Stories this week:



Episode Transcript

Sean McDowell: [upbeat music] Two new studies show the ill effects of marijuana on young people as emergency room visits are increasing. Australia implements the first nationwide ban on social media for those under 16. What do studies reveal about the spiritual impact of Charlie Kirk's death over the past three months? And a major AI conference is flooded with peer reviews-

Scott Rae: [chuckles]

Sean McDowell: ... Written fully by AI. These are the stories we will discuss, and we'll also take some of your excellent 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, you were laughing as I read the AI story-

Scott Rae: No, you

Sean McDowell: ... Which we're saving for last. [chuckles]

Scott Rae: You can't make some of this stuff up as good as it happens in real life.

Sean McDowell: You seriously can't, that's for sure. So we're saving it for last, which is part of the fun, but this first one is an article that grabbed my attention this week, 'cause it's from the editorial board at the Wall Street Journal, and the title is creative. It says, "Potheads Head for the Emergency Room." Now, they share what they call surprising political news, and by the way, this might be surprising political, but the results are not surprising to me or anybody who's been paying attention, not driven by a particular worldview, over the past few decades. So a referendum campaign is gaining support in Massachusetts, of all places, to reverse the state's 2016 legalization of recreational marijuana. Not coincidentally, two new studies report a surge in young pot users showing up at emergency rooms. Doctors at Mass General Brigham Hospital found that the share of adolescents with psychiatric emergencies who tested positive for THC, which is the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, jumped nearly fourfold after the drug was legalized for recreational sale and consumption in the state. They say the pres- prevalence of other cannabis-related disorders among adolescents increased by a similar amount. One of the arguments, of course, was that they're making here is that legalization removed a certain stigma from marijuana users, and of course, made it more available. We'll come back to that. So what's fascinating about this is it's a study from JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, one of the most prestigious journals of its kind, and they talk about this surge in young adults nationwide showing up in hospital emergency rooms with... I know I'm gonna pronounce this with cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome, CHS.

Scott Rae: Very good.

Sean McDowell: Was that actually [chuckles] decent?

Scott Rae: That's actually just right.

Sean McDowell: [chuckles] Thank you. All right, nice. I'll take that. And this involves just, disturbingly cyclical vomiting with nausea and stomach pain, they say far more than with, like, a night of binge drinking. That's the level of physical pain from this. Crazy. They said visits for this disorder increased nearly eightfold in the spring of 2020. We all know what happened with the lockdowns from COVID at that point. There are certain places like California, where we live, New York, and other progressive states, and Massachusetts would be in that as a whole, but they've allowed pot dispensaries to stay open during the lockdowns and considered them, quote, "essential business." So they said, "Instead of working, young people got high at home." This is the article. A couple just last quick things before get your thoughts on this. They said an earlier study found that patients with this syndrome visited the on average 18 times before getting diagnosed, costing an average of almost $77,000 per patient. And I'm guessing you have some thoughts on this, but clearly, people didn't think it was a problem, didn't think it would be a problem, and simply weren't medically prepared to diagnose this. Last point, they say, and you and I have talked about this before, is that daily marijuana use is now more common than alcohol use.

Scott Rae: Sean, one thing really stood out to me that honestly I hadn't thought about before-

Sean McDowell: Okay

Scott Rae: ... Until I had read this. Here's... The author of one of the studies on this puts it like this: "Young people with mental health challenges are more vulnerable to the negative effects of cannabis use, which can catalyze or worsen psychiatric symptoms." What this does is it creates a vicious circle. This is the part I hadn't thought about before- ... That it's mental health challenges can sometimes, maybe even often, motivate pot use, among other things, as a way to dull the effects of those challenges. Same, similar to the way people use alcohol and other drugs, which then, the study points out, can worsen the mental health issues and challenges, and it's created this vicious circle that is self-reinforcing, that is a part of pot use- ... That I, that I had never thought about before. And I think that's the part that is so insidious about this, and I don't think that people recognize that what some people may be turning to pot to sort of to dull the effects of mental health challenges actually is exacerbating them. And that's a part, I think, of the unintended consequences of legalizing pot use, that these visits to the emergency room are now making evident for us. And I think the fact that people w- you know, they went so many times before they got diagnosed tells me that not only did the users get caught off guard, but the physicians treating them got caught off guard by this, too. Now, thankfully, they've gotten on board, and the physicians are some of the ones who are raising the alarm-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Scott Rae: ... On this. But that is, in my view, the really difficult part of this, that I don't, I don't know how to break that cycle other than to, you know, to stop using it.... And but, and what they say is people who stop using it because of this may have really serious withdrawal symptoms, which tells me that the pot that's being produced today has an addictive quality that pot in previous generations did not have.

Sean McDowell: That's really important.

Scott Rae: Now, I think that's right, that, legalization did take away the stigma of it. It did make it more available. But here's what I think legalization did that we might not think about, is now it became legal to advertise. And advertising increases both that, or it lessens both the stigma and increases the availability of it. And so it's the advertising part that is where my business ethics side kicks in. And, you know, maybe the advertising of this has not been a great thing. Now, I find it ironic it's in Massachusetts. [chuckles]

Sean McDowell: I agree.

Scott Rae: I'm, I, you know... I'm wondering wh- I mean, there are other, there are other states I'm sure that are considering this, but we'll, we'll keep our listeners informed on w- I think there are other dominoes to fall- ... That we'll keep folks informed on.

Sean McDowell: Yeah.

Scott Rae: One final thing, Sean, to think biblically about this, Ephesians 5:18 is really clear that we are not to be under the control of what I would call controlled substances. I think al- it was alcohol in the ancient world, but clearly that applies to other things today because you can't be under the control of the Holy Spirit and some other substance at the same time.

Sean McDowell: Amen.

Scott Rae: And I think, you know, if in... What Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 6, with our bodies being temples of the Holy Spirit, we are not to do things with our bodies that dishonor God or bring harm to our bodies. And the notion that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit was meant ultimately for our good, and I think as well, to bring honor to God.

