bit further. It's [46:50] this [46:52] every world view must face [46:55] a mixed picture. [46:57] I call it beauty and barbed wire or [46:59] beauty and bombs. That that's the world. [47:01] It's mixed and if you don't accept that [47:05] you're not in touch with reality. Now, [47:07] here's my question. [47:09] Is there anywhere evidence [47:13] enough [47:15] to trust God with that situation? [47:18] That's a hard question. [47:20] >> And by that you mean the situation of [47:22] this sort of geographical distribution [47:23] of belief? [47:24] >> Yes, we'll never understand it or solve [47:26] it. [47:26] >> But do we trust God? [47:28] >> Do we trust God ultimately to be [47:30] absolutely [clears throat] [47:31] fair because if God isn't fair in the [47:33] end, he knows what everybody thinks I [47:35] believe. And we'll be surprised maybe at [47:39] what he does because he can measure how [47:42] much people know. My responsibility is [47:45] twofold. One [47:47] to respond to the evidence I've heard [47:50] and then Christ tells me to go and share [47:53] it. [47:53] And that's what I do and have been doing [47:55] all my life. [47:57] >> [snorts] [47:58] >> It doesn't answer a question, but [48:01] it gives you motivation, and [48:04] the alternative to rule God out has so [48:08] many uh negatives to it that [48:12] >> I think I think yes, so when I think [48:13] about what I understand of the Bible, [48:15] there's a particular part of the Bible [48:16] that talks about [48:18] the only way into heaven is through [48:20] Jesus, and other from that I inferred [48:22] that the only way to get into this great [48:24] place that everybody wants to go to is [48:26] by believing [48:27] >> But does everybody want to go to? I'm [48:29] not sure that they do. I I have met many [48:32] people who when they hear what Christ [48:34] offers, they reject it. But that's [48:36] that's that's another point. [48:37] >> So, if if we talk about this [48:39] distribution [48:41] >> Yeah. [48:41] >> sort of birthright distribution of what [48:43] you believe, um and then those that [48:45] believe this one particular thing are [48:47] going to get into this heaven, [48:50] it may it feels unfair. [48:52] Or [48:53] this idea that only those that believe [48:55] get in is wrong. [48:57] Or [48:58] God is not as nice as we thought, and [49:00] he's playing a bit of a cruel game. [49:02] >> a fair bit going for your logic there, I [49:04] I I think. Um [49:07] I think there are aspects of this we [49:09] don't understand, because [49:12] to give a crude example of this, I [49:14] expect to meet Abraham [49:17] and Moses, but they didn't know about [49:19] Jesus. [49:20] >> Cuz they were before. [49:21] >> Yes. [49:22] >> Mhm. [49:22] >> When I approach this, you said you're [49:24] agnostic. I like that word. [49:27] Uh [49:27] >> [clears throat] [49:27] >> people rarely ask me if I'm agnostic. [49:30] But what I'm telling you is I'm agnostic [49:32] about masses of things. It's how I [49:34] learn. [49:35] >> Mhm. [49:35] >> [clears throat] [49:36] >> Uh ginosko in Greek just means I don't [49:38] know. [49:39] >> Yeah. [49:39] >> And [49:40] uh once you take the other step in [49:41] saying I don't know and you can't know, [49:44] it then becomes illogical because if you [49:46] don't know, how can you know that I [49:47] can't know? And I always remember the [49:49] words of Richard Feynman, who was a [49:51] brilliant Nobel Prize winning physicist. [49:53] You probably heard of Richard Feynman, [49:55] who said, "Bend over backwards to [49:58] criticize yourself, because you are the [50:01] easiest person for yourself to deceive." [50:04] >> Amen. [50:05] >> He was dead right. [50:07] And [50:08] that's why I love exploring these [50:10] things. And I feel honored to talk to [50:13] someone who's so refreshing. I think [50:15] there's great hope for our culture. [50:18] And people like yourself exploring and [50:21] sharing [50:22] with the world the conclusions that [50:25] you've come to and the people that [50:27] you're interacting with. [50:28] >> Yeah, like I said, I have no I don't [50:30] have perfect answers either way, so [50:32] that's why the word agnostic seems to be [50:34] perfectly apt. Um, the other real [50:37] question that I had [50:39] that really stumped me when I was 18 [50:40] years old was this point about [50:42] omniscience. [50:42] >> Yes. [50:43] >> I mean, it's the oldest question in in [50:44] the sort of atheist religious battle, [50:47] which is if God is all knowing, he knew [50:48] exactly which individuals would reject [50:50] him and suffer [50:52] um, and go to hell before he even [50:54] created them. [50:55] >> Yeah, that's determinism. [50:57] >> So, how is creating a soul that you know [50:59] is doomed [51:00] um, an act of love? [51:02] >> Well, it doesn't. [51:04] I don't go for that determinism. In [51:06] fact, I've written a book that thick [51:08] about it. [51:09] >> I think it was actually Ricky Gervais [51:10] telling the story of the [51:13] the baby being in born in let's say it's [51:15] Africa or somewhere else or India or [51:17] wherever it might be, UK, who is born [51:20] with a parasite eating its eyeball out [51:22] from the inside. [51:23] >> I know this, yeah. [51:24] >> And I remember hearing that when I was [51:25] 18. [51:26] >> Yeah, terrible. [51:27] >> And thinking, okay, so if God's all [51:28] knowing, he knew that that baby was [51:30] going to have its eye eaten out by a [51:31] parasite before the baby was born, but [51:33] allowed the baby to be born anyway. [51:35] And with my moral compass, I