This week's topics:


Episode Transcript

Sean McDowell: [upbeat music] Rising seniors are the last class of students who remember high school before ChatGPT. What does this mean for the AI takeover of education? The Supreme Court of the United States has been asked to overturn same-sex marriage. Should Christians support this, and how should we think about it? And the demand for euthanasia in Canada is outstripping doctors' willingness to do it. These are the stories we will discuss, and we will also address some of your questions. I'm your host, Sean McDowell.

Scott Rae: I'm your co-host, Scott Rae.

Sean McDowell: This is the Think Biblically weekly cultural update, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. Scott, we're gonna jump right into this story that we discussed last week in terms of euthanasia and the medical aid in assistance in dying in Canada, because there's a backstory to this that concerns me even more than I was concerned last week, and I suspect it does with you as well. This is a long article in The Atlantic. I'll try to just give key highlights here before we weigh in. But it describes how in 2016, Canada's parliament legalized the practice of euthanasia, and the way this article frames it said, "One day, administering a lethal injection to a patient was against the law. The next, it was as legitimate as a tonsillectomy." That's pretty stunning. Now, about, MAID, Medical Assistance in Dying, now accounts for about one in 20 deaths in Canada, more than Alzheimer's and diabetes combined. Now, what they talk about in this article is that there's a certain kind of momentum. The moment Canada signed up for this, it has been moving down this slope very quickly. So it's expanded to include people suffering from serious medical conditions but not facing imminent death. It'll be available to those suffering from mental illnesses. We talked about that last week. And Parliament has recommended granting access to minors. Now, the article walks through all these unintended consequences that we don't necessarily have to address, but some of the things that jumped out to me is there's a number of doctors that are mentioned here, where they just distinctly remember the first patient that they killed because of how kind of harrowing it was for them. And some have even changed the language to talk about delivering somebody. Like you're delivering a baby-

Scott Rae: [chuckles]

Sean McDowell: ... You deliver death, which just shows the language has to reflect how powerful and impactful this is. I mean, this was surprising to me. As of 2023, there were 60,300 Canadians had been legally helped to their death by clinicians. And Quebec, which the article shows, has increasingly becoming less and less religious, it accounts for more than 7% of all deaths by euthanasia. I mean, that's, that's really stunning to me. What I hadn't thought about, Scott, in this article, is that it's now becoming more and more common in Canada, again, according to this article, that people are talking about it at this stage of life, that patients are now meticulously orchestrating their final moments, planning celebrations around them, and there's apps you can buy to help you kind of plan out and design your fate. So it's really becoming normalized in Canada. I think it gives us a sense of what the future may hold. They point out a few things, like the idea is that, you know, people would die with dignity, but people with money and those who don't, people with loved ones and those who don't, have very different experiences with this. And so there's a movement that started to help people die not alone, and there's kind of a business behind doing this called MAID House, to create a place for people to die somewhere other than a hospital or at home if they don't have loved ones around us. There's a ton more debates on this. They give examples of a woman who was put to death without a terminal condition. She was basically just frail. And so, I mean, this, I mean, this article goes on for dozens and dozens of pages, but concerns for national disability rights groups have spoken up and felt like the message, "We are better off without you," is weighing against concern for those with disabilities. Just more and more here, half of Canadians who have died this way viewed themselves as a burden on family and friends. So I guess the bottom line is, as this moves forward, you're seeing people who consider themselves a burden, people who at least arguably had not given consent, really, to their deaths because of mental, just illnesses or deterioration. And the last thing I'll say, Scott, it says in this article, "It doesn't feel quite right to say that Canada slid down a slippery slope, because keeping off the slope never seems to have been the priority in the first place." Give us your takeaway on this one.

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, for the most obvious thing to come out of this article is that the slippery slope is real. And i- and in Canada's case, it was very fast. It took Belgium 20 years to get to a 3 per... To where euthanasia was 3% of the death rate in the country. It took Canada five years to get to that place.

Sean McDowell: Wow!