Sean McDowell: That's well said. Appreciate you bringing that biblical piece full circle here. A couple things for me is when I look at... They say in the article, "Legalization removes a stigma from marijuana use, as well as increasing its availability." So I think back on a lot of the arguments, we saw this in Colorado, we've seen this in other states, that were given forward for why marijuana should be legal. And part of it was, "Well, we'll bring it out from the black market, bring it into the public. We can better regulate it." Now, this is a separate issue from this article, but in some cases, we've seen the black market get even more sophisticated and more power because it can sell stuff for cheaper apart from the regulation. There was an argument that when we control this and we bring it to the public, doctors will be more aware of this, able to treat any side effects as we can with alcoholism. Maybe that's the case in the long run, but I think of how many people have been harmed and hurt in the short run by this, enough so that the state in [chuckles] Massachusetts, like you said, of all states, is willing to say, "Uh, maybe we should reverse course here and go back." And so for me, I think, why was there ever this huge push for marijuana in the first place? There were enough sufficient signs early on about concern with psychiatry, psychiatric effects. I remember those studies. There were physical effects. There were social effects. [chuckles] There were cognitive effects. So clearly, some worldview was overriding the facts, and in this case, it might be the facts that are getting people to rethink this, namely the harm that's brought to young people. So it's positive. It's kind of amazing to me. I didn't do an exhaustive search, so maybe I missed it, but the amount of press on this, if it weren't for The Wall Street Journal doing this, I wouldn't have seen it in The New York Times, wouldn't have seen it in other publications, didn't see it on social media. So kudos to them for drawing attention to it, and I hope more people will talk about this, because we've seen a lot of negative effects socially from marijuana legally, and especially with young people. And so I hope this is reversed, and other states will take course of it as well. This study you sent to me early on, and, we've been planning on talking [chuckles] about this for a while because this Australia social media ban feels like it... How do you describe it? Like, this is a massive step forward, where the whole world is kind of watching. Is this going to work? How is this going to work? Is this too much overreach by the government, or is it the right amount? But clearly, everybody, or at least almost everybody, is concerned about the negative effects of social media that are crystal clear today. Now, with that said, here's kinda what's going on: Australia's Online Safety Amendment Act took effect December 10th, so this-- actually, December 10th, 2024, it officially took effect, is what they're arguing. It's a ban on children under age 16 getting social media accounts. Under the law, the platforms themselves will carry the responsibility of ensuring age compliance, not the children or parents. So there's a shift to the state being in control, as op- at least being held accountable, not children or parents. Parents can't even give consent for their child to hold the account, so parents can't override this. There's no mechanism for that. They say children can still read material on the platforms, which is kind of funny they even have to say that. [chuckles]

Scott Rae: I know.

Sean McDowell: Like, the state's gonna go so far to say you can't even read it. But you can't hold your accounts needed to post, comment, interact, share, and this involves Facebook/Meta, YouTube, which is actually really interesting. Reddit, Snapchat, Instagram, X, and TikTok are included in this ban. More might be added, but platforms will need to use a secure, multi-layered approach to prevent children getting around the restriction, and penalties of up to 50 million apply. Now, this article I'm reading says December 10th, 2024. I think they have the wrong year, because it just-

Scott Rae: I think that's right

Sean McDowell: ... Took effect.

Scott Rae: Yeah, like-

Sean McDowell: As I was reading it, that's a typo.

Scott Rae: Yesterday.

Sean McDowell: Like, yeah, like this Wednesday, it took place.... And so they're citing the evidence about excessive social media and screen use being harmful to children, and that it's designed to be addictive. And this has been a conversation, Jonathan Haidt and others, we've talked about it here. That's not news in itself. But a couple things that did jump out to me is there's a recent UK poll of 2,000 16 to 29-year-olds showed that two-thirds of young people think the ban is a good idea. Now, I wonder if those 16-year-olds would have voted differently if we had said the ban should be under, say, 17 rather than 16, but it's enough for young people to see it and be in favor of it and recognize it. Some other countries are trying different things, like Japan introduced kind of a two-hour daily limit. Denmark plans a ban under 15-year-old from major social media plans. Spain is pushing the European Union to consider tougher restrictions for children, and South Korea has enacted a nationwide ban on smartphones in schools. So it's kind of like we're at this moment where over the past couple years, we've seen families pay a little more attention. We've seen individual schools do blocks on this, or social media bans. This is the first time we have a full nation do so. Are you encouraged by this? Is this overreach? [chuckles] Tell me how you see this.

Scott Rae: I'm very encouraged by this.

Sean McDowell: Okay.

Scott Rae: And I think to be clear, it's a delay, not a ban. And it's comparable, I think, to age limits on driving, smoking, and drinking.

Sean McDowell: Okay, a ban for those 16 and under-

Scott Rae: Right

Sean McDowell: ... Or under 16.

Scott Rae: But, yeah, but it's not a, it's not a, an outright ban.

Sean McDowell: Wholesale.

Scott Rae: I love how this got started, too.

Sean McDowell: Okay.

Scott Rae: The wife of the governor of the province of South Australia read Jonathan Haidt's book. And she got-- she sort of got in her husband's face and said, [chuckles] and I quote, she said, "You bloody got to do something about this."

Sean McDowell: Interesting.

Scott Rae: And that's how, that's how, at least anecdotally, that's how it sort of got started. Now, to be, I think to be clear, as you mentioned, kids can still use them, but they can't have them. They can't have accounts. And the burden is on the companies and to provide age verification and to deactivate the accounts of those underage. Now, I think the ma- I-- in my view, the main benefit of the law is it takes the pressure off of parents to be the bad guys. Because I'm not-- I've never been optimistic about the willingness of parents to resist the cultural pressure, and I think for the most part, I think relying on parents has been a failure. I think we should probably just admit that. And I think the Aussies probably have admitted that already. And here's... I think what the article points out is that, I quote this: "What we're really hoping for is that there will be a significant normative change for parents, so that being on social media all the time is not a battle." And I think that I think, is the main benefit, because parents can now point their finger at government.