would have [51:37] intervened. And if he's omnipotent or [51:40] powerful, he could have [51:41] So, how do you these Where is the flaw [51:43] in that [51:44] question? [51:46] Is there a flaw? [51:48] Is there a misunderstanding? [51:49] >> I I think there can be a [51:50] misunderstanding, but it's a very [51:52] understandable one because I feel [51:54] exactly the weight of that as well. [51:57] My question that I set out a few minutes [52:00] ago, is there any evidence anywhere [52:03] that God you can trust God with it. And [52:05] the major piece of evidence to my mind [52:08] is the cross of Christ. And if Christ [52:12] really is God who he claimed to be, this [52:14] is God's suffering. [52:16] And why is God suffering? Well, it [52:18] certainly tells me that he hasn't [52:20] remained distant from human suffering, [52:23] but has himself become part of it. Now, [52:26] that's not an answer. There are no [52:27] simplistic answers here. But you see, [52:30] once you remove God, [52:34] that child, there's no hope for it. It's [52:36] dead, gone, out, nothing. [52:38] But suppose God can compensate that [52:41] child because he has the power to raise [52:43] from the dead as he did with Jesus. [52:46] That changes everything for me. [52:49] The universe without a resurrection. [52:52] I don't know whether you've ever watched [52:53] my debate, the first one with Richard [52:55] Dawkins. [52:56] >> I suspect I have. I watched them all. [52:58] >> last bit of it, we were suddenly told [53:01] we'd only 2 minutes to wrap up instead [53:03] of nine each. [53:06] And I said something about the [53:08] resurrection. And I never forget what [53:11] Richard said. It was something like [53:12] this. We've had a great discussion [53:13] [clears throat] about big ideas and so [53:15] on. [53:16] And now we come down to the resurrection [53:18] of Jesus. How petty. [53:21] How parochial. How unworthy of the [53:24] universe. And I remember thinking, [53:28] if Jesus rose from the dead, it's the [53:30] biggest thing that's ever happened [53:32] because it may [53:34] open the way to understanding [53:36] that there is life after death. And you [53:39] see, C. S. Lewis has helped me a lot. I [53:41] used to listen to him. I'm that old. [53:43] >> [snorts] [53:44] >> He has helped me a lot in this idea of [53:49] ascension which there is more than one [53:51] world. And we're so conditioned to [53:54] thinking that this world is the only one [53:55] there is. But if there is another world [53:58] and there is a loving God, then I [54:01] suspect, I can't prove this to you, [54:04] but when we one day see and enter that [54:07] world [54:09] and see what God has done with the kind [54:11] of child you mentioned, we'll have no [54:14] more questions. [54:16] >> So you think he's compensated that [54:18] child? [54:19] >> Oh, yes. [54:20] God is a god of love. He'll do much [54:22] better than Look, the biggest gift that [54:25] God has given you and me [54:27] is [54:29] our moral sense and the capacity to [54:31] love. [54:33] Now, we analyze problems like this [54:37] with [54:38] our God-given capacities. [54:42] And [54:43] we come [54:45] and I understand it perfectly well [54:47] because I've come to the same place as [54:48] you [54:50] and say, "Well, God, if I'd been you, I [54:52] would have done this." [54:55] Well, I suspect one day we're going to [54:57] find out why God didn't. [55:01] He's going to let me die one day. I've [55:02] nearly died died already. I've said [55:05] goodbye to my wife for the way [55:07] and they thought they weren't going 14 [55:09] years ago. [55:10] And I said goodbye and it's interesting [55:13] when things like that hit you. Forgive [55:15] the personal reference, but it's very [55:16] real. [55:17] Total peace both of us had [55:21] as I went into the operating theater [55:24] and the surgeon saved my life. And this [55:26] would take us down another rabbit hole, [55:28] but I got to New Zealand just a few days [55:30] after the earthquake [55:32] and I was on a lecture tour and [55:34] everything was scrapped. I was on [55:36] television, radio, but only one topic, [55:38] why earthquakes? [55:40] >> [snorts] [55:40] >> You see. And I met people that had lost [55:43] loved ones and all this kind of thing. [55:45] And I talked about the God who has [55:48] suffered and raised Jesus from the dead. [55:51] And the interesting thing was it was [55:53] that [55:55] that gave the most hope to the people [55:57] that were listening to me because they [55:59] told me and wrote me little letters [56:00] afterwards and so on. So, I I think [56:03] there's something big here, but that God [56:05] allows these things to happen is [56:07] something that in the end we have to [56:10] take on board, even when they happen to [56:13] us. [56:14] >> What about all the um the humans that [56:17] lived before Jesus came? [56:19] >> Well, God will never judge anybody for [56:21] not knowing what they didn't know. [56:23] >> Interesting. [56:25] That's an interesting idea. So, I don't [56:27] know. [56:29] >> [laughter] [56:29] >> So, am I good? Am I getting to heaven? [56:33] >> No one is good but God. [56:35] You see, [56:36] >> Is it important for me to believe in [56:38] >> know a great deal. [56:40] That's obvious to me. You do know a [56:42] great deal. You know what this is all [56:44] about. And in a sense you've been very [56:46] near [56:48] at the beginning. And you're now doing [56:50] an exploration. And I mean your life [56:53] story is that you must write your [56:54] autobiography sometime. But wait wait a [56:57] few