Scott Rae: And here, f- within nine years, it's moved in Canada from only applicable to the gravely ill and imminently dying, that's called track one, to track two, which is those with serious medical conditions but not imminently dying, to what we talked about last week, to only mental health conditions. That eligibility will be effective in roughly two years. And as you mentioned, Parliament has already recommended applying it to minors, and they are now considering approving advance requests-... For medical aid in dying. Which means, just like an advanced directive to stop treatments, you can now have-- you will be able to have, if it's approved, an advanced directive that will tell someone, "At a certain point, under these conditions, I authorize, either euthanasia or assisted suicide." and so there's, there's just, there's just so much wiggle room. And what we've discovered from this is that the guidelines for, you know, for what constitutes, [lips smack] you know, serious medical conditions, gravely ill, not imminently dying, mental health conditions that make someone eligible for this, were not spelled out by the federal government when those- when the laws were passed. They have left it to regional meta- you know, provincial medical authorities to sort that out. And so you have, this patchwork of criteria that, you know, maybe in some states it's done differently than in others, depending on what the medical authorities have decided. This is a, I think, a comment that ba- you know, based on the experience of Belgium and the Netherlands, he said this is, it, that medical aid in dying has proven to be difficult, if not impossible, to control. And here's the reason: "When a patient's autonomy is paramount, expansion is inevitable. Sooner or later, a patient's wish will take precedent over strict statutory conditions." And it sounds like this is some of what's taking place in Canada. So this is... Again, like I mentioned last week, this is entirely predictable because it's based on personal autonomy. The argument for mercy, Sean, has largely disappeared from the conversation. And if it's based, if it's based on patient autonomy, then eventually the patient's wishes will run roughshod over any limits or guidelines or guardrails that are being put on it. So here's... I guess, if autonomy is sacrosanct, then the question we raised last time, I think bears repeating this time: Is there anyone who shouldn't be helped to die? If it's, th- and so I think in one respect, Canada is being entirely consistent with the philosophical basis on which they approved medical aid in dying. So this is not an accidental slippery slope, Sean. This is what we call v- in philosophy, a logical slippery slope that's built into the system, because guardrails are either impossible to put up or impossible to enforce. So the, this, I think this is the big takeaway. And for anybody who says, "Look, you opponents of euthanasia, you are s- you're making a mountain out of a molehill out of this slippery slope argument," that's not true. Now, I think you can say... I'm rel- I'm reluctant to invoke the analogy of Nazi Germany, for example. I'm not gonna do that-

Sean McDowell: Sure

Scott Rae: ... Because the Nazis started at the bottom of the slope. It never had a beneficent purpose. [laughing] They started at the bottom and went further-

Sean McDowell: Right

Scott Rae: ... Downhill. And I think the disability community is absolutely right to be concerned about this. And I don't- it doesn't take a lot of imagination, Sean, to see that the disability community, certain folks who are a burden, not, maybe not so much to their families, but to society, and the costs involved in that. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see subtle, coercive pressure being applied so that they might come to believe that they are- that they have lives that are not worth living any longer. And that is the one thing that the Canadian experience, the European experience, does have in common with the Nazi experience, is that there became such a thing as a life not worth living. And that, in my view, to have to justify your continued existence, as it's putting- it's increasingly putting people who are seriously ill, seriously disabled, into that position in Canada. Having to justify your continued existence is inconsistent with having an intrinsic right to life. And that's the thing that I think is, from a worldview perspective, is ultimately the thing that concerns me the most. Because if we have to justify our continued existence, I don't want to be an elderly person in Canada.

Sean McDowell: Whew!

Scott Rae: That, that is... Yeah, that's a terrifying prospect, in my view. Now, they will maintain that they have guardrails up to prevent abuses-

Sean McDowell: Sure

Scott Rae: ... And the consent is fully voluntary. But we've seen what's happened to the original guardrails, have just become, you know, they become wider and wider and wider as ti- as time is goes on- has gone on. And that's entirely consistent with the foundation on which approving medical aid in dying was gained- ... That of personal autonomy.

Sean McDowell: You're right, it's not only just a logical slippery slope, but we practically see it happening. So what we're seeing in practice here flows logically from the question that this article raises: If autonomy in death is sacrosanct, is there anyone who shouldn't be helped to die? If we have a right to death, then it follows we should extend this right to others, and I think we're seeing this being played out in Canada. One of the things that I appreciate about this article is, you're right, it's moved from the mercy argument to, for example, dignity.... And it's the dignity of the person. But this article points out in a way I have not seen people really illustrate, like, wait a minute, there's actually great inequality in how people are dying, and some, especially those with more resources, tend to actually die in the way they're defining dignity, more so than those without resources. So a movement on the left that's meant to help those who are marginalized is advancing a bill like this and undermining it, you know, even though it's done in good intentions. So that really, that concerns me. Go ahead, jump in.

Scott Rae: Well, and what happens w- in many cases, when they do have some of those resources, when they have support, when their pain is controlled, what they- what we discover is that they change their mind-

Sean McDowell: That's right

Scott Rae: ... About wanting to, wanting to die. Which suggests that there are other, there are other criteria that we need to think about other than just the wish of the patient. We have to take into account what kind of support are they getting? How is their pain being managed? Do they have adequate, f- you know, family around them so that they don't have to feel like they're going through this all by themselves? Those, are the social, are the social services necessary for the, for those folks to thrive at the, at the end of their lives? Are those available to people? And t- I think what we're finding, Sean, is typically when medical aid in dying is on the table, these other resources get minimized.

Sean McDowell: That's right.

Scott Rae: Because, because as a longtime colleague of mine in this area used to say, "There's nothing cheaper than dead." And that's, that's, that's true, and it will increasingly be true as the number of, you know, folks over the age of 65 is go- is going- still going to dramatically increase over the next decade or so.