Sean McDowell: [chuckles]

Scott Rae: And say, "This is not our doing, but I'm not violating the law." now, I think teenagers, I think, are rightly skeptical. And I, my-- one of, one of my questions is, what new apps might come to the black market to replace these? That's, I think, the main argument against the law is it will just force things to go underground. And that, and I, that may happen. You know, but we know that there are huge harms that are coming to kids who, you know, they cite-- the article cited that the number of hours that some of these kids spend per week-

Sean McDowell: It's amazing

Scott Rae: ... On this stuff is just-

Sean McDowell: Daily!

Scott Rae: ... Is just staggering.

Sean McDowell: Yeah.

Scott Rae: And, you know, and people can still be addicted to it when they turn 16. You know, so I think what they're d- what they're working off of is Haidt's basic thesis is that during the formative years where a child's brain is still being formed, social media has an especially detrimental impact on them. And so to wait until a lot of their brain's been formed already, you could probably make an argument that they ought to wait later- ... Than this. Now, in my view, the big debate is how well companies are gonna enforce age verification. I don't think there's any way to do this other than having a visual ID v- be used as the main source of verification. Now, critics of the law have cited that as an undue privacy concern, but I don't think that's any different than showing your ID at the wide variety of places where you... I mean, I have to show my ID to buy wine at the grocery store. [chuckles] I don't-

Sean McDowell: [chuckles]

Scott Rae: ... That's hardly an invasion of my privacy. So, you know, kid- I think kids are still, they will still find ways to get around it.

Sean McDowell: Yeah.

Scott Rae: They, they can use a VPN to get around it.

Sean McDowell: Yeah.

Scott Rae: They can make it seem like they're coming into the app from a foreign country. You know, parents can open accounts in their kids- in their names for their kids to use. Though it's not gonna be foolproof, but it's, I think it's, it's a shot across the bow- ... At alerting parents to say, "Go- government," parents, I think, they know intuitively that all the time on social media is not a good thing, and government saying, "Parents, we are on your side on this."

Sean McDowell: So there's one pushback, I'm curious how you would respond to this. In Quillette, which is from Canada, from what I understand, it's a more libertarian, secular publication, and they had a piece out about this, and they talk about how excluding a whole demographic from the digital public square is clumsy. "Minors are being banished not only from the toxic corners of the internet, but from the primary channels through which teenagers today express themselves and participate in culture. Instead of trying to distinguish between healthy and unhealthy patterns of engagement or to support parental supervision, the law is a blanket prohibition, criminalizing all sorts of normal and healthy behaviors."... They argue that tech-savvy teens will likely skirt the ban, like you mentioned, browsing from behind a foreign VPN and other ways of doing so. They say, "The deeper issue is that Australian ban treats young people not as developing citizens capable of learning how to navigate the internet and avoid its dangers, but as passive subjects to be shielded from it." In other words, this libertarian strain is pushing back, saying it's government overreach, and will have more harm, apparently, than social media is having right now. Now, you could look at a place like Australia and say, "Well, it's an island. It's a little bit isolated, and even getting there with a plane, it's a little tougher [chuckles] ," so they have a little bit more control in a place like Australia. They obviously responded differently to COVID than places like the US did, and we have just kind of this cowboy libertarian streak within the US. I'm curious, is there any part of you that thinks this is overreach, or do you think the social effects of this are so significant that you're not concerned about free speech and government overreach here?

Scott Rae: I'm not, and the reason for that is that the da- the data is in. I think that the jury is in on this. And I think Jonathan Haidt and his work, I think, is absolutely spot on. And I think because of that, because... And, and there are lots of other sources have, you know, verified this as well. I think governments have an obligation to prevent clear, tangible harm when it occurs, and restrictions on liberty to prevent clear, tangible harms when we know that they're occurring is a legitimate, responsibility of government.

Sean McDowell: It's a social good, and you're- we're weighing free speech of kids s- under 16, [chuckles] or I guess 16 and under, and, versus government overreach-

Scott Rae: Well, yeah

Sean McDowell: ... In this case, to protect them clearly wins out.

Scott Rae: Well, and I understand that, you know, ki- a lot of kids' social lives revolve around, and their connection with friends... A number of kids in the article who were quoted said, "I don't have, I don't have my friends' phone numbers." You know, I want to say, "Well, get them."

Sean McDowell: Yeah.

Scott Rae: [chuckles] This- that's not that hard. And so I think there's, there is a, there is a way for kids to keep up with each other, to connect with their friends, that doesn't require these types of things.

Sean McDowell: Two years ago, at the Christian school where I used to teach at, and where my wife teaches, my 13-year-old goes, they did a social media... Or they did a smartphone ban on campus. In the beginning, students were really not happy about it. I was teaching a class-

Scott Rae: Shocking

Sean McDowell: ... At that point, [chuckles] and they were, you know, they were making arguments like, "We can't just capture every funny moment that happens for later, and we feel controlled." And then now, looking back, the students I've talked to are like, "You know what? It was a good idea. People are talking at lunch. They're more present." Do some kids sneak to the bathroom or sneak somewhere to look at their phone or do something? Sure. You can only control so much, but it creates a better environment, and my curiosity is, how will this play out in Australia? Now, of course, there's still smartphones. Kids will adapt and find a way. I'm not worried about that. But when it comes to the US, we have a federalist system, so I can't imagine some kind of national crackdown being done like this, unless I'm just missing it. It seems like this is an issue that's gonna play itself out state by state moving forward, at least for the short term. Is that your sense?

Scott Rae: Yeah, I think that's probably right. I do- I've got a- something I'm interested in you.

Sean McDowell: Yeah.