years. [56:57] >> Yeah, I mean I think I need a few more [56:58] experiences. [56:59] >> Yes, but you will get them. I I I really [57:03] believe that the openness is the [57:05] important thing. [57:06] >> Yeah. [57:07] >> Quiz people. Put your Christian friends [57:10] under the [57:11] >> Yes, I know. I know. [laughter] [57:12] It's lovely to find someone who's [57:14] prepared to do that, quite frankly. [57:16] >> Is it important that I believe in God? [57:19] Like if I live a good life and I'm kind [57:21] to people and I do my best. [57:22] >> see, that's exactly the point I was [57:24] making. That people think that living a [57:26] good life and being kind to people is [57:29] what God is interested in. When God has [57:32] prepared for us [57:34] a relationship with himself through [57:35] Christ that deals with [57:39] the forgiveness of sins that we all [57:41] made. Forgive me using a hackneyed [57:44] phrase, but that's it. [57:45] And will give us a new life and a power [57:49] to live, a new power. [57:51] You know, [57:52] it's all very well saying I do good and [57:55] I do this and do the other thing, but we [57:57] don't have the power to live as we [57:59] should. [58:00] If we compare ourselves to the Sermon on [58:02] the Mount for a week, we'll soon realize [58:04] that we're lacking. [58:06] And [58:07] I I think one of the big changes comes [58:09] in people as they realize just the depth [58:13] of what they might be capable of. [58:17] And possibly the depths of some things [58:19] that sadly they do [58:21] and are facing a a big need of [58:24] forgiveness. You meet many of them in [58:26] prisons, of course, but [58:28] I I have seen such remarkable things [58:31] happen both [snorts] directly with [58:34] people who've made such a mess of life [58:37] and God has met them even in death row [58:39] in Russia and places like that [58:42] where I was able to go because I speak [58:43] the language to a certain extent. Again, [58:46] that I find tremendously powerful [58:49] evidence that God is at work in these [58:51] people's lives. [58:53] >> It is [58:54] statistically the case that the more [58:56] hopeless your life becomes the higher [58:57] the probability you have of turning to [59:00] um a religion. And also, if you're [59:01] having a crisis of meaning in your life [59:03] for whatever reason, I looked at some of [59:04] the data and it does show that [59:06] >> That's absolutely right and that's what [59:08] you'd expect if the efforts true at [59:10] least a certain extent. It gives that [59:12] people something outside themselves [59:14] that's simple psychology, I would have [59:17] thought. [59:18] >> Simple psychology. [59:19] >> And it doesn't prove the truth or [59:20] falsehood [59:20] >> the truth because what if I believe in [59:23] dragging at the bottom of the garden [59:24] >> I know. [59:25] Leprechauns [59:26] >> if you're Irish. [59:27] >> And it seems to be the case that really [59:28] irrespective of which religion you [59:30] you know fills that you know place in [59:32] your life, you still get the same boost [59:34] in meaning post starting to believe. [59:35] >> Well, I'm not convinced of that, you [59:37] see. Because I'm sitting here as a [59:40] Christian, and I've reason for being a [59:42] Christian because I don't find this need [59:44] met in those [59:46] practitioners of other religions. I [59:49] don't find that sense of fulfillment and [59:53] peace uh that comes through the [59:55] forgiveness in Christ. Now, when I say [59:57] that, [59:58] I need to guard that very carefully [60:01] because one of the troubles [60:04] in and you will probably have realized [60:06] this in talking about different [60:08] religions is that once you begin to [60:10] criticize a religion, [60:13] people rightly think you're looking down [60:15] at them. [60:17] And so I clear the ground completely by [60:19] saying that [60:22] a pagan or a person in any religion [60:25] could put me to shame by their moral [60:27] behavior. [60:29] In raising questions [60:31] about what is taught by a particular [60:33] religion, I'm not criticizing your moral [60:36] stance. And C.S. Lewis helped me greatly [60:39] there. He wrote a book in the 1940s [60:41] where he tackled, I think, 40 different [60:44] religions and philosophies, and in every [60:47] one of them he found the golden rule. Do [60:49] unto others what you would And he points [60:52] out that this is uh morally [60:55] hardwired in into your system. So that [60:59] when I'm talking to people of other [61:01] faiths and ask these questions, I I'm [61:03] very careful to say that at the [61:05] beginning. But [61:07] we've got to face the fact that there [61:09] are differences. My Jewish friends [61:13] believe that Jesus died and did not [61:15] rise. My Muslim friends believed he [61:18] didn't die. I believe he both died and [61:20] rose. Those three things cannot [61:22] simultaneously true. [61:24] >> But when I look at the stats here, data [61:25] shows that devout Muslims and a devout [61:27] Hindu get the exact same psychological [61:29] meaning boost and sense of peace as a [61:32] devout Christian. [61:33] >> Well, how do you measure that? [61:35] >> Well, they ask them, "Is your life more [61:36] meaningful?" And sometimes um I've got [61:38] one particular friend who's [61:40] part of his you know, uh [61:43] evidence that what he believes is true [61:45] is the feeling he got when he started [61:47] believing it. [61:48] >> Yeah, well, [61:49] >> But I but the data suggests that [61:50] >> that if it is true, a positive feeling [61:53] would reinforce