Blind Faith, Brian Johnson & the Search for Immortality
Cameron (00:00)
Hello and welcome to Thinking Out Loud. I'm your co-host, Cameron McAllister.
Nathan (00:25)
And I'm your co-host Nathan Rittenhouse.
Cameron (00:27)
I was thinking the other day, Nathan, about the notion of blind faith and how I don't think it actually exists. Let me expla Yeah, let me just explain real quickly. So I'll be talking about this pretty soon at the Summer Academy. So these thoughts are fresh in my mind. If we see you there, you can you can talk to me about it more and tell me where I'm wrong. But blind faith, I suppose, is theoretically possible. You get you hear it
Nathan (00:36)
yeah, let's go there.
Cameron (00:55)
Bandied about lot in certain online debates. But all I can say is I've never seen any actual evidence of it in real life. There is such a thing, of course, as misplaced faith or bad faith, but blind faith? I don't think so. So David Foster Wallace famously said, probably the most famous thing he ever said from the This Is Water graduation commencement address that he gave at Kenyon College in two thousand five. He says, In the day-to-day trenches of adult life,
There's actually no such thing as atheism. There's no such thing as not worshiping. Everybody worships. The only choice you get is what to what to worship. And when he says worship, obviously he doesn't mean everybody goes to a temple or a church or kneels before a shrine. He means that if you look at the practices of our lives, you will see acts of devotion, basically. And what I want to say and so the typical culprits here, the usual suspects would be he was saying that as a non Christian. Yeah. Important qualifier there.
Nathan (01:43)
And he was saying that as a non-Christian, to be clear. So this is not
Cameron (01:49)
But the typical culprits or idols that we, you know, devote our lives to would be, you know, money, power, fame, beauty, romance, or just love. I mean, love could c include include romantic love, but also friendship. Let's include that in there. Though those those those are the things that we tend to devote our lives to. Now, here's why it's not blind, irrational faith. So I think, of course, especially
None of these withstand the test of time. They don't withstand too much scrutiny. But it does make some good crooked sense to put your faith into each of these for a time because they do yield very powerful, tangible results.
Nathan (02:34)
Yeah, some level of satisfaction can be achieved in each of them. I mean, with a little bit of gumption. Self-control.
Cameron (02:38)
Absolutely. So I mean
yeah, I mean you you find you fall in love with somebody. I mean, there are a few things in the world that are more powerful than few feelings that can rival falling in love. Deep, deep, close, intimate friendship. I mean, it's it's beautiful, it's magical. In fact, if you not to sound too, you know, woo-woo, but if you look at life and you ask somebody what is it really that makes everything worthwhile in your life? It comes down to relationships.
The friendships you have that greatly enrich your life. So it makes sense up to a certain point to think, hey, this could save me. And again, if you if you quiz people on this, they're not going to tell you, yeah, my spouse will save me, my perfect physique will save me. But if you look at the practices of people's lives, you'll see a different story. So that brings to mind Brian Johnson.
very sort of generic name, but we're talking about the billionaire who wants to cheat j cheat death. And I believe he spends two million dollars annually on mm hmm. On his health. Yeah. Yep. Well he's been so he and I believe there's there was a documentary made about him. I think it was on Netflix. I didn't watch it. Yeah, yeah.
Nathan (03:46)
You know, just set that aside in your budget for your longevity treatments.
Okay, hang
on, so let's say that you have a billion dollars. Is two million bucks a ridiculous budget for your health?
I mean, is it, there's a little, mean, yeah, we would probably say that it is, but I mean, from his perspective, I took back to your blind faith thing. I don't, mean, this is within the framework of what else does he have to go for here? So why wouldn't you invest heavily in your health?
Cameron (04:21)
Yeah.
Sure. And I mean, there are athletes out there who spend close to that amount on on their training every year. I mean, I think they're d did profiles recently on because of the World Cup on certain soccer players and how much they spend in a year on their training and their health and all that. So yes, again, thanks it it it makes it does make if relative to his circumstances it makes it makes sense, a certain amount of sense, right? But he's been diagnosed now with
Nathan (04:51)
Yeah.