Scott Rae: You had reacted when it says a ban on YouTube- ... Or a delay on YouTube, 'cause I know you use YouTube a lot. One of the way, one of the things you try to do with that is to reach teenagers with the gospel. You okay with that delay for-

Sean McDowell: Yeah, I mean, those-

Scott Rae: You know, that might, that might inhibit some of what you're trying to do?

Sean McDowell: Those probably 16 and under on YouTube are a small percentage of my market right now. I don't know, off the top of my head, probably 5% or less. So yeah, I'd have to think of other creative ways, but I do have to balance that with so much of the other just trash and garbage-

Scott Rae: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... That's there as well. I just think YouTube is a little bit different. It's a lot different than TikTok, and it's a very different than Snapchat and some of these other social media things that are getting blocked. A lot of this generation will watch YouTube rather than regular TV, so that's a little bit more of an unsettling thing in some ways than I think some people would realize. And my guess, and I, just from what I read briefly, there could be more to the story, is that there were some complaints like, "Wait a minute, you're letting YouTube off the hook," [chuckles] and they just kinda got thrown in with this.

Scott Rae: [chuckles]

Sean McDowell: But, you know, here's- in this article from the Institute of Family Studies, it's called Australia's Social Media Ban: Is It Enough to Protect Children? This is a whole separate conversation, but they just, they give seven things at the end that I'll just read really quickly for parents and grandparents. Number one, accept that the law is never enough. That's true for social media. It's true for alcohol and vaping. Second, model responsible screen behavior. Look in the mirror first. Third, build digital literacy rather than digital fear. These are the tools people are using. Communication op- keep communication open and shame-free. It says, "Talk, talk," and of course, that reminds me of Deuteronomy 6.

Scott Rae: Mm-hmm.

Sean McDowell: Talk about these things with your kids. Have together online time and play together. So earlier this week, I was watching a video with my son, and I'll throw it out there. It was actually Nick Fuentes on Piers Morgan-

Scott Rae: Interesting

Sean McDowell: ... And it is a cursed, profanity-filled... But I was like, "What's going on? Why is this guy getting attention? Let's talk about this." But it was time we did engage in a platform together- ... And talking about it.... Use content restriction apps, which make sense, and value family meals, sleep, exercise, outdoor time, chores. In other words, the normal things that families [chuckles] are supposed to do offline. And so those are just really good, practical things, that might help people as well. All right, so this next survey, super interested to get your take. Barna has spoken in, because it's been three months since the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and there's been a lot of talk about, is this sparking a spiritual revival? What does this reveal about the state that we're in? And it's amazing, it was on September 10th that he was shot and killed at an outdoor rally. A few things, I won't get too lost in the stats here, but his death has prompted nearly three in 10 Americans to take some form of action, with spiritual responses far outpacing political ones, which I think is very interesting. Among Gen Z, 28% reported taking a spiritual action, more than one out of four, and 13% a political action. Millennials, now among practicing Christians, 40% took some spiritual action, but the same took a political, action somehow in response. 47% predict a positive outcome from his death, 19% expecting a negative one. So more are positive about the outcome than negative, which is really interesting to me. Gen Z were particularly likely to expect negative outcomes on political cooperation and civil discourse. So Gen Z was more likely to view this negatively than other generations were, and they talk about how practicing Christians had a markedly different response. Now, I've got some thoughts about this research and questions about revival, but what's your take on this?

Scott Rae: Well, a couple of things stood out to me. One is the emphasis on taking spiritual more than political action. I think that's a positive thing, but I wonder, what does taking spiritual action mean? And it's, and it's, and it's, it's this amorphous category, and I wish they would've spelled it out a little bit further. I suspect one of the things would be going back to church.

Sean McDowell: Yeah, that's right.

Scott Rae: But I just don't know what that means. And I think the observation of the Barna folks was really helpful on this, that Kirk was not the catalyst- ... For younger generations returning to church, but is part- but is consistent with and part of a broader movement, both in the US and in the UK, that's already well documented about younger generations returning to church, and sort of something sort of akin to revival taking place. Now, the other thing that I think was helpful, the Barna researchers commented about one of the things this revealed is the, what they call the intertwined nature of spiritual and political life in the US. And I think, Sean, that's overall a good thing, but requires some nuance-

Sean McDowell: All right

Scott Rae: ... To it. It's a good thing because politics is fundamentally a moral and spiritual enterprise, as we've talked about before. It's about how we order our lives together in community. And there are clearly political positions that are entailments of our Christian faith, f- that follow logically from our faith, that I would say are not, are not perfectly allied with either side of the political aisle on everything. Things like care for the poor, protection of the most vulnerable, including the unborn and the elderly, stewardship of the environment, religious freedom, reducing gun violence, racial reconciliation, strengthening of families. All those things, I think, are entailments of a biblical Christian faith. This, and this is why we've... We've mentioned this before, too, why people on both sides of these things are so passionate, and there's widespread agreement on the ends, but the means to accomplish those ends is usually where the agreement starts to unravel. Now, the key question, I think, is how we intertwine Christian faith and our politics.

Sean McDowell: That's right.

Scott Rae: And I would really be careful of a privatized faith, what our friend Os Guinness said years ago about Christian faith being privately engaging but socially irrelevant. [chuckles]

Sean McDowell: [chuckles]

Scott Rae: And I think he w- he was right on target.

Sean McDowell: That's a great way to put it.

Scott Rae: And I think even the statement that Jesus is Lord in the first century was an incredibly profound political statement-

Sean McDowell: It was

Scott Rae: ... Because it said that Caesar is not. And you could lose your head for saying Jesus is Lord. So the, I think, I got a couple other things, but I'm curious to hear your take on this, too.

