Stories this week:

  • A woman in Japan “marries” an AI chatbot, raising serious questions about the nature of marriage, human relationships, and how emerging technologies blur the line between real and artificial intimacy.
  • An Atlantic article suggests physics may be reaching the limits of reductionism, as living systems exhibit emergence, self-organization, and information that can’t be explained by particles alone.
  • A New York Times piece sparks discussion on when military personnel are morally obligated to disobey unlawful orders, drawing on just war theory and biblical principles of higher law.
  • Ross Douthat’s analysis of the rightward shift among young men argues that perceived institutional discrimination and lost opportunities are fueling resentment and radicalization.
  • Listener question: Should churches use AI generated worship music?
  • Listener question: Should woman receiving abortions be charged as criminal "masterminds"?

Note: Our Weekly Cultural Update episodes will be on hiatus during Christmas & New Years. We'll return in 2026!



Episode Transcript

Sean McDowell: [upbeat music] A 32-year-old woman in Japan marries the chatbot of her dreams. Is there a revolution in physics marking the end of the centuries-long materialist view of reality? With the strikes against the drug boats off Venezuela, a debate emerges about when it is okay to disobey unlawful orders. And what best explains the rightward shift of young men? 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, we have some somewhat crazy stories this week, and I'm eager to jump in and get your assessment of them. But let's start with this first one that was in the Economic Times, and it was Reuters, sent to me by a student in my [chuckles] Talbot class on the resurrection, about a Japanese woman who recently married an AI-generated persona. The wedding, held in western Japan, saw the 32-year-old, call center operator exchange vows with a digital figure displayed on a smartphone screen. The event is not legally recognized, but it had all the trappings of a traditional wedding, including a white gown and tearful vows. The woman, Noguchi, agreed to be identified by her real name in the Reuters report. She shared her emotional journey, stating that the relationship evolved from a simple talking partnership, quote, "At first, Klaus," is the name, "was just someone to talk with, but we gradually became closer. I started to have feelings for Klaus. We started dating, and after a while he proposed to me. I accepted, and now we're a couple." Now, her relationship with her AI husband, Klaus, began after she she sought advice from ChatGPT regarding a relationship with her former human fiance, which ultimately ended their engagement. The concept of Klaus originated from a, quote, "handsome video game character," whose speaking style Noguchi painstakingly replicated through trial and error with ChatGPT. She then fashioned her own version of the anime character, giving him a particular name. Now, there's other trappings here, and there's some other stuff I'll bring back. What's your takeaway from this one, Scott?

Scott Rae: Oh, Sean, yeah, again, you can't make this stuff up.

Sean McDowell: [chuckles]

Scott Rae: And I... The big takeaway for me is I am no longer surprised by anything that comes down the pike with AI.

Sean McDowell: Wow.

Scott Rae: And here's... The irony in this is that [chuckles] the bride in this wedding is a wedding consultant for a living.

Sean McDowell: [chuckles]

Scott Rae: I don't know quite what to make of that. But now there are, in Japan, there are wedding planners that handle virtual partners exclusively. And one of them commented he does one of these once a month. You know, and, you know, the other thing that struck me on this is the admission that Klaus has helped this woman deal with her borderline personality disorder. Which, in my view, is moving into really dangerous territory because a sycophantic chatbot, which is still what these are, is ill-equipped to be a therapist, and to provide the kind of challenge and input that people need to overcome something as serious as a borderline personality disorder. Now, it's also, I think, significant that she has reduced her usage of ChatGPT down to two hours a day from 10.

Sean McDowell: That's right.