Cameron (04:59)
a a gastrointestinal condition and it has no cure. So on the one hand, I felt a bit conflicted about picking this story because I first of all, I don't want this to come off as gloat yeah, gloating in any way. That's gross. But also it's it just it's it's such an extreme example. But because it's a an extreme example, it does and it is a real example, I think
Nathan (05:14)
Haha, I told you so.
Cameron (05:29)
it can be helpful in showing us this this certain outworking of a type of faith. So in this case, if you have if you have if you've amassed great wealth, I mean again, it makes to me, especially in our late, you know, sort of our capitalist culture here at society here in in North America, it makes a lot of sense for people to put their faith in money. Again,
Up to a certain point. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but it makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? I mean money money can buy you money can't buy you happiness. Yeah, but it sure as heck can buy you a lot. A lot of security, a lot of yeah.
Nathan (06:05)
So I would say that somebody
who's a billionaire, if you said to them, money can't buy you happiness, would say, I've given it a pretty good try.
Cameron (06:15)
I think they might say, that's just something poor people say. You remember there there was that great there's that great line in Liar Liar, that you know, that movie that can stand alongside, you know, Citizen Kane and and Ben Hur and some of the great cinematic masterpieces. But where Jim Carey is talking to his son and his son goes, My beauty my my my teacher says real beauty is on the inside. And he goes, That's just something ugly people say.
So I could hear the I could hear the billionaire saying, Yeah, you know, the money can't buy you happiness. That's something poor people say.
Nathan (06:47)
But
we do have to balance that with an Ecclesiastes.
Cameron (06:52)
Picture of weariness.
Nathan (06:53)
picture of weariness of, I've tried everything and Solomon theoretically had access to the equivalent of a billion dollars.
Cameron (07:03)
Well and then there is also the salient fact of I remember my dad had a shirt years ago and I proloined it from him. There I used the word proloined and pat myself on the back. And I wore it and everybody everybody thought it was so hilarious. It was way too big on me. But it said, He who dies with the most toys still dies.
And so we we kind of live in the shadow of that. I I also remember the line I quote this all the time from Woody Allen, you know, when somebody says to him, Don't you want to live on in your work? And he says, No, I'd much rather live on in my apartment. So a little bit of that's where I that's that's what I mean to indicate when I say that these these typical culprits in which we we put place our faith don't withstand scrutiny. And here we have here we have
Nathan (07:42)
Yeah.
Cameron (07:57)
Brian Johnson. Now his his attitude, he's he's remarkably consistent. He's nothing if not consistent. I gotta give him that. So his response to this is Well, I've got a, you know, first rate team of scientists here and we're gonna crack this thing. We're gonna figure it out. Nobody solved the puzzle of this this illness yet, but it's an autoimmune disease. But we'll we we mu you know, we'll put our best foot forward and we'll try to figure it out. They might.
Nathan (08:23)
And maybe there will.
Temporarily, mean so so loop this back into the blind faith thing What is your because so alright nobody's doubting the level of sincerity that he has in a statement like that Connect those dots for us
Cameron (08:26)
They might.
Mm-hmm.
Sure. Well, let's let me break faith down for a second. I don't wanna attempt anything as as I don't know as as precise as an exact definition of faith, but I think if you if you look at the working parts of faith, it would br you could break it down into a combination of knowledge, beliefs, and trust. Now all faith, all faith exhibits that. And that goes from the that moves from the everyday to the spiritual. So let me just
Nathan (09:01)
Mm-hmm.
Cameron (09:08)
illustrate that real fast. And my illustration here is I'm borrowing this from Esther Lightcap, Meek, who has does wonderful work in epistemology and on faith. But if you fig it you know, this so let's talk let's take you, Nathan. You're good at figuring all sorts of mechanical stuff out. But let's say something's going on with your car and it and it goes beyond the scope of your competencies. Hard to imag it does happen sometimes. So you take your car to a person you deem to be a reliable mechanic.