that, of course, but it [61:55] doesn't prove it in the end. But then [61:58] your criteria for yourself of what you [62:01] accept will be different from that [62:03] person. So, you have to proceed [62:06] on the basis like Thomas of old. He [62:09] wouldn't accept what the other guys [62:10] said. He said, "I need the evidence for [62:12] myself." And you need the evidence for [62:15] yourself. [62:16] >> I guess you [62:16] >> Evidence of the kind that's going to [62:18] give you a settle of peace and [62:20] confidence in what you believe. I can [62:22] understand that perfectly. [62:24] >> Then there are also thinking then I was [62:25] thinking that there's fiction movies [62:26] I've watched that made me feel really [62:28] good. [62:28] >> Yeah, sure. [62:29] >> Afterwards. And they made me feel like [62:30] more motivated and connected to the [62:32] universe. [62:32] >> course. [62:36] >> Hey, what day? [62:37] >> Uh just making myself a delicious [62:39] coffee. [62:40] >> From the freezer? [62:41] >> From the freezer? Have you not heard [62:42] about Cometeer? [62:43] >> No. [62:44] >> Oh my gosh. This is going to change your [62:45] life. I invested in this company called [62:48] Cometeer last year and then I'm one of [62:49] the sponsors of this podcast because [62:51] they've taken a pretty revolutionary [62:52] approach to making coffee. Every coffee [62:55] is precision brewed at 10 times the [62:58] strength and then they flash freeze it [63:00] with liquid nitrogen to lock in the [63:03] flavor and freshness. And then it's [63:05] delivered to you on dry ice in these [63:07] recyclable aluminum capsules still [63:10] frozen, like a little ice cube. All you [63:12] have to do is pop the capsule out, add [63:16] some hot water, [63:17] and then you stir it, and you are good [63:20] to go. You can also make delicious ice [63:22] coffee drinks as well. Just pour it in, [63:26] stir it up. [63:29] And for anyone that hasn't tried it, you [63:30] can get $30 off your first order of [63:33] Cometeer coffee if you go to [63:35] cometeer.com/steven. [63:38] I've done almost 700 interviews with [63:41] some of the most interesting people in [63:42] the world. And one of the things you [63:43] learn, which is unexpected, is that [63:45] vulnerability is the doorway to [63:47] connection. And after sitting here for [63:48] 2-3 hours with a guest, I feel a deep [63:51] sense of connection to them. And as they [63:53] leave, what I get them to do is to write [63:56] a question in the diary of a CEO. We've [63:59] taken all of the questions from The [64:01] Diary of a CEO. We have put the question [64:04] here on this card with the name of the [64:06] person that wrote it. So, you can sit at [64:08] home, as I do with my fiance, and my [64:10] colleagues at work, and other people in [64:12] my life. Whenever we get a minute, we [64:14] play The Diary of a CEO conversation [64:16] cards. And it is incredible what [64:19] happens. These are great if you're in a [64:20] romantic relationship, and you want to [64:22] connect your partner more. These are [64:23] also great if you're in a team, and you [64:25] want to bond your team together. And I [64:27] have to say they're also great for [64:28] families that want to learn more about [64:29] each other, and that need a good excuse [64:31] to spend some time in a digital world in [64:34] the analog environment connecting human [64:36] to human. It is remarkable what the [64:39] right question at the right time can do. [64:41] Go to the diary.com, [64:44] and you can get these conversation cards [64:46] right now. [64:47] So, going back to this question I asked [64:48] about good people living a good life. [64:52] It it it seems to be the case that the [64:54] the Bible suggests that if you don't [64:56] believe in God, even if you lived a good [64:57] life, you go to hell. And hell is [64:59] described as not a nice place. [65:02] So, I I was thinking about the most kind [65:04] person I know that's lived her life to [65:06] be unbelievable passed away. She didn't [65:08] believe. [65:09] Does that mean she's in hell? [65:10] >> Well, [65:11] you can't answer that. Let me just say [65:14] something here that [65:17] what scripture reveals is a very [65:20] interesting thing. [65:21] That the only people to whom Jesus [65:23] talked about hell were religious bigots [65:27] who were in danger of it. [65:29] He didn't talk about it to ordinary [65:31] folks who were struggling with [65:34] believing and trusting God and all the [65:36] rest. That's point number one. [65:37] >> What what is what what are you what are [65:39] you implying there? [65:40] >> Well, what I'm implying there is that [65:44] we paint hell as something [65:47] ogre-like, [65:49] God-stuffing and demon-stuffing [65:52] bodies into hell when actually [65:56] I think Lewis got it right here, you [65:58] know, when he talks about this. That [66:02] hell is absence of God [66:04] and it's chosen. [66:07] If a person doesn't want God in their [66:09] life, and I've known people like that, [66:12] and they choose it, God will give them [66:14] what they chose. Otherwise, God is going [66:16] to have to force his way into their [66:18] lives and they don't want him. And here [66:20] is the amazing thing, to my mind, about [66:23] Jesus and his attitude. He would go [66:25] places, he would heal people, he would [66:27] bring peace into their lives and all the [66:31] rest of it, but when folk saw what he [66:34] did and said, "Go. Leave us alone." he [66:37] went. [66:39] He didn't force his way into their [66:40] lives. And it seems to me