Sean McDowell: Boomers. The Boomer generation is aging, living longer, and so that's, that's exactly right. I've just got to point out quickly, this article, two of the big arguments for euthanasia, dying with dignity, is saying, we're actually not seeing this happen in the country that is really moving forward more with this than any other country, and second, autonomy. And they point out specific cases [chuckles] of people who don't seem to have given consent, and their lives were ended. So the two arguments are being undermined in practice by the most aggressive country in the world. Arguably, maybe someone would put Belgium in there. I haven't done comparison, but they're certainly up there, which I think gives support to the slippery slope argument that this is where these laws kind of naturally go.

Scott Rae: I think, you're right, autonomy has undermined the argument for mercy. But Sean, this could also work in reverse.

Sean McDowell: How so?

Scott Rae: You know, that if we are, if mercy comes back on the table, then it's not hard to see how, in fact, mercy and compassion could actually override someone's autonomy, especially if they've lost decision-making capacity. So they... You're right, they work at somewhat at cross purposes- ... In this, and one has the potential to minimize the other. Now, I think autonomy is minimizing mercy at this point, but, that may not be the case.

Sean McDowell: And what we mean by mercy and how we express compassion, of course, is driven by a worldview and what we think human beings are and where their value comes from. Now, some people have pushed back. You've said in the past, Scott, that we, you know, we are not- we are bought with a price. Our bodies are not our own. And some people have said, "Well, what about, those who are not Christians?" We'll get to that in the Q&A, so hang in there.

Scott Rae: That's right.

Sean McDowell: That's a great question. We'll come back to it. Good hook, right, Scott?

Scott Rae: Yep.

Sean McDowell: I've been doing this long enough to- [chuckles]

Scott Rae: I love that.

Sean McDowell: Just having some fun. All right, let's shift gear to something serious but a little less dramatic. This article totally jumped out to me, also in The Atlantic, by the way, and it's called "The AI Takeover of Education Is Just Getting Started." I didn't realize, Scott, I just hadn't put it together, that it says, "Rising seniors are the last class of students who remember high school before ChatGPT, but only just barely. OpenAI's chatbot was released months into their freshman year. Ever since then, writing essays hasn't required, well, writing. [chuckles] By the time these students graduate next spring, they'll have completed almost four full years of what they call AI high school." Now, this article goes through whether it's, you know, to evade plagiarism, kids now can stitch together multiple AI models, and then now they have chatbots to say, "Hey, make this, plagiarism-proof," [chuckles] and oftentimes it works for me. Now students can drop images of like math problems and physics problems into AI, and it solves it for them. Incredible. Now, of course, educators are using AI in their own way, in different ways as well, so it's not just students. Educators are doing it. They give some examples of where this has gone south, which you would expect with AI coming out. There's gonna be some corrections that need to be made. But they said, for example, "This past year, Iowa made an AI-powered reading tutor available to all state elementary schools. Elsewhere, chatbots are filling in for school counselor shortages." That's a disaster for the story we talked about last week, but we can come back to that. So we're kind of in this stage where it feels like we're trying to figure out what does education mean going forward? How can we use AI appropriately? What are the most important things? What do these changes look like? And we're seeing some positive things, and we're seeing some areas of serious concern.... What's your take on this one?

Scott Rae: Well, for one, I think we need to be, both as professional educators ourselves, but as students of AI, we need to be aware that the latest advancements in AI will always be ahead of the people who wanna put limits on it. And the people who wanna, who wanna detect when AI is being used inappropriately. The, the technology will always be ahead of the enforcement on this. And Sean, my big takeaway from this is what's gonna happen to critical thinking and to problem-solving? Because business leaders tell us that those are two of the three most important traits they look for in their employees. The third, by the way, being trustworthiness and integrity. But, if we lose critical thinking, if we lose the ability to solve problems, we've lost something really important for education. And I am, I am- I'm less concerned about students being able to regurgitate information than I am them being unable to think critically, to s- to analyze arguments, to, solve for problems, to u- to think creatively and innovatively. All of that, I think, is being stunted by the use of AI in education. Now, I think there, I think there are some appropriate uses. I don't, I don't have a problem with using this, say, for example, to generate ideas for a paper. Just I think the article points out that AI is forming study guides for certain... I think that's okay. Practice tests, maybe even final editing of papers, I'm, I think I might be okay with that. But I don't-- what I don't want is for writers to turn into editors.

Sean McDowell: Right.