Sean McDowell: Yeah, I had a few takeaways. Number one, I was struck by the difference between Christian and non-Christian responses. As a whole, Christians were far more optimistic that his death would have positive results, and I started to think about, why would that be the case? And I think part of it is that we have a faith in which out of death is [chuckles] at the root, Jesus offering his own life, we have built in that God works good out of tragedy. He works good out of death. And so when we see somebody just so young in his life having such an influence, and again, politics aside, but being so bold in his faith, there's a part of our church history and tradition that says, "You know what? God can work good out of this." So I think that's a natural gut reaction that Christians have in this instinct, theologically and practically. And also, Christianity is just a religion of hope. [chuckles] We have hope that God is sovereign, and he's working good through tragedies that we don't understand. So in some ways, when a tragedy like this hits-... Rather than changing beliefs, it really reveals beliefs that are there or weren't there. And in this case, I think it reveals that one difference between Christians and non-Christians, that we believe God is sovereign, he's working things together for the good, and he can bring good and righteous things out of evil, which of course, we see in Genesis 50, verse 20, or is it verse 10 or verse 20? Exactly what Joseph says to his brothers when they did evil to him. The other interesting thing is the difference between Gen Z/Millennials and adults. Gen Z-er were far more likely to expect negative impacts on political cooperation and civil discourse. It- I don't know if this is just a matter of generational differences or age differences. I don't know how to answer that, but older generations, Gen X and up, were less likely to think this is going to destroy civil discourse and political dialogue in the way that maybe younger generations do. Now, I could keep going, but you look like you had something you wanted to weigh in on this-

Scott Rae: Well-

Sean McDowell: ... This point

Scott Rae: , I think part of the reason for that is that older generations, like myself, lived through the 1960s. And, you know, we lived through 1968- ... Where there were, you know, RFK and MLK and, you know, Vietnam, and, you know, 250,000 people marched on the Washington Mall in protest of the Vietnam War. You know, we've seen- ... You know, this kind of discord and, you know, tribalism before, and we've come out of it. And, you know, and I think we've emerged from it stronger as a country. Now, I think the younger generations, I think there's a generation now that's growing up that has, that hasn't experienced anything but what we've seen in the last, you know, 10, 15, 20 years. And so the i- the idea that that is the norm, and this is something we gotta live with, I could see where that might, that might create a greater sense of pessimism- ... Toward, you know, toward getting out of this. And just, I think most... Lots of people, I think, are saying, "You know, this is something... We just gotta live with this."

Sean McDowell: That, that makes sense. I remember when I saw, like, to me, you know, Magic Johnson getting AIDS in the early '90s was shocking to me. Obviously, he wasn't killed, but in many people's minds, just like, this felt like a death sentence for someone who's a hero. But people who had been around longer and experienced more had a different perspective. Just the wisdom that comes with age is probably a piece of this, I hope.

Scott Rae: Well, I think-

Sean McDowell: I hope.

Scott Rae: Yeah.

Sean McDowell: Yeah.

Scott Rae: It's, it's the idea that I think that Solomon writes about in Ecclesiastes- ... That there really, "There's nothing new under the sun." It's just, it's the same things taking different forms.

Sean McDowell: Yeah, that makes sense. You know, the other thing is, you hit on earlier that David Kinnaman, who [chuckles] he's on our board here, Biola. We lived on the same dorm back in the mid-'90s-

Scott Rae: [chuckles]

Sean McDowell: ... Which is kind of fun. But he points out that... He's the head of the Barna Group, that the death of Kirk fits a pattern of renewed spiritual interest more than it- there's evidence that it is a catalyst for revival within itself. That's just simply what the data seems to show. Now, the, these 30% of people responding, and we don't know what that is, I think it's really wise you pointed that out. I mean, somebody could say, "Well, I'm now following somebody who's a spiritual influencer on Instagram." Like, [chuckles] that could be a spiritual thing. That's very different than reading your Bible regularly, praying consistently, going to church, spending your money on missions. Like, I wanna know what those spiritual practices are. But in some ways, we're only gonna know in time, in probably, I don't know, two, three, five years, maybe a decade, when we look back on this generation and this moment, if it really had lasting change. One of the things my dad taught me is, you've, you've given me a hard time sometimes for like, liking stats and data. I mean, my dad was, like, the king of data. He loved it, and he would always say, "Make sure you get a few studies to compare and contrast." And there was a Pew report that came out, at least I saw it this same week, talking about claims of revival in the US. And they said, "A new report from Pew finds young Americans remain less religious than their parents or grandparents, with just over half, 55%, claiming a religion." Quote, "Today's young adults are less religious than young people were a decade ago." Now, we've seen, and you and I have talked about this, the decade-long decline, religious decline has stalled, at least for now. The increase in what are called the nones, it's settled at around 30% over the past five years or so. But they said, "Pew found that the number of Americans who pray daily, who say religion is important in their life, and who say they attend services at least once a month, has remained steady over the past few years." Now, how much their data studies the past three months, I don't know the answer to that, so we're still gonna have to give it more time to figure it out. The challenge is just, for me, anecdotally, everywhere I go, people are... Pastors are telling me, and other YouTubers are telling me, and authors are telling me, students are telling me about reading the Bible and going to church, and some- in some cases, really dramatic awareness of their own sin and shifting because of it. So they quote in this article, in Religious News Revival, Dan Allen, a friend of mine who has worked for years with Cru, and he said, "For example, there were 17,000 students attended their fall retreats sponsored by Cru this past year, up 7% from last year and 20% from 2023." I'm hearing these kind of stats all over the place. They're smaller numbers. So if I had to assess it, Scott, I'd say there's been a bump, there's been an increase. How much? How much it will last, w-... Only way of knowing that, I think, is a matter of time.

Scott Rae: Yeah, I'm, I'm encouraged that the slide seems to have leveled off.

Sean McDowell: At least [chuckles] minimally.

Scott Rae: Yeah, I mean, I'm, I... You know, that's good news. Where it goes beyond that, I think you're right, we just time will tell.