that the one [66:44] example in the New Testament of a person [66:48] who [66:49] did not live a good life and neglected [66:51] the poor around him and ended [66:56] in that place, there is no evidence that [66:59] he wanted out of it. What he said was, [67:02] "Please send Abraham to my brothers that [67:06] they don't come to this place. There's [67:08] no indication that he wanted out of it. [67:10] And I think this is a grim reality here, [67:13] that when we use these words, we need to [67:16] be immensely careful. [67:18] You can choose [67:20] not to have God, and God will honor that [67:23] choice, and that is hell. [67:27] >> One of the things that I'm I grew up [67:28] believing because of the the Bible was [67:30] that if you repented [67:32] >> Yes. [67:32] >> which is, you know, to ask forgiveness, [67:34] admit your sins, etc., acknowledge God, [67:37] believe, then your sins would be [67:38] forgiven. [67:39] >> Mhm. [67:40] >> So, if someone was a serial killer for [67:43] their whole life and then repented at [67:44] the end of their life, would they be [67:46] forgiven and allowed into heaven? And I [67:48] guess this is kind of links to the [67:49] question I just asked, which is if [67:50] someone was a doctor for their whole [67:51] life [67:52] curing childhood cancer, but they didn't [67:54] believe, [67:55] they would theoretically be going to [67:56] this place described as hell. [67:58] >> Yeah. We can argue about cases like that [68:00] all the time. Neither of us is God, and [68:03] the way God deals with these people. [68:05] After all, next to Christ on the cross [68:07] were two thieves. Well, they were [68:09] terrorists, actually. They'd both [68:11] murdered, apparently. And one of them [68:14] railed against Jesus and shouted and all [68:16] this kind of thing. And the other [68:18] uh [68:19] simply said to him, "I deserve to be [68:21] here. Remember me when you come into [68:24] your kingdom." And Jesus turned to him [68:26] on the cross and said, "Today you will [68:28] be with me in paradise." [68:30] >> So, he's forgiven a murderer? [68:31] >> Yes. He in that sense, yes. And the [68:35] Apostle Paul, you know, was a murderer. [68:37] There are deep mysteries here. It's just [68:39] amazing. [68:41] I never forget looking through the door [68:43] of a Russian [68:45] uh security death row. I had never been [68:47] in a death row before, and this stink, [68:50] it was just like a nightmare. [68:53] And because I was the only one of the [68:54] Brits who could speak Russian, I went up [68:56] to the door. [68:58] And a chap came over and looked at me, [69:00] gaunt and all this. And he was just [69:02] awaiting execution. [69:05] And what he said to me was this. He [69:06] said, "I deserve to be here." He killed [69:08] 12 women or something. I can't remember [69:11] which. [69:12] And then his face just burst into a [69:15] a what what I can only describe as a [69:17] ghastly smile. [69:20] >> [snorts] [69:20] >> And he said, "I met Jesus here, and he [69:22] forgave me." [69:24] And you just [69:27] you go away with a very [69:30] burdened heart, I think. [69:33] And he said, "My colleague lying over [69:35] there is the same." [69:37] What do you make of it? I don't think [69:38] we're going to find out. [69:40] >> I don't know. I feel like I'm wired to [69:42] try I try not to solve these [69:43] problems. [69:44] These big questions. I have to like [69:45] figure them out, or they'll just sit [69:47] there causing increasingly more [69:50] confusion, which pops me right on that [69:52] agnostic fence. [69:53] >> Yes, I would encourage you to [69:55] concentrate on the one that you think is [69:57] most important. [69:58] One at a time. And I I don't know, [70:02] because [70:03] I've only met you. [70:05] I think what you're doing [70:07] by [70:09] talking to people from different [70:11] backgrounds, and so on. I'd love to be [70:14] able to say, "Here's where you must [70:16] look." But each one of us is so complex, [70:19] and what will answer the question for [70:21] you might not answer it for the person [70:23] sitting next to you. [70:24] >> Mhm. [70:25] >> But don't stop exploring, I would say. [70:29] But I don't think you will. [70:31] >> No, I won't. That's for sure. Cuz I find [70:33] the the curious pursuit of truth in and [70:36] of itself a rewarding pursuit, [70:38] irrespective of whether I ever find the [70:39] answers. [70:40] >> That's the key. A speech that made a [70:43] deep impression on me was given by [70:45] Alexander Solzhenitsyn when he was [70:48] pushed out of the Soviet Union. Do not [70:50] compromise in the least with lies. Live [70:53] not by lies. I think our generation [70:56] needs to hear that because one of the [71:00] great and tragic capacities of AI is the [71:04] spread of lies, deep fakes, all the rest [71:06] of it. [71:07] I've been subject to it myself in the [71:09] last month. [71:11] >> When you think about the impact that AI [71:13] is going to have on human purpose, we [71:15] talk a lot about job losses and [71:17] you know, white-collar workers, [71:18] entry-level roles, and then really like [71:19] everything else. If If you have a long [71:21] enough time horizon, it's conceivable [71:23] that many of the roles we all do today, [71:24] including maybe even as a podcaster. Um [71:26] I think Spotify announced this month [71:28] that you're going to be able to generate [71:29] your own podcasts with AI. Um [71:32] What is the high-level sort of [71:33] philosophical point we need to [71:35] understand about meaning and how to live [71:37] a good life uh in a world