Scott Rae: If you write it and you get editing help, that's different than somebody else or a chatbot writing it and you doing the final... It, it, basically, you're doing the equivalent of a spell check for it. You're not, probably not going through it line by line. And for myself, I'm planning on starting, when I teach again in the spring, to go to either oral exams, or in-class essays, and I'm gonna stop- I'm probably gonna stop requiring papers that are written like we traditionally require them for students, 'cause I don't, I d- I mean, I think graduate students probably may be a little different than undergrads in their desire-

Sean McDowell: Yeah, I agree

Scott Rae: ... To learn. So, you know, there still may be a place for those, but I think for the most part, when I'm dealing with seminary students, for example, future generations of pastors and church leaders, they're never gonna write another paper again, probably for the rest of their lives. But they are gonna have coffee table conversations with couples wrestling with infertility, or families who are walking through the end of life with a loved one. You know, that... And so I wanna, I wanna be able to mimic those coffee table conversations, yeah, as part of their evaluation for how well they know the material, 'cause I wanna, I wanna watch them use it, not just regurgitate it back to me.

Sean McDowell: That's smart. Good, good take. Yeah, keep going.

Scott Rae: Well, and c- I guess, Sean, I'm just sort of curious, how do, how are you using AI in your own teaching?

Sean McDowell: So I love this. I sent out a tweet, an X, maybe a week or two ago, and I said: How can pastors utilize AI in writing sermons? And quite a few people are like, "How? You can't use it at all." Like, they couldn't believe I would suggest this [chuckles] and were upset by it, and some of them criticized me. Others were a little bit more thoughtful and weighed in. So, for example, I was writing a sermon on John 15:14 through 17. It's on the Holy Spirit. And so I used AI, and I said, "Give me a numbered list of all the times the Spirit shows up in John." Bam, it showed up. I was like, "Wow, that was fast." And then I went back and read those in context and made an assessment of it. That's a quick utilization of the tool. So, as a whole, I'm okay with... If I can do research more quickly through ChatGPT, if they can find resources that I can't find, if it can help organize something for me in a way I hadn't thought about organization, but I don't want AI to do think and analysis for me. So when I write a sermon, I probably spend more time in this, but I wanna first look at a passage and come to my own thoughts: What is this about? What is this saying? What is God working through me in preparing this? And then I go, "Okay, I think I have a sense of it. How do I outline it?" Maybe ChatGPT can help. Then I start looking at commentaries to make sure that my ideas match up, and I might get other ideas. I wrote a sermon a while ago, and I could only come up with one good application. So I'm at the end of the sermon, and I just said, "I'm writing a sermon on this. Can you give me other applications?" And it gave me, like, five more, and I read them, and I'm like, "That's no good." And one of them, I was like, "That's a really good point. Why didn't I think of that? That's legitimate." [chuckles] And I personalized it and used it-

Scott Rae: Mm-hmm

Sean McDowell: ... In light of the work that I had already done. So I think there's a way where it can be as a tool to research. It should be... You can use that up front, but in terms of thinking and analysis, I tend to think that should be a little bit more downstream from our own thoughts and reflection. In general, that's how I approach it.

Scott Rae: That's, that's really hel- that's really helpful. I think I would te- I would tell the pastors that the Spirit doesn't fill a chatbot.

Sean McDowell: [laughing] Exactly.

Scott Rae: You know, the Spirit works through you as you personalize it, as it runs through your life and your context. So I wouldn't want-

Sean McDowell: And, and-

Scott Rae: ... I wouldn't want, yeah, I wouldn't want it to be a substitute.

Sean McDowell: ... And honestly, if you're a pastor, and you have some emergency that happens, and you can't prepare, like, a sermon, it's like there's a difference between-- I guess I would, I would completely own it to the congregation and say, "I'll be honest with you. I was at a bedside service. My house got flooded out. This is the time I prepared a sermon. I went through, and I asked this, and I got some of this content through ChatGPT. I've prayed about it. I thought it. I compared it with the text." Like, you know, in an emergency settings, like, we could talk about that, but that's the exception, must not be the norm. But just when we do that, I think we should have integrity and own it and explain to people, "Here's where this is coming from." but the other thing is we just have to be wise 'cause there's s- once you use a tool, like, the temptation really grows, and it's step by step. So let's not fool ourselves, and let's have principles ahead of time. Then, when these temptations come, we can start to go, "You know what? AI is thinking for me. AI is writing this for me." That's not okay, any more than I would just take somebody else's sermon or work that they've done for me and rip that off.

Scott Rae: Right. I think as long, as long as it's not... If it's not, it's not going through your mind, then that's a problem. You know, if the, if the stuff that's being unearthed through, you know, whatever tool you use, is not subject to your own analysis and critical thinking, because AI is still, you know, allegedly inaccurate in places. And so I'd want to make sure that we're not, we're not bypassing, you know, the individual who's supposed to be writing or preaching or doing the assignment. But it's actually, it's actually being filtered through our own thinking and our own experience. But that's really, that's really helpful-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Scott Rae: ... I think, a really helpful guideline that you've given our listeners.