Nathan (09:30)
This happens frequently.
His name's Alan.
Cameron (09:39)
So shout out to Alan. Now, and you so you believe Alan is up to the task of solving the problem that you can't, but this is of course, and this is also, but this isn't just a blind faith. It's not the belief is not without warrant. You've had past experiences with Alan and you've established his competence.
Nathan (09:58)
my entire extended family,
a lot of people that I go to church with, Alan's, he's come through. Yep.
Cameron (10:01)
So you have a c a cloud of great w you have a cloud
of great witnesses. You've established his competency on the basis of of prior knowledge of a cloud of great great witnesses. He's credible. So but that's but based on all these factors, you place your trust and your faith and your and your and your belief in in Alan. And it's a completely legitimate thing to do. There's nothing there's nothing blind about it. It's not irresponsible. It's not a leap in the dark. Nothing like that. So that's if we look at faith in those terms, and I've had a lot of skeptics get
Really, really frustrated with me when I define it in these terms because they fa they they'll say, Well, y okay, everybody has that, but you've just completely redefined faith and taken it out of the spiritual realm. So let so I don't think I have. So if we if we make the leap into spiritual matters, let's just let's speak in really conservative or really modest language. Let's just let's use Paul Tilic's term for let's l objects of ultimate concern.
Nathan (10:40)
Mm, mm-mm.
Cameron (11:00)
Remember, I Telik was the f was the one who I don't know if he if he coined that, but I I certainly know that he's the one who popularized it. So space faith faith in the spiritual sense is you know is directed toward an object of ultimate concern. All right. Does it does that radically change the components of faith? No, I don't think it does. You're still operating with a combination of knowledge, trust, and belief. Again, you you can misplace your faith. This this you might you might be operating with, you know.
Nathan (11:01)
You
Cameron (11:27)
s any one or all of these may be defective, but it's still not a blind, irrational leap in the dark. Look, if somebody decides to to become a member of the Baha'i faith and you really press them on it and say, Well, you know, what what what was it that made this plausible to you? What is it? Well, right. So I th I really think Rain Wilson is a very compelling guy, or Phil Christman who's an essayist I really like, he said, Have you ever met a mean Baha'i person?
Nathan (11:44)
Go listen to Rainn Wilson's podcast.
Cameron (11:55)
I mean, I'm sure they exist, but I certainly haven't. So let's say you've interacted with some Baha'i people and they you you just they impressed you as this these people are so compassionate and genuine and kind. All right. Now you might be a bit naive to accept a whole swallow a whole belief system on the basis of that, but is that blind and totally irrational? No, it's not. And is that a spiritual expression of faith? Tell me how it isn't. So the same the same rules
apply there. Does that does that help and clarify enough, Nathan? You can feel free to
Nathan (12:28)
Yeah, well, so,
yeah, so is the link that you're making to Brian Johnson's blind faith here that we have low, well, but there's low credibility on humans. So, so we can have high confidence that technology helps us solve our problems. don't have, we don't, yeah, we don't have a lot of examples of people living forever.
Cameron (12:38)
Not blind faith.
Ba bad faith, I'd call it. Misplaced faith, yeah.
None. N we have we have look so there
is conclusive data on that. The w the one thing in our I've I've heard so many jokes about how the one thing that we can all agree on, even in our hyper polarized moment, is that people are mortal and we're all gonna die.
Nathan (12:58)
So, so.
Yeah, but we don't. mean, we should be able to agree on that. So yeah, so you're saying there's a legitimate faith there. Money probably has done wonderful things in this guy's life. The scientific advancements and developments have, technology has been a massive help to him. So that's a credible belief. It's not a blind faith, but it's a false.
Cameron (13:28)
Yes. Hmm.