where some of [71:40] us might lose our jobs and have to [71:42] contend with change in a way that we've [71:44] not experienced before? [71:46] I think we just have to I mean, our [71:49] children, grandchildren, all the rest of [71:50] it. And one of my sons has beginning to [71:53] ask questions, "Dad, AI is looks as if [71:55] it's going to replace my job." [71:57] Well, he's tech-savvy and he will rise [72:01] to it, I suspect. But all industrial [72:04] revolutions did this, but this is going [72:06] to do it on a scale never before seen. [72:09] And the tragedy is [72:11] uh I was talking about this in South [72:13] Africa and they said, "It's all very [72:14] well to tell us to re-skill people, but [72:17] if you don't have the educational [72:18] infrastructure to do that, [72:21] you'll just force a much bigger divide [72:23] between the rich and the poor." [72:25] >> Well, they're really worried about [72:27] >> I think the important thing, which is [72:29] why I wrote my books, is to inform and [72:32] get people thinking and get them [72:34] talking. [72:35] >> What is the conversation you want them [72:37] to be talking about? [72:38] >> I think it's a very wide-ranging [72:41] conversation. You know, there are [72:43] existential [72:45] things for people. They're afraid. [72:48] >> Should they be? [72:50] >> Well, they should be afraid of some [72:51] things. I think the creeping advance of [72:55] totalitarianism is something that could [72:57] engulf us all [73:00] if we're not very careful. It's [73:02] creeping, creeping, creeping, and is [73:04] being rolled out in parts of the world, [73:06] particularly China, but not only. I read [73:09] a very interesting report by a Chinese [73:11] watcher [73:13] saying [73:14] "Beware, you in the West, because the [73:16] only difference between us and you is [73:18] you've got all the technology, but not [73:20] yet a central government imposing it." [73:24] Not yet. Beware. [73:26] And I think we have to beware [73:28] [clears throat] because we are [73:29] sleepwalking into this. [73:32] Uh Sir Anthony Seldon, I don't know [73:34] whether you've come across him. [73:36] >> [snorts] [73:36] >> He's a an educationist very highly [73:38] regarded by various governments has [73:41] written a book about AI as affecting [73:43] education. [73:45] And, of course, it's having a [73:46] devastating effect, as you know. [73:49] What is an essay? [73:51] Everybody's using AI, and it's hard to [73:54] recognize whether it's AI or not now. [73:58] So [snorts] that we're into a whole new [74:00] world or coming rapidly into it. [74:04] How do we know [74:04] [snorts and clears throat] what is true [74:05] and what isn't? [74:07] A few weeks ago [74:09] I was contacted could a publisher [74:12] produce a transcript of a recent lecture [74:14] I'd given because they liked it so much. [74:17] Never heard of it. I looked it up, [74:19] discovered a website describing itself [74:21] as Lennox Logic. [74:24] And it was a picture of me, but it was [74:26] deep fake all the way through, and [74:28] AI-generated [74:30] material that I would never have said, [74:32] all politicized and everything else. [74:34] >> Is it conceivable that maybe, you know, [74:38] so much of this technology has promised [74:39] that it would make us more human, and so [74:41] much of it failed, it made us more [74:42] isolated and lonely. [74:43] >> Oh, yes. [74:44] >> Is it conceivable that if a technology [74:45] comes along like AI, it will render us [74:49] um [74:49] useful for the things that humans are [74:52] uniquely positioned to do. [74:55] As in, you know, being with each other [74:57] in the real world and relationships. And [74:59] is it conceivable that maybe we were [75:01] never meant to sit in front of screens [75:02] tapping buttons and [75:03] >> Oh, I think that's absolutely true. [75:05] What's already exercising many people's [75:07] minds [75:08] in that direction. [75:09] >> And could that be a better life? [75:11] >> Well, how would I judge that? [75:14] >> I I guess one way Yeah, that's a good [75:15] point. Um You know, I was thinking about [75:17] this. I was thinking, is this like the [75:18] moment where we kind of regress back to [75:23] how we used to live? Our true maybe [75:26] human nature. Is that Is that what [75:27] happens here where I don't know, we [75:29] spend more time with each other in the [75:30] real world and we [75:32] cuz that's what, you know, that's very [75:33] human and [75:34] my Maslovian needs of connection and [75:36] touch and [75:37] >> Yeah, yeah. Well, you can you [75:39] you can demonstrate [clears throat] [75:40] that. Look at these groups of parents [75:43] who have uh said to their kids, "Look, [75:46] we're going away into the country for a [75:47] week [75:48] and we're taking your smartphones away." [75:52] And [clears throat] they grumble and [75:53] say, "No, no, no." And they come back [75:54] after the week having rediscovered [75:56] nature. They don't want to use their [75:57] smartphones very much. Totally [76:00] transformed by touch and taste and [76:02] feeling. You see [76:04] >> [panting] [76:05] >> AI is a machine. [76:08] It doesn't have any of our five senses [76:11] which are all connected with our [76:12] consciousness. It doesn't see. [76:15] It doesn't hear. [76:16] It doesn't taste. [76:17] >> When you say it doesn't [76:19] When you say it doesn't it doesn't see. [76:21] >> Oh, it can it can be programmed to [76:23] recognize patterns, but it has no [76:25] awareness of what the process of seeing [76:27] is. [76:27] >> Does it need it? [76:29] >> Well, that's