Sean McDowell: The other principle is I try to ask myself when it comes to AI, am I having AI do something that humans should do face-to-face? Like, i- am I using it in a way that dehumanizes people? So I remember, this is probably 20 years ago, first time I heard about a student breaking up with another student by text, and I was like: What a loser thing to do.

Scott Rae: [chuckles]

Sean McDowell: Like, that technology enables us to more easily break ties, where when you break up with somebody, you should look them in the eyes, and you should tell them personally. That's where technology makes something we should do in person easier. I would argue that's just an example that comes to mind, but we must not allow AI to replace uniquely human things that we do because of its ease, and I don't know exactly what that looks like, but that's my principle so often. So in counseling, could it be a tool alongside a human counselor? Well, maybe. Can it replace a counselor? Absolutely not, for so many different reasons, including sycophancy, where these chatbots-

Scott Rae: Exactly

Sean McDowell: ... Take what somebody believes, especially a kid, and kind of projects it back to them. So that's the other principle, is are we dehumanizing one another or just cheating a process that humans should work through that affects us and our relationships? We just have to ask that question as well. So yeah.

Scott Rae: Great. Great stuff.

Sean McDowell: Good stuff. Yeah. Anything else on that story-

Scott Rae: Nope

Sean McDowell: ... Or you're good? Okay.

Scott Rae: I'm good. Let's go.

Sean McDowell: This one dropped this week, and I thought it was really interesting. I don't know where this is going, but this is an article in USA Today, and of course, others covered it. It says, "SCOTUS has been asked to overturn same-sex marriage. What is Trump's stance?" Now, this article is about Trump. I'm less concerned with his position on this and just more the question of whether or not this should happen and whether this will happen. So the US Supreme Court has officially been asked to overturn the 2015 decision, it's amazing it's a decade ago, that granted equal marriage rights to LGBTQ couples. This is how it's framed in the article. Kim Davis, many people remember her name. She's a former Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples. Now, she had been hired as a clerk before this law, and then when the Obergefell decision came in, based on her conscience, there was a tension between, "Can I work at this job when I've been hired to sign marriage certificates when the nature of marriage has been changed?" And so people will remember, who she is. She filed an appeal on July 24th about the compensation she was ordered to pay to a gay couple she'd denied a license. She asked the court, which holds a conservative supermajority, to overturn Obergefell versus Hodges. Now, the article again goes into Trump. That's not as important to me, but I'm really curious your thoughts on this. Are you in favor of this? Does this surprise you? Where do you think this is going? Tell me what you think.

Scott Rae: I think just for just a legal comment on this, you know, Davis, you know, she resigned from her, was resigned from her position as the county clerk, and in 2022, she tried, she tried to bring this before the court, in the past, and it was ruled that she could not claim her own constitutional right as a defense, and she was ordered to pay damages to the couple. So she lost, she lost in court initially, [lips smack] and she's coming back to court here with a, with a much broader thing. So I've-- it's not, it's not at all clear to me that sh- that she's gonna have any kind of standing to bring this forward. But, this raises, Sean, I think, two really important questions for me. First of all, what will happen to the reception of the gospel-... If Christian groups launch a religiously based effort to roll back same-sex marriage in the law? And then second, the question this raises is, should the state be in the marriage business at all? Marriage, after all, was God's idea, and, you know, there have been lots of folks who have argued that it should be a matter for the church and not the state. Now, the counterargument to that is that the state has an interest in protecting children and families from harm, and laws to do so are within the government's realm. I think another counterargument to that is that the law has educational value. It does more than just reflect the prevailing values of the culture. Lots of folks are suggesting that it might be better just to admit that that ship has sailed, legally speaking, and to focus on the moral and theological aspects of marriage instead of the legal ones. Now, of course, we would... W- I think we both agree on this part, that not, of course, not everything the Bible prohibits should be prohibited by the law, at least not with additional argument and grounding for it. Now, in my, in my view, same-sex couples should have many of the same protections that marriage couples do- married couples do: freedom from discrimination in housing, mortgages, employment. What I, what I'm not... What, what I have a big problem with is calling it marriage with same-sex couples. Now, I'm, I'm not sure, you know, what you call it is less important to me, as long as you don't call it marriage. Because marriage is something that is intrinsically ordered toward procreation and is intrinsically a conjugal institution. Neither of those things can same-sex relationships fulfill. And so I d- I don't think it fits the definition of marriage from a distinctly Christian worldview. Now, and I think the other part of this is that God ordained marriage prior to the Fall, and so it may, it may... You may be able to make an argument that the biblical design for marriage is something that's appropriate for culture as a whole, not just for the believing community. So those are some of the things that struck me on this. I, you know, I'm, I'm very sensitive to, what h- what happens to the gospel message when groups take strong stands on certain moral issues. I remember, what happened to the gospel message when Prohibition was done? I think you make a good argument that it was somewhat discredited. Not suggesting that that's a, you know, that that's a, you know, a deal breaker for this, but I think it's something that we ought, we ought to take into account. And if the, if the gospel is being discredited by this, then I wonder if there's merit in saying, "You know, the legal ship has already sailed. Let's concentrate on, for one, you know, getting our own house in order, and then speaking more for the, for the, for the use of persuasion as opposed to, using the force of law." So I'm interested to hear your take on this.