It's misplaced. It's bad faith. Yes. I think we can so and I think also I'd like to point out because we're not accustomed to thinking in these terms, but it has it's got it's a distant, distant, distant ancestor or cousin of alchemy and and some of and sorcery. And I I'm happy to we can let me I think
Nathan (13:56)
Hmm.
Do it.
Cameron (14:06)
You'll Nathan, you'll be with
me there, but well, there is if you look at the history of the development of the hard sciences, so for instance, Isaac Newton, I mean, many of you will know this if you've read any kind of biographical information on Isaac Newton, he also was a practitioner of alchemy. If you look at even all the way up to the press if you look at all the way up to people like Met Madame
Marie Curie. She was a so she is a pioneering scientist. She was a brilliant lady, her and her husband, but they were also regular fixtures at seances. And they were because they were very interested in, you know, they wanted to know, does this does this work? You know, can can we harness these kinds of powers? Now they like good scientists, they were open to it, but they believed as we study it more, we can systematize our knowledge on these phenomena.
Nathan (14:52)
Mm-hmm.
Cameron (15:05)
And they'll look a whole lot less let less mystical once we, you know, bring those systematic disciplines to bear on whatever's happening at these seances or whatever's. So that's it's in that sense that I mean that Brian Johnson is trying to harness technology to cheat death. So that sounds a whole lot to me like the like like an alchemist who who's trying to create.
you know, find a way to create gold or who's trying to find a way to, you know, trying to create an elixir or a potion that gives you immortality. The fountain of youth. Yes.
Nathan (15:43)
Well, well, the Fountain of Youth, Ponce de Leon, this
is a not this is not a modern quest.
Cameron (15:51)
Right.
That's what I'm trying to say. Thank you, Nathan. You said it in a sentence. It's it's not a modern quest. So don't be misled by all of the contem you know, all of the cutting edge technology that's here. This is something that we've been we've been working on these kinds of projects for a long, long time. And it's a it's a very so it's it's an it's a perennial ambition of human beings.
Nathan (16:15)
So let me
pull back in a side thought here on your encouragement to us to use the word faith correctly. We were on a long car ride the other day, my wife was driving and I was in the front of the minivan with a pizza box and a Sharpie. So the kids are behind me, so this is an object lesson at 70 miles an hour. And I was setting up for them logical syllogisms, if P then Q, P therefore Q, and how that all works. And why if P then Q, Q doesn't necessarily mean to be.
Cameron (16:42)
As one does on a long car ride.
Nathan (16:45)
Yeah, because what I was trying to help them see is that there are valid forms of an argument that are false. So you can... so the argument can be correctly structured, but the conclusion isn't correct because one of the premise is wrong. And so that was a little bit of a gap for them to say you can have a validly structured argument.
Cameron (16:53)
Yeah, really important. Mm-hmm.
Nathan (17:11)
but just because the structure of the argument is valid does not mean that the conclusion necessarily follows. Because, and so I think there's a parallel here to what you're saying Cameron, is that you can have a validly structured...
Cameron (17:20)
Mm-hmm.
Nathan (17:28)
that the conclusion is false because there's something wrong with one of the premises of the argument. Is that what we're saying? So that would be a bad faith is not, it doesn't mean that the faith is blind or that the structure of the argument is wrong. It's that the premises involved do not lead to the conclusion.
Cameron (17:31)
Yes.
Yes.
The conclusion doesn't follow. I I'm at pains to and that's really well said, Nathan. Yes. That's good. And I think a lot of a lot of c confusion and frankly a lot of pain could be cleared up if more of us learn the lesson you were illustrating on that pizza box earlier in life. That yes, you can have you you can have an argument with a very indeed a very elegant structure, really really well said.
Nathan (17:50)
The conclusion of the following.
Cameron (18:18)
And a high degree of plausibility, especially in cultural terms, and the conclusion still doesn't follow. I think that would help a lot of people who leave their faith communities, their Christian faith communities, and enter into a different plausibility structure, and then for the first time hear really credible sounding and frankly sometimes good arguments and meet really nice people who don't conform to stereotypes. Yes.