not the point. What I'm [76:31] saying is it's [76:32] uh distinctively human that we [76:34] understand what seeing is. We know what [76:37] seeing red is. [76:38] >> Do we? [76:38] >> The machine Yes, I think we do. I mean, [76:41] we can philosophize all around it, but [76:43] it's a conscious experience. [76:46] And consciousness from a scientific [76:48] perspective is called the hard problem. [76:50] No one knows what it is. [76:52] >> We don't understand it. [76:53] >> Yes, we can't You can't replicate it. [76:56] >> So, how do we know if [76:57] AI is conscious? [76:59] If the output is the same, I mean, I can [77:01] point an AI at this and say, "What is [77:03] it?" And the AI will say, "It's a mug." [77:05] And I can get a human talking here and [77:07] say, "What is that?" And they'll go, "A [77:08] mug." [77:09] Now, the output is the same. [77:11] >> Yes, but the understanding is not there. [77:14] >> And why does that part Why is that [77:15] critical? [77:16] >> Well, because there's a huge difference [77:19] in being a machine and responding to a [77:22] program created by others [77:25] and being aware of what you're doing [77:27] consciously. That's a totally higher [77:29] level of being. [77:31] >> I agree, but what does that matter in [77:33] this context? [77:34] >> Well, [77:35] >> one Another way of asking these [77:36] questions actually visualized by what I [77:38] have in front of me here, because one of [77:39] the big big debates around AI is is it [77:41] creative? [77:42] >> Yes, I know. [77:43] >> So, here we have a picture done by [77:48] a human. [77:49] >> Yes. [77:50] >> Here, which is, you know, picture of a [77:52] family and a dog and a And then we have [77:54] another picture here, which is done by [77:57] AI. [77:57] >> Yes. [77:58] >> And we have another picture here, which [77:59] is done by a different AI. [78:00] >> Yes. [78:02] >> Now, there's a debate that um AI can't [78:04] be creative. [78:06] Now, [78:07] can AI be creative? [78:09] >> Well, if you call what's in front of you [78:11] as creative, then it can be. [78:14] But, it now comes down to the very big [78:17] question of what you actually mean by [78:19] creative. [78:20] >> [laughter] [78:20] >> Yeah. [78:21] >> You see, it can create things. It can [78:23] put things together that [78:25] haven't been in that form before, but [78:29] it's not aware of doing it. It doesn't [78:32] know that those are children. [78:35] Because it doesn't know. [78:36] >> But, if I ask it, "What is that, it [78:38] would say a child. [78:38] >> Yes, but it doesn't know. [78:41] Like we know. [78:43] >> And does And this it goes back to the [78:44] same question, which is does [78:46] which is like what the process [78:49] Why does the process matter if the [78:52] output is identical? [78:55] >> Well, let me just say that that view is [78:59] exactly the view that Alan Turing took [79:02] at the beginning. And if you look at [79:05] what's often referred to as the AI [79:07] Bible, uh Peter Norvig and his [79:09] colleagues, he said, "Look, [79:11] we are not trying [79:14] to create a conscious machine. We [79:15] wouldn't even know what that meant. [79:17] >> Yeah. [79:18] >> We are happy [79:19] with the imitation game. [79:22] And that's good enough for us. We're not [79:23] trying to do it. But you see, [79:26] the conscious side involves all our [79:29] appreciation of life and nature and [79:31] beauty and so on that we can see some [79:34] meaning in, but also there's another [79:36] thing. [79:37] There's a consciousness [79:39] of other people. [79:41] And there's God consciousness. I don't [79:44] think AI anywhere near that. Machines, [79:47] there are certain things they cannot do [79:50] even potentially that the human mind can [79:52] do. So there's no way a machine is ever [79:54] going to be able to simulate a human [79:56] mind completely. But that's difficult. [79:58] That's difficult mathematics and all the [80:00] rest of it and it's highly [80:01] controversial. [80:03] >> Why is it an important conversation to [80:04] have that [80:06] it is conscious or not conscious when [80:08] the output is is the same? [80:10] >> Yes, I I can see the question. But if [80:13] you want to live in a reductive universe [80:16] which ends up being meaningless, well, [80:18] then you can go that way. There's not [80:20] nothing to stop you. But it seems to me [80:22] there are enough indicators [80:24] within nature, within science, within [80:27] our human experience [80:29] that tell us there's a bigger world. [80:33] And this is the right and left brain [80:35] stuff. We're back to McGilchrist again. [80:37] He would he would his stuff and AI is [80:40] very strong. He thinks it's really [80:43] dangerous because it's ruining [80:45] all this side of the brain and the [80:47] richness [80:49] of human experience and it's in danger [80:51] of destroying it. [80:53] He actually invites people to come and [80:55] fight with him. [80:57] >> So in such a world, what is it that [80:58] makes humans um what what is it that [81:00] makes us special? [81:02] Is it that those human things we talked [81:04] about relational [81:05] >> Oh, I think so. Yes, absolutely. And the [81:07] fact that you and I can have a [81:08] conversation like this. [81:11] >> You could have this conversation with [81:12] AI? [81:13] >> Not the same way. AI is pretty thin [81:16] still. You can have a conversation of [81:18] sorts, but remember who's responsible [81:22] for its capacity? Humans. It's something [81:24] made in the image of humans and that's a [81:27] dangerous thing. I'd