Sean McDowell: But, but even Ryan Burge, who we've interviewed on this, says, "Even if that remains flat in terms of the statistical increase within generations, younger generations, like Millennials and Gen Zers, as they replace Boomers and Busters, since Gen Zers and Millennials are less religious, you have a natural shift away from the amount of people who are religious within the population as a whole," and that seems to be a shift that is still progressing, societally speaking. All right, well, we'll circle back to this and see... And by the way, I would- i- you know, if some people wanna reach out, if they have specific stories of people going to church, of people coming to Christ, I would love to hear them. Email us. I get asked about this a lot, and we'd love a sense of those of you following here, if the death of Charlie Kirk or really anything else within the past two or three years, because that's really when it's been on the radar, Scott. I think it was the book- ... That came out, The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God, by our friend Justin Brierley, who's like, "The conversation is shifting, and there's an increase in spiritual things." If you've seen that over the past two or three years and have a testimony for us, or specifically the death of Charlie Kirk, please send it. We would love to see it. All right, [chuckles] Scott, this one is a crazy story. It's- you can only somewhat laugh because it's humorous. You can't make it up. In some ways, tragic, I think. But the title is, and this came from Mehretu Gutu, who's a philosopher here. You've written books with him, and he said it to us in an email chat this week, and it said, "Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written fully by AI." I mean, just let that sink in. "Controversy has erupted after 21%," that's one out of five, "of manuscript reviews for an international AI conference were found to be generated by AI." Now, here's a few things: "Peer reviewers are increasingly using chatbots to draft responses to authors." Now, before I read this, maybe we'll explain kinda... Maybe why don't you take a minute to explain?

Scott Rae: All right.

Sean McDowell: What do we mean by kind of a peer review process when research is involved?

Scott Rae: Yeah. It's, it's a standard thing in the academic world, pe- and it can be a very laborious task. I've-

Sean McDowell: That's right

Scott Rae: ... I've had, I've had book manuscripts and articles peer reviewed by others, and I've had- I've been asked to do this myself-

Sean McDowell: Me too

Scott Rae: ... On more occasions than I'd like to admit. [laughs] and it's, i- we do this for conference papers, journal articles, and book manuscripts, and the compensation for that is minimal to nothing.

Sean McDowell: Usually, I mean, 300 bucks or something like that, maybe.

Scott Rae: You must, you must be a more valued reviewer than me. [laughs]

Sean McDowell: [laughs] Well, not for an article, but for full books.

Scott Rae: Yeah.

Sean McDowell: But you think about the hours and hours spent, it's pennies.

Scott Rae: Yeah, I mean, I served on the, on the board of the Evangelical Theological Society for seven years. And we would regularly review, abstracts and in some cases, full papers for inclusion at the annual meeting. And it was a time-consuming task. And I know, I've been, I, you know, I've had people give me really meaningful feedback on stuff that I've written as peer reviewers. I've also had some peer reviewers who were a pain in the rear end. And, you know, I had to... I did things to correct on every- on virtually every page, and the editor actually told me, "You know, you can ignore a certain percentage of [chuckles] what this reviewer has said."

Sean McDowell: [laughs]

Scott Rae: So, I... That's really the way it goes, and it requires... The, the more technical the paper or the book manuscript, the more time and expertise that it takes. And so to do, to do a good job on it requires a lot of effort because, in many cases, they wanna know if you're giving it a thumbs up or a thumbs down, and if you give it a thumbs down or a thumbs sideways, they wanna know what's, what would you change or correct, and s- please point out specific things that you want the author to fix, and that's where it gets really time-consuming.

Sean McDowell: I love being a professor, and you do as well, but the things I don't love are grading, which comes with it, and I get asked to peer review, and sometimes say yes, sometimes say no. But the idea is you have accountability built in, where another expert, sometimes in the same field or a different field, might catch something that somebody misses or a weak argument, and they have to reframe it. So in principle, it's positive, but obviously, something went wrong here. So here's what took place. This guy named Graham Neubig, he's an AI researcher at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, which I actually spoke at this fall, interestingly enough. He was one of those who received peer reviews that seemed to have been produced by a large language model. So being somebody who peer reviews, the alarm bells went off, and he's like: This doesn't feel like a human being. So he needed help proving the reports were AI-generated. So he posted on X, formerly Twitter, and the next day, someone named Max Spiro, chief executive of Pangram Labs in New York City, which develops tools to detect AI-generated text, so this guy's like the man, somehow saw his tweet, or someone shared it with him. Pangram screened all 19,490 studies that were for this conference coming up in 2026, and 75,800 peer reviews, and this is gonna take place in April in Brazil.... So Neubig and more than 11,000 other AI researchers will be attending. So when we say a major conference, 11,000 people, that's almost three times the size of what ETS is, roughly. Well, more than half contained signs of AI use, but what gets most concerning is his analysis flagged almost 16,000 peer reviews fully AI-generated. That means 100% AI-generated, and 199 manuscripts, 1%, which people are submitting as research to be considered [chuckles] even that research was AI-generated. 1% of it was. Now, w- really quickly, the ICLR, this organization, permits authors and reviewers to use it to polish text. So if I write an article, I say, "Make this sound smoother, correct grammar," fine. Generate experiment codes or analyze results, which is fine if you have data, and they can analyze the data for you, but they mandate disclosure of such use. That's really important. What do you make of this?

Scott Rae: What did you expect? [laughing] Sean, tell-- please tell me you're not surprised by this.

Sean McDowell: I-- you know what? I had both feelings. Part of me was like, "I'm not remotely surprised," but the other part was like, "Really? Really?" [laughing]

Scott Rae: Well, yeah, this is-- I mean, for-- and the irony of this being for, like, an AI conference is these peer reviewers are shooting their craft in the foot- ... By doing this. And, you know, AI is being used in ways by academics who I suspect are also decrying its use by their students. If their student did the same thing, I suspect they would get failing grades for it.

Sean McDowell: That's a great point.

Scott Rae: And here, this is-- I mean, Sean, we've said this repeatedly: the temptation to use AI for more and more and to go outside the guardrails is really clear here. It's-- th-that temptation, it will, I think, always prove to be irresistible- ... Unless peop- unless somebody just has the internal moral compass and the internal fortitude not to go there.