Sean McDowell: Yeah, it probably won't surprise you. I see this one a little bit differently. I think it's fair to talk about the effects on the gospel. We also have to compare and contrast that with the common good for society as a whole, and what should laws reflect, and what should motivate the kind of laws we build in a society? What's going to advance the gospel, or what actually connects us to creation and advances a society that flourishes? Now, Prohibition may have been foolish in the way, but there's a huge difference between Prohibition [chuckles] and drinking, and marriage, which is in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, and even biblical arguments aside, is so foundational to society and culture. I think they're very different things. So I tend to lean in on asking the question based on natural law and the common good, more so than primarily the gospel, although I'm an evangelist [chuckles] and I'm an apologist, and in particular because I think the data is really clear that kids have a right to a mom and a dad, and that kids flourish with a mom and a dad. And there's been this no-difference thesis that's been advanced in the sociological research, that kids... There's no difference between how they flourish with two dads, two moms, a mom, and a dad. And those studies have such biases built into them, insufficient evidence, not representing the evidence, and I have a lot of the data to kinda back up that the way that these studies have been framed and done. And we know from looking at Bradley Wilcox, who we've had on here, a sociologist from the University of Virginia, that the data is very clear that kids flourish most in a home, a married home with a mom and with a dad. So I would, I think that's the case. I- you know, your second point when it comes to state's role in religion... I'm sorry, state's role in marriage, is marriage is just a public institution. There's no way outside of that because of having kids and buying property. Like, it has to have some unique relationship here. I don't know how we can escape that, which is why we see throughout history, states recognizing things like marriage because of the functional role that it plays different than, like, somebody's tennis partner. So I think for those two reasons, I'm far more inclined for the rights of kids and the flourishing of society to support something like this.... The other reason, Scott, is I think Obergefell is just incredibly poorly argued. It's just a terrible legal case. I think somebody who even was in favor of same-sex marriage and looked at this and was like, "Just for the integrity of the law and the value of good reasoning, this thing should be overturned." I won't walk it through, and maybe you and I, if this, if this hits again in future, maybe you and I, and people can let us know if they want us to do kind of a deep dive on the Obergefell ruling. It's available online. But some of the, you know, just, like, a couple examples that they make in here, this is Kennedy's, case that he's making for it, the view of the court that he represents. He says, "A second principle in this court's jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental 'cause it supports a two-person union unlike any other, and it's important to the committed individuals." What they never answer is, why should marriage be a two-person union once you remove the sex or gender differences? The number two is completely arbitrary, and it has no meaning if you take out the procreative element in terms of its kind and the male-female difference. I think the other argument they make is it protects the right to marry, safeguards children. I actually think it undermines the right of kids to have a mom and to have a dad. So e- I mean, I could go on and on and critique-

Scott Rae: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... This ruling, but I think on legal grounds, it should be tossed out, just like Roe versus Wade was so poorly argued. They n- they invented rights out of nowhere. And so for that reason and more, I am strongly in favor of. Now, I have no control over what the Supreme Court does, but I think for the good of society... Which, last thing, if we're gonna make our argument for this, we can't just point towards chapter and verse. We've got to point towards the sociological good. We've got to point towards natural law, so it's not just religious people. We are advancing philosophical, historical kinds of arguments.

Scott Rae: Yeah, I think we can agree to disagree about some of the legal aspects of it.

Sean McDowell: Sure.

Scott Rae: But I think you m- you make some really good points, and I think the, you know, some of the counterarguments that I raised, to the idea that the, that marriage shouldn't be the business of the state, I think are compelling. But what I wanna emphasize is that in my view, there is no... We can't agree to disagree on this morally and theologically. This is not, this is not an area, this is not one of those morally neutral things that we can just, you know, "C- can't we all just get along and agree to disagree about it?" Paul's very clear in Ephesians 5 that marriage, there's something fundamental spiritually about marriage that reflects the relationship between Christ and the Church, which makes it a central thing to the faith, not a peripheral element. Not, not something that's just sort of out there on the side that we can... It's just a n- a minor issue that we can agree to disagree on. So I'd wanna make- I just wanna make that clear, that, neither of us hold that we can agree to disagree about this morally and theologically. Now, I'm sort of, I'm, I'm inclined to think that, the common good is probably- is certainly best served by kids having a mom and a dad, and that the law should reflect that. And that, you know, the data, I think, is pretty clear about that. So anyway, I think, I think I'd be interested to hear what our listeners think if they want us to do a much deeper dive into this. That may have something to do with the conversation we're anticipating about the role of government, in general- ... Both biblically and theologically.