Nathan (18:38)
or just meet really nice people. I mean, I guarantee
you've heard this of somebody who grew up maybe in a fairly isolated Christian bubble and then befriended somebody of another faith, Muslim somebody, and then just came like, wow, they're just such nice people. Yes, they are. I also think that a lot of things they believe are ridiculous. But we make this false equivalency between, well, turns out,
Cameron (18:52)
Absolutely.
Nathan (19:05)
So wait, wait a second. The reason that you thought what they believed wasn't true is because you thought they weren't nice people? Is that the, that's if P then Q, Q therefore not P. No, that's not how that works.
Cameron (19:11)
So right.
A lot of harm comes from oversimplification and from being dismissive. And that's what I'm trying to guard against here. So when we pick a big example like Brian Johnson spending two million million a year on health and now dealing with what will likely be a fatal condition.
I don't want us to run in any kind of triumphalist direction or anything like that. And I also don't want to say, yeah, but see, this just shows how ridiculous what he's doing is. Actually, I don't think it does. I think what he's doing is misguided, but I don't think it's ridiculous. And again, I think if we look at our own lives, we've got similarly misplaced investments. Plenty of us as Christians as well. This is the basic well, this is the basic nature of idolatry. So if what David Foster Wallace was saying is is correct, and I think it is.
Nathan (20:05)
Tell us more.
Cameron (20:12)
I think he was operating in a prophetic mode there. Then there are many of us who wouldn't say this necessarily, but if you look at our practices, do believe our marriage will save us, do believe our financial security will save us. Do you believe that our perfect physique will save us? You know, on and on we could go. And I'm trying to say to you that that does not mean you're an idiot.
It means you're making a mistake. It means the conclusion doesn't follow, sure. But I want to bring in a note. See, compassion, it doesn't we're so hippiesh this stuff. The most compassionate people that I who, you know, who I know are not necessarily the most, you know, saccharin sweet people. They're people who understand the richness of life. And because of that, they approach themselves and the world.
with good epistemic humility. And that's what that's the counsel I want to give here. As especially as as people who want to persuade people, others, to perhaps change their entire lives. It's a it's a major request, you know, do everything differently. Consider completely rethinking everything. We if we don't have a high degree of compassion, and I don't mean that just in the, you the
l you you're gonna sound like a really sweet counselor. I just mean you recognize your own weaknesses. You recognize also the good crooked sense of placing your faith into some of these common idols. Unless you do that, you're not going to gain much of a hearing, I don't think, because it'll be clear that you're you're being dismissive and you're and you're shallow and you're thinking and superficial. And we don't want to do that.
Nathan (21:59)
Okay, but we don't want to do it in the other direction also where we don't give credit where it's due. So, I just wrote out the syllogism of our conversation, I think. So let's say that you came into this and you said, all problems can be solved with money. I have a lot of money, therefore I can solve all problems.
Cameron (21:59)
That's not good.
Mm-hmm.
Nathan (22:22)
that doesn't work because all problems can be solved with money is a false premise. But if you were to say, some problems can be solved with money, I have a lot of money, therefore I can solve some problems, we have to say that is true. So it's...
Cameron (22:28)
Correct.
True. Absolutely true. I would go further. You
can solve a lot of problems with money. Yes, you can.
Nathan (22:43)
So so it's the it's the it's the total it's the It's the extreme totalizing of the of the vision that makes it false
Cameron (22:51)
Yeah.
I think where Brian Johnson might push back here is he he could he would he might say he might modify it and say
We can solve many, many problems, including some that have not yet been solved, have not yet been solved with money. Death has not yet been solved, but when it does get solved, it will be solved with money. Therefore, I'm making a pretty good bet on money solving death.
Nathan (23:24)
Right, so, and that's a valid way to lay that out, but then that actually gives us something that we could push back into and critique in a step-by-step place to say whether or not the faith is misguided or not.