Sean McDowell: So what do you think? Let me ask you this. What should happen to the people, and the difference, and maybe there's not a relevant difference, the 200 who a-apparently submitted manuscripts with research entirely AI-based, without, again, apparently revealing that it was AI-based, which nobody's going to do. Seems to me they should be kicked out of organizations and able to do AI research ever again. Like, that is crossing an ethics line where you're out. Peer review? I mean, what should happen to the 20%? That's like 2,000. I don't know if some people did five or ten or more. I don't know how many people it is. Ethically, what should happen to people who use this and don't follow the guidelines of at least making aware how they used it? What's your sense?

Scott Rae: Well, i-if I were one of those people, and I got canceled from doing peer reviews, I wouldn't be upset about that. [laughing]

Sean McDowell: [laughing] That's totally true.

Scott Rae: I would-- [laughing] that's almost an incentive.

Sean McDowell: [laughing]

Scott Rae: But... And, and I'm not sure we're at a place where, you know, where, p- you know, public shaming is gonna be effective. But that, this, Sean, in my view, this may be the only thing that would work because the people are bust-- this is evidence that people are busting through the guardrails, and I think our students are doing it more than we want to admit, and we just don't recognize or don't want to recognize it. And I commend organizations like these folks who are sniffing it out, and, you know, I think I'd like to buy stock in that company because they're gonna, they're gonna have lots of customers in the years to come. And there are other, I mean, there are other companies doing very similar things, but in my view, the AI technology will always be a step ahead of the, you know, of the dog catchers on this.

Sean McDowell: That's for sure. I think that's right.

Scott Rae: So I-- you know, but if we can curb some of this, I think that's great. I would, you know, I would, I would el- I would eliminate the papers. I think I'd a- I'd also be inclined to inform their institutions that they were doing this. I'd inform their dean or their provost that they, that they've been caught red-handed doing this, and that they will no longer be allowed to peer review or to submit papers to this organization's conferences. So something like that.

Sean McDowell: Yeah, that's fair. That, that makes sense. Y-you know, should I be surprised? We've seen the number of pastors who use AI. Now we see AI researchers who use AI. To me, this is just an indication that it's ubiquitous and it's everywhere, and people are using it all the time, nonstop, in higher numbers than we would probably suspect. Makes me wonder what will happen in one or two generations with a generation of young people being raised using this, and it seeming normalized. There's a quote that's attributed to Francis Schaeffer. I found it tweeted out by, Albert Mohler tweeted out. It's all over these good quotes. I couldn't find the original source, so it's attributed to him. That's the best that I will say, but the point stands on its own. And he says, "People drift from generation to generation, and the morally unthinkable becomes thinkable as the years move on."... Makes me wonder in 10, 20 years where we will be with AI and the ethics of it as it becomes ubiquitous. I don't know the answer to that.

Scott Rae: Or it might go the way of Australia and social media.

Sean McDowell: Or the marijuana story, where there's a pushback.

Scott Rae: Or the yeah, right.

Sean McDowell: It could.

Scott Rae: It could.

Sean McDowell: Let's hope that it does. Yeah, we'll, we will pull out for that one. All right, so we've got some very interesting stories this week as we... Or questions this week as we do, but let me remind folks, we would love to have you study with us at Talbot School of Theology. We have programs online and in person, Old Testament, New Testament, marriage and family, spiritual formation, apologetics, philosophy, and more. Think about joining us. All right, we'll see how many of these questions we can get through. This first one says: "There's been recent stories about the decrease in fertility, such that concerns exist in economics and culture. Most articles focus on explaining why people are having fewer children. Do any studies exist that look at why some families choose to have more children than their parents?" Now, this person gives personal examples of this, but are you aware of any studies of why some families would choose to have more children than their parents do?

Scott Rae: Yes, Sean, I am aware of this. We interviewed Tim Carney, who's written on this subject, and there have been a handful of other books that have been done by, particularly by women who have large families. And m- most of the reasons for more children, I think you will find out there, are religiously grounded, the notion of... The theological notion of children being a gift. And but they also typically have more support from extended families and from communities, and what Tim Carney pointed out is they have a different view of parenting. They ha- it's not, it's not, it's not free-range parenting, but it's, it's, it's a quite a bit more hands-off than I think some of the helicopter parenting generation would be comfortable with. Allowing, you know... Now, they live- they also live in neighborhoods that have, they have sidewalks that kids can walk to school and to church and to the store and to, you know, to get, you know, get a soda somewhere. So and not every community has that. So they, but it's a, it's a little different view of parenting, where they allow... It's, it's allowing kids more to be kids and allowing them more freedom at younger ages because they know they have the support of folks in their community who will help, you know, recognize and set, you know, set a kid straight if they're going outside the guardrails.

Sean McDowell: I think you're right, that support plays a big role, but I think also modeling, seeing people with more kids that are able to do it well and enjoy it in a positive way, that makes that attractive. And of course, the worldview, the beliefs behind it, understanding the value of kids, can make a difference as well. But you're right, Tim Carney gave some examples. Good, good example. All right, this individual says, "My church of 30-plus years is taking steps to become affirming. I'm about to join the elder board. I plan to invite the past and present elders to discuss God's design for marriage. I'm a timid person by nature, and I'm incredibly anxious about how this will unfold. Speaking up like this is way out of my comfort zone, but I've anticipated this day for years. I also have a measure of peace, believing that God has called and prepared me to do this. I followed the Think Biblically podcast for many years, and God has used you to prepare me to ask questions, listen, be gracious, practice perspective-taking, recognize the difference between intellectual needs and emotional needs. Thank you. Do you have any other advice as I step into this controversial issue?" Now, I do, but what's your advice?

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, I think for somebody who is shy and reluctant to speak out, you should probably answer this first. [laughing]

Sean McDowell: [laughing] You relish that, didn't you?