Sean McDowell: And we could potentially do that like we did on IVF. We just differed, and we pushed back and tried to clarify. If that's helpful, let us know. I, one last thing I wanna say from this ruling is John Roberts, the chief justice, his dissent was just scathing. I mean, it blew me away. I wish I could read a lot of it, but he says, "As a result, the Court invalidated the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, from the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians, and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?" Dang, I think he's right about that.

Scott Rae: Touché.

Sean McDowell: All right, well, let's, let's shift to some questions here, and, these are a little bit more focused, for you, but I'll give my two cents. This first one is a wonderful question. This individual is a stay-at-home mom of four kids. They enjoy the weekly cultural update. Awesome. Talks about the conversations we've had on assisted suicide, life support, Medical Aid in Dying, and looking for some guidance on how to think biblically about wills and advance directives. "I'd like to hear Scott's expert end-of-life advice on how to get started with a living will, how to form any end-of-life wishes in a biblically based, God-honoring, ethical way." And you know what? I'm glad you asked, Scott, because I wanna hear his [chuckles] take on this one, too.

Scott Rae: [chuckles] Well, my wife and I have walked three of our four parents through terminal illnesses- ... In the past 15 years or so. So it's not only- I not only have professional experience with this, it's, it's deeply personal as well. How to get started with a living will or advance directive is absolutely crucial because you don't want your loved ones to have to guess at what your wishes are if you can't make them known yourself. So writing them down is, in my view, essential, and there are two different ways to get started. One is, look at the... U- most states have a state-sanctioned, advance directive. The one we have in the state of California is actually quite good. Or you can go to that, or you can go... Every h- every hospital in the country is required by law to have advance directives made available to all their patients. In fact, when my wife was getting ready to deliver our third child- ... On admission to the hospital, we were asked if we wanted to fill out [chuckles] an advance directive.... I thought, "Not, not exactly the best timing on that." but they were just following the law. So you can get- and you can get, help with filling it out from the hospitals as well. The other source is, that will help you, it's not an advanced directive, but will, but it will help you formulate what your wishes are, is a document called The Five Wishes. If you just Google that, The Five Wishes, it will help you sort of navigate your way through that. So I think those, you know, those would be the tools that I would use. And then I think the, just the only thing theologically I'd add to this is that, Sean, we've, we've said many times before, with death being a conquered enemy by virtue of the death and resurrection of Jesus, what follows from that is it need not always be resisted. And under the right conditions, you can s- it's okay to say, "Stop," or- ... "Enough," to medicine. And generally, when treatments are futile or more burdensome than beneficial, those are usually the reasons people say, "Enough," to medicine. And I think, I think that's okay theologically. You're not violating the sanctity of life, because if we have to- if we're obligated to do everything at all times, at all costs to peop- keep people alive, then we're saying earthly life is the highest good, which theologically, it's, it's penultimate, not ultimate. So I think that would be my theological, Biblically based guideline. And I would, I would go to those resources.

Sean McDowell: Good stuff. That's practical and insightful. Thanks for weighing in on that one. [lips smack] this next one shifts a little bit here, and this individual says: "When you guys discuss issues that impact how people might alter the general course of a human life, gene editing, modification, surgeries of varied types, Scott often cites 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, where Paul says, 'You are not your own. You were bought with a price.' The context of these verses is a very clear call for Christians to live in a Christ-like manner by the power of the Spirit. As a specifically Christian call, such verses aren't directly addressed to non-believers. What are some appeals from general revelation that we use to help non-believers realize that they should recognize their inherent human limitations?" It's a good one.

Scott Rae: I'd s- I'd say, first of all, because you're a creature and not the Creator, and creatures have inherent limitations because they are not omniscient, they are not omnipresent, they don't have any of the, any of those traits that God Himself has. So I would, I would suggest that, you go back to creation and recognize that you are, you are a created being, and that's true whether you're a believer or not. You are a created being, and you have inherent limitations because of that. The other thing from general revelation, help realize in h- in limitations, I would say just get them around people who are older.

Sean McDowell: Huh.

Scott Rae: And they, and they can... You know, ask people who are older, tell them about some of the limitations that they're bumping up against as they age. And, you know, there are lots of things that people, as they get into their 70s and 80s, deal with that they didn't when they were, when they were 40. And, you know, the idea that, you know, 60 is the new 40 is a load of nonsense, because you have physical limitations. You are, you're just more aware of your limitations than you were in your 30s and 40s. And I, you know, and I think, you know, most people who, as they, as they get older and as they're around people who are older, you know, they recognize that they have, they have more moments which I call, "You know, you're not 25 anymore," moments.