prefer [81:29] I'd prefer to remain with something made [81:31] in the image of God. [81:32] >> It's interesting cuz we almost we're [81:34] we're getting to a point where there's [81:35] going to probably be some like ethical [81:37] questions around robotics. But I mean [81:39] around robotics. [81:40] >> Oh, everywhere. [81:41] >> You know in the same way that many of us [81:43] feel quite empathetic towards like [81:45] trees. [81:45] >> Yes, yes. [81:46] >> And we feel empathetic towards animals. [81:49] Now trees haven't got a brain, but just [81:51] cutting down a tree needlessly I think [81:54] would annoy a lot of people because it's [81:56] >> It would annoy me. [81:57] >> Yeah, it would annoy me, too. And I [81:58] think there's almost going to get to a [81:59] point where like [82:01] you know, [82:02] people are going to start asking similar [82:04] questions around [82:05] >> robots. [82:07] >> Which is [82:09] it's an interesting question. [82:10] >> It is. It is. [82:12] >> Let me ask you a final question then, [82:13] which is what is the the most important [82:15] thing we haven't talked about that we [82:17] should have talked about as it relates [82:19] to [82:20] all of the work in these tangential [82:22] subjects? [82:24] >> Oh, I can't answer that. That [82:26] >> [laughter] [82:27] >> Perhaps the most important thing is [82:30] finding the trigger that will help you [82:32] to take a step forward into [82:36] into faith, into the Christian faith. [82:40] And [82:41] I would just encourage you to keep [82:43] asking your questions in the open way [82:45] you've done, and I have regarded it an [82:48] honor to [82:50] have this discussion, and I hope very [82:53] much it won't be the last one. But age [82:55] may prevent that. But thank you very [82:57] much. [82:58] >> We have a closing tradition where the [83:00] last guest leaves a question for the [83:02] next, not knowing who they're leaving it [83:03] for. [83:07] And the question that's left for you [83:11] in a world with so many challenges, what [83:14] can we do to restore hope and trigger [83:17] engagement? [83:20] >> Give people a real basis for hope that [83:24] transcends this world. [83:27] And the only place I know where to find [83:29] that [83:31] is in Christ and in Christianity. [83:35] >> John, thank you. One of the One of the [83:36] most compelling [83:38] arguments for uh [83:41] God that you've presented and your way [83:43] of seeing the world and being [83:45] is not actually necessarily anything [83:47] you've written in your books or not not [83:48] necessarily anything you've said. It is [83:50] It is actually [83:52] you. [83:53] >> [laughter] [83:54] >> And uh you you you have a certain peace [83:59] and contentment [84:01] that I rarely see in people that I [84:03] interview, but I often see and I've [84:06] almost always seen [84:08] in the Christians that I've interviewed. [84:10] And this is a interesting phenomenon for [84:12] me. I interviewed Wesley Huff recently. [84:13] Do you know Wesley Huff? [84:14] >> Yes. Yeah. [84:15] >> He was the same as you. [84:16] >> Canadian. And Wesley's a bright cookie. [84:18] >> Yeah, he was very much He gave me the [84:20] the feeling as you. Just like feels like [84:21] a really happy person. Very sort of [84:22] content, rounded, well [84:24] >> There are many of us. [84:25] >> Yeah. But, it seems to be a trend that, [84:27] you know, a lot of the Christian [84:28] apologists that I've interviewed have [84:29] that [84:30] anchoring that [84:31] >> Yeah. [84:31] >> so many of us are looking for. [84:33] >> There's a real sense of that. [84:35] You know, [84:37] I sit in front of many people, and of [84:39] course they often ask me questions I [84:42] don't even understand, but [84:45] in life, that peace is very important to [84:50] me. And also, what we started with. [84:53] When I look at you, [84:56] I see someone who's of infinite value [84:58] made in the image of God. And so, what I [85:00] say to you, or think about you, is [85:03] hugely important to me. [85:06] And I wish you well. [85:09] >> Thank you. [85:10] Um I highly recommend I mean, you've [85:11] written so many books. I I don't have [85:12] all of them here, but I have a long list [85:13] of them. But, I highly recommend [85:15] everybody goes and checks out your [85:16] autobiography, which is your most recent [85:19] works. [85:20] >> Yep. [85:20] >> Um it's called John Lennox. I'm going to [85:22] link it below. It's a spiritual and [85:24] intellectual autobiography that I think [85:26] is highly fascinating to read because of [85:28] how diverse your thinking and skill sets [85:30] are. But, also, this wonderful I mean, [85:32] you wrote If people are interested in [85:34] the subject of AI, then I highly [85:35] >> Then they should read 2084. [85:37] >> I'll link 2084 below as well. That's [85:39] 2084, Artificial Intelligence and the [85:41] Future of Humanity. Um and I highly [85:43] recommend everybody goes and reads both [85:45] books because they you are a truly [85:48] um fascinating person with a very unique [85:50] skill stack and experience stack and [85:52] perspective. [85:53] Fascinating. Thank you so much, John. [85:55] >> Oh, thank you. [85:57] >> YouTube have this new crazy algorithm [85:58] where they know exactly what video you [86:00] would like to watch next based on AI and [86:03] all of your viewing behavior. And the [86:04] algorithm says that this video is the [86:07] perfect video for you. It's different [86:09] for everybody looking right now. Check [86:11] this video out, I bet you you might love [86:13] it.