Cameron (23:40)
There's another conversation to be had here, and I think it's another episode. But so there there there's a book coming out with MIT Press, and the name's escaping me right now, but I can't wait to read it. Basically about it's critiquing, it's a cultural and philosophical critique of the aspiration to live forever. And the the person writing it is he's making a a very good case that some that it's basically quality, not quantity, when it comes to life. And it's so it's
Nathan (24:06)
Yeah, okay.
Cameron (24:09)
It's getting a lot of buzz because that's
Nathan (24:09)
Abundant life, I'm on board.
Cameron (24:13)
and it's a because that's a very it's a very real conversation right now. I think a lot of people the way I rephrase geosyllogism, a lot of people today would actually, you know, informed people who are, you know, track in science and and are interested in such developments, would say, Yeah, immortality in the sense or extending the lifespan indefinitely is def is not off the table completely theoretically. Right.
And there are people out there now who are also making the case, yeah, but even if it isn't, I think we don't want it to be on the table. Do you want to be a vampire? I mean, yeah.
Nathan (24:45)
Well, the
thing of it is Cameron is actually there's a much higher, so 20 years ago I had a college professor who was very fascinated by the concept of brain transplants. So does it need to be your physical body that maintains itself in order for you to have eternal consciousness? And I think as we press into an AI era, there will be...
Cameron (24:57)
Hm, you sure.
Yeah. Very interesting discussion. Yeah.
Nathan (25:13)
more of a fascination, I think, in technologically uploading the content of our lives into a digital version of ourselves that could maybe continue to function and lead a company after we die, and the degree of self-awareness that that would have. So, I still think there's some very hard, firm biological limits that are like...
Cameron (25:36)
Yes. They're one hundred percent. I'm with
you. Yeah.
Nathan (25:41)
Yeah,
and some of those would be theologically grounded as well. But I'm saying even scientifically, we're nowhere close to this when we just put the actual cards on the table.
Cameron (25:50)
Nowhere.
I use the word theoretically as advisedly, but I I personally yeah, cards on the table. Neither Nathan nor I believe immortality is is on the actual table. But there
Nathan (26:02)
Yeah, I think, I,
doesn't mean there won't be a massive impulse, I think within our lifetime to figure out how to basically turn yourself into a LLM in order to have eternal consciousness or an internal representation of yourself for your offspring and your future, you know, your company or whatever.
Cameron (26:14)
Yes. Yep.
Let
me, if if I may, here at just toward the end, restate in contemporary terms what Brian Johnson's thought process is and show just to show why I think it enjoys a very high degree of plausibility. In essence, if you boil it down, what Brian Johnson is saying, hey, we're on our own, but it's okay because we're resourceful and we're smart people, and it's up to us to figure our lives out.
And so I'm a very smart, resourceful person. Look at my life. Look at my resume. So I'm gonna figure this out. I can't think of a more validated in our cultural moment in a p you know, contemporary twenty first century North America line of thought. I really can't. I mean that that's we default to that.
Nathan (27:15)
Yeah, but there's a pretty... The more biographies you read, the more you realize that people that just ended up with a billion dollars maybe were really just born at the right place at the right time in the right network in the right... And you can go on and on and on of saying, that's not to take any of the entrepreneurial spirit out of them or to... But there's a context in which we find our... It's a story.
Cameron (27:30)
yeah.
Well, what I was giving you is a cultural s it's a story. I was giving you
a story. Yeah. No, if you actually if you look at the biography of Elon Musk or you know whoever, Jeff Bezos. Yeah. Absolutely. It's but again, this is no.
Nathan (27:57)
So it's not to demean anybody, and I'm not
trying to punch down or demean anything here. I'm just saying it's more complex than the simplistic story we tell ourselves, and then we take the simplistic version of the story and build these syllogisms of our future based off of our version of the story of the past that might not.