Scott Rae: I'm kidding. I'm kidding.

Sean McDowell: [laughing]

Scott Rae: I, for one... I'm sorry, I couldn't resist that.

Sean McDowell: I love it. I love it. I didn't see that coming. [chuckles]

Scott Rae: I appreciate the diff- the affirmation that this listener describes what they've learned from the podcast. I think some of this we can pass to Tim Muehlhoff, too, for, 'cause I think he's learned from Tim as well. But there's a time to listen. There's also a time to speak, and this, I think, is one of those times to speak. Now, make sure you, make sure you understand people's positions and can spout them back to them to their satisfaction before you speak, but this is one of, this is one of those times where you... This, this is the line in the sand that the Scripture draws. I say be gracious, but also be biblical, and I think you can, you can welcome- be welcoming to those experiencing same-sex attraction without affirming gay marriage or same-sex sexual behavior.

Sean McDowell: That's a good word. You know, he says, "Listen, ask questions, be gracious, practice perspective-taking." It sounds like since this is a church of 30-plus years, and you've anticipated this moment for 30 years, you have done all the right things. Now is the time for clarity and boldness and courage. And I want to say to this listener, based on what you've told us, you are in the right, biblically speaking. The Bible does not have space for an affirming position, and I've thought about this for decades and had discussions and debates with some of the leading affirming voices today, and some of the key scholars, people like William Loader, who is affirming, says, "Yeah, I can't get there by following the text, so I get there another direction," and I say, "Thank you for your honesty." So more than anything else, I want to tell you are on the right side of history. You have Scripture behind you. You have the worldview of the Apostle Paul, and you have the worldview of Jesus behind you. You have the Holy Spirit with you. Speak truth boldly. Now-... Can I promise how this is going to end well? No. My suspicion is it probably won't. If you've seen this coming for years, probably most people have already made up their minds. So you didn't ask this question, but for me, I would stay in a church like that, it's great that you're on the elder board, until I sense that you've played all your cards, and there's no longer openness or influence you can do, and then you leave, and you make it clear, at least to the board, why you're leaving, that they have abandoned scriptural authority. So be bold, be courageous. Thanks for reaching out, and we would love to hear even privately from you in an email, how things go. And thanks for listening for so long, much appreciated. This last one, Scott, I don't know that I'll read all of it, but it's about an individual that basically says he's been a Christian, for 50 years. In retirement, has more time to think and reflect, and one question really bothers him. He's prayed for the salvation of hundreds of non-Christian friends, family, and acquaintances. Many days, that is all he prays for. "After decades of prayer, I've not seen a single one of those prayers answered. No one has changed their disposition towards Christ," that he can see. Some are now more indifferent or hostile towards Jesus, and many have died apart from Christ. So what's your take on this, and how would you speak to someone who's been a Christian so long and is clearly disillusioned and bothered by this?

Scott Rae: Well, I, hats off to this listener for the way he has just so fervently prayed for people.

Sean McDowell: Amen.

Scott Rae: I remember my mentor in seminary prayed for his father to come to faith for 42 years.

Sean McDowell: 42 years.

Scott Rae: And basically, just before he died, he did. And I think, you know, God seems silent in a lot of, a lot of things that we pray for. I mean, I've, I've prayed for, you know, lots of things for lots of years. And, you know, G- just because God doesn't answer it in the way we would want, doesn't mean that He's not still at work. The other thing I would suggest is that, yeah, we pray, that's true, and we pray for God to move, and we pray for the Spirit to move in people's lives to bring them to faith, but ultimately, people have free will-

Sean McDowell: That's right

Scott Rae: ... To choose. And, you know, our hearts are deceitfully wicked. We are, you know, we're experts in self-deception, and, you know, that's a factor here, and people have free will, and God... I- and in my v- in my view of the world, and I think you agree with this, God does not overrule-

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm

Scott Rae: ... Our freedom to choose or to reject Christ.

Sean McDowell: I agree with that.

Scott Rae: But we have gen- we have genuine, what we call libertarian free will to do that. So you're not the only one who's bothered by this. I mean, I think everybody who prays for loved ones and friends to come to faith, and they don't, is bothered by that. But that's how, that's how I would address that.

Sean McDowell: That's great. I don't even know that I could add anything to that, but as I thought about this question, I just want to say to our listener here that God is okay with your questions and doubts.

Scott Rae: Exactly.

Sean McDowell: He's not offended by them. He can deal with them. We even see in Genesis, chapter 18, we see Abraham questioning God, "Won't you do that which is right?" And God just... He kind of takes it. This is a part of the name Israel means wrestle with God, that we can bring our questions and our doubts to God. And I'd, I'd encourage you to read the Psalms. You know, a high percentage of the Psalms are complaint Psalms and lament Psalms, and very few of our songs are that way. They're just not. They don't reflect this brokenness and hurt and doubts we often have before the Lord. And finally, I would say, what's our job? Our job is not to convert people. Our job is to be faithful, and from what you shared, you have been faithful, praying for them, and I just say, keep being faithful. Don't give up. You never know how God will and has used your prayers. That's where faith comes in. All right, Scott, that's a good one, I think, to end on, and I'm looking forward to next week. This has been an episode of the podcast Think Biblically: Conversations on Faith and Culture, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, Biola University, where both Scott and I teach. We have master's programs, like I said earlier, in theology, Bible, apologetics, spiritual formation, and more, fully online and in person. We would love for you to consider joining us. To submit comments or ask questions, please email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu, and we would be super honored and appreciative if you'd take just a moment and give us a rating on your podcast app and consider sharing this episode with a friend. Thanks for listening, and we'll see you Tuesday when I share, we both share, a fascinating conversation. I sat down with three AI leaders, all faculty at Biola and Talbot, experts in business, experts in philosophy, and experts in science, to help us think through huge trends in AI and how to think biblically about them. In the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything. [upbeat music]