Sean McDowell: [chuckles]

Scott Rae: And, you know, those, you know, those, I think, become more frequent. But even for, even just for, you know, for somebody in their 20s, you know, what happens to you if you don't sleep for a couple of days? You lose, [chuckles] you lose a whole lot of your ability to function efficiently. We are designed with a need for sleep every night. And those who, you know, those who go sh- go cut short on that, it doesn't take long before they feel the limitations of that. So those would be some of the things I'd suggest, but I think more by just observation of what you see around you, and some of the limits that we have emerge from that.

Sean McDowell: That's great. That's a really good, helpful, practical response. I'd just frame for people, and I know you agree with this, Scott, that when you cite 1 Corinthians 6:9, "You're not your own, you were bought with a price," it's really a reference to human dignity, to human value that we have, and the responsibility that comes with that. Our government is full of borrowing Christian ideas, Judeo-Christian ideas, without citing chapter and verse, because we have certain rights that are pre-political, means they come before government, and the government is bound to, recognize them. Things like equality, which, by the way, people would appeal to when it came to same-sex marriage. They say, "Equality for same-sex couples." Well, the bigger question is, where does that equality come from? Of course, we would say the Judeo-Christian tradition, being made in the image of God. Dignity inself- itself, where does dignity come from, if not from above? And this is true for human rights. So the chapter and verse you gave is going to apply to Christians, but I think the principle itself is pre-political, and we recognize it, and we can ground it more broadly, rather than chapter and verse, just like we do other human moral rights.

Scott Rae: Well, I'd say, Sean, I think unless you believe in something like limited atonement-... That Christ died only for the elect, I think you can make the case that everyone's been bought with a price. It's just not everyone's has accepted the payment.

Sean McDowell: Oh, that's interesting.

Scott Rae: So, I think maybe that, maybe it applies more broadly than we think.

Sean McDowell: I don't know the answer to that. I would have to think about that passage [chuckles] more deeply before I weigh in, but, interesting take on that one, Scott. I think that's great. All right, this last one is pretty tough. You tell me, do you wanna weigh in on this one? There's some nuances here, or should we hold this for-

Scott Rae: No, I think we can do this.

Sean McDowell: Okay.

Scott Rae: Let's, let's try it.

Sean McDowell: All right, so the Bible teaches the soul is real, and the body and mind are separate. According to this person, I haven't checked with Bill, there's three possible origins of the soul. I mean, William Lane Craig, Bill. God can specially create a soul at some point in the course of human development, the soul emerges out of the body once it reaches a certain level of complexity, or the soul is in some way transmitted from parents to offspring. This individual wants to know how, this seems relevant to the discussion we've had on IVF, and we've said the physician makes no soulish contribution like the donor does. So does this not commit you to either option B or C above, the soul emerges out of the body or is transmitted from parents to offspring? And is a via- is option A, where the soul, develops in the course, it comes through the course of human development, for a Christian hold today, would that change your opinion on sperm game don- egg donation, or surrogacy?

Scott Rae: Well, I'm not wild about sperm and egg donation or surrogacy to begin with, but this is an additional reason for that. It's, it's... C is the, I think, the right answer to that the soul is transmitted through the agency of the parents. The reason God does not create each soul at the point of conception or some point of human development, is that our soul, we are, we are born with a fallen soul, and a dep- having been, you know, subject to the entrance, the general entrance of sin, which I think that's, that's inconsistent with God being the creator of that. But yes, I think option C is what I'm committed to, and it reinforces my skepticism about sperm and egg donation and surrogacy. Not entirely for that reason, but that is one of the reasons. Now, that's... You know, again, that presumes a lot of philosophical discussion. Maybe next time, Sean, we can go into that in a little more detail. [chuckles]

Sean McDowell: [chuckles] Sure.

Scott Rae: And have a little primer on the origin of the soul, but that's, I think, the short answer to that.

Sean McDowell: Fair enough. My reservations on surrogacy and sperm donation are totally separate from how the soul enters the body and what that mechanism is, but you're right that the mechanism it comes about adds an additional layer of potential concern. So I think that's well said. All right, that's one of the toughest questions we've had in a while. Very sophisticated, probably a graduate from one of our MA Phil-

Scott Rae: I would, I would think so

Sean McDowell: ... MA college grads. [chuckles] Hey, Scott, always fun, fascinating stories. I'm looking forward to next week.

Scott Rae: Great stuff.

Sean McDowell: Good stuff. This has been an episode of the podcast, Think Biblically: Conversations on Faith and Culture, which is brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, Biola University, where both Scott and I teach and work. We have master's programs, full-time in theology, Bible, apologetics, spiritual formation, in person or online. We'd love for you to think about joining us. Please send your comments and keep asking your pretty remarkable questions. You can email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu. And if I'd ask you to take a moment to give us a rating on your podcast app, I'm not kidding, every single rating helps in the analytics to just equip more people to think biblically. Thanks for listening, and we'll see you Tuesday when our normal episode drops. In the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything. [upbeat music]