Cameron (28:15)
Yeah. Well, I mean, also we're I mean, N Nathan, your phrase, meaning seeking creatures, we we just we tend to mythologize. And we do it present tense. We do I mean, there we've al we already there are people who are not even in their graves and we've already mythologized them. I mentioned Elon Musk, I mentioned I mean, even talking to certain people, the the terms they'll use about can I give you one just real specific example and then to close this out? Somebody I this was in a church setting.
And this person said, Well, you know, even the people who work with with Musk, I mean, they just they point out that he he just does not sleep. His brain works differently than all of ours. No, it doesn't. No, it doesn't see that's the language of somebody who is describing a demigod. But he's not a demigod. He's just a guy.
Nathan (28:57)
What?
But here, there's
another part of this Cameron is like, what's the possibility that Brian Johnson's autoimmune condition was triggered by some technological or medicinal experimentation that he's been doing for the last decade. Yeah. So there's, there's an
Cameron (29:14)
Yeah. Some of these infusions that he's had. Yeah, there that well as you can imagine
there are people who are discussing that already in in not very charitable terms. But yeah, yes.
Nathan (29:24)
So the
old story of Icarus, there's an upper limit and it turns out, I mean just time and time again in history, I mean you can go farther back all the way to Babel, is that the times in which we try to transcend the boundaries of what it means to be human, we actually end up destroying the definition of what it is that we had in the first place. And so there's a cautionary tale there from the humanities.
Cameron (29:40)
Mm-hmm.
Well, and I say this not without well yeah.
I I say this not without compassion, but I mean Steve Jobs is is another tragic example of that. He could have sought had he sought treatment, just regular medical treatment earlier for his cancer, he he likely he likely would have lived longer. I mean a lot of people but also there was speculation of s some of his you know, he he had some pretty exotic
Dietary experiments where he would subsist on nothing but I mean carrots and cucumbers, things like that. You know, just and th for him this was a g a game of control and all that, but it had real biological consequences. Yeah.
Nathan (30:27)
So what do we want
to say here in the end? and I are speaking, you know, we kind of laugh sometimes that as committed Christians we often sound the most skeptical or we give them or we shed the most light in sort of a nice way on another way of thinking. So let's summarize what we've said. And it all comes back to what I think you said is that blind faith isn't a real thing. People really do.
Cameron (30:41)
Ironic. Yeah.
Nathan (30:55)
throw their ultimate attention into serious things. And there are things that would tempt us to worship them in that way, or to put all of our eggs in that basket, so to speak. But at the end of the day, it's not the intensity of the intent that you have that makes something work. There has to be a truth to it in order for it to be a safe. So you can have a valid belief that is false, but you can't have a
safe faith that isn't true. And so there's a sense here on which we want to think carefully about what it is that we believe and like you said that's going to manifest itself in our lives by what we're seeking, what we're throwing our attention and energy into. And we want to be honest about that for ourselves but then we also want to have just a good handle I think on reality so that we can speak well and invite other people into
more stable things than what they're currently latching onto. And so there's a, I'm always struck by that. There's that prophetic vision of Israel trying to hire a foreign army to come and help them. And the prophet says, you've slipped and fallen and reached out your hand and grabbed a thorn bush, basically. So the thing that you grasped for that was going to stabilize you pierced your hand. And I think that's the weariness or the tragedy that I see in the lives of so many people is as we've
As we sense an unsteadiness in our lives, we grasp something that wounds us more rather than something that gives us life.
May that motivate us, I think, for our own internal reflection, but also in our conversations that we have with the world around us to say, if there is really something out of the Mari muck and onto the solid rock? It is a true promise, and it's an actual invitation. And come and join. It's a good place to live from.
Cameron (33:01)
You have been listening to Thinking Out Loud, a podcast where we think out loud about current events and Christian hope. If you like what we're doing, then like it, share it, subscribe it, spread the word subscribe to it, spread the word. And if you'd like to support us financially, you can do that by going to www.toltogether.com.