Scott Rae: 10 hours a day. Now, the, just the other, just random comment I'd make on this is that, you know, we've talked a lot, a lot before about the autonomy basis for legalizing same-sex marriage and for, you know, what that opened the door to. And based on the autonomy, foundation for recognizing marriages, but other than between one man and one woman, it's not clear why marriage to AI bots wouldn't also be recognized. This is, in my view, another example of autonomy run amok. [lips smack] Now, I think, Sean, based... The, the more important part of this is it raises the question, what is marriage? And, one, I think marriage, as God designed it, is to a real person. And two, I have the same, issue with calling this a marriage that I do the same-sex marriage, and that is that marriage, as God designed it, is intrinsically ordered toward procreation. That's what it is. That's what it's been for centuries. And third, it's the- I don't think... Marriage is not, fundamentally about love or companionship, but as God designed it's about the sacrificial love you have for another, the children it produces, ultimately that reflects Christ's love for us individual believers. And I think, Sean, that, more than marriage, what has helped me appreciate God's love for me was having children and becoming a father. The sacrifices that were necessary, the way my own self-interest got put on the back burner. In fact, I found myself, with the birth of each successive child, fi- found myself farther down the priority list.

Sean McDowell: [chuckles]

Scott Rae: Which is just sort of- that's just the nature of the beast. But the main thing, Sean, is how I delighted in just being with them. And it's a great, I think, a great example of how... One of my favorite verses in all the scripture, from the prophet Zephaniah, that talks about how God de- God s- God delights over us with singing, just to be with us.... He delights in that. And I experienced that in both in marriage and in having the children that the marriage produced.

Sean McDowell: That, that's such a good take. I appreciate it. And I- one of the questions I asked myself is, should we even talk about this story? Because I don't wanna do these outlandish stories that just get attention and provoke discussion. But I choose a story like this if, A, it's possibly indicative of a wider trend that's taking place in culture, and B, like you said, follows naturally from other trends within culture, and in this case, the dissolution and redefinition of marriage. Now, I do think that there may be reason to think that this could be a wider trend coming, and I'll come back to that. But a question I just sat and thought with is, like, how do we get to the point where somebody's marrying a chatbot? I mean, you go back to the time of Jesus, you go back to the [chuckles] Middle Ages, you go to a decade ago, let alone, you know, last century, people would have thought, first, "What on earth is a chatbot?" And w- like, this would feel like s- as much science fiction as anything we've almost seen in a science fiction film. Almost would feel that way. So how have we gotten here? I think one is clearly the way technology affects us. Technology is not neutral, it's not worldview neutral, and a lot of our technology breaks down, whether we realize it or not, our understanding that there is life and non-life, human and non-human and technology. And so we couldn't get to this point where people even entertain it if there wasn't just a constant breaking down of the human versus technology. And before anybody goes, "I would never get there," I mean, not long ago, [chuckles] I just lost... I, well, I don't wanna overstate it, but I, like, raised my voice at Alexa, and I was like, "What am I doing? Why am I getting mad at this thing that's just not following?" It's purely a machine. And I reflected upon how I'm treating it as if it's a person or a being and just started thinking about this. So we're- we can all be affected by that, and I think clearly the breakdown of marriage. You and I talked about, and others have, once marriage is no longer a sexed institution, no longer... W- once it's not about procreation at all, and once it's about making somebody happy, this naturally follows from it. So it's not a slippery slope to point this out, it's the natural result of certain trends that have taken place.

Scott Rae: Well, I th- I think there's another trend that we're, we're seeing more and more of, and that is the inability to deal with relationships that are messy.

Sean McDowell: That's good.

Scott Rae: Because the, we, you know, we're all fallen, flawed human beings. You know, we've all got our blind spots. We are all difficult to deal with from time to time. And I think what's, what's happened is that the... When no-fault divorce was legalized in the 1960s, that was a, another domino falling in the recognition that relationships are messy, real life is hard, and an easy exit out of those now became available. And I think this is another trend that is, I'd say, another domino falling- ... Is that we're, we're, we've created a pseudo world through social media. We've created pseudo human beings through chatbot that have enabled pseudo relationships to emerge because they're clean, they're neat and tidy. You can wrap a, you can wrap a nice bow around them. You don't have to... They, they don't give you grief, they don't challenge you. They're, they're not, they're just, they're not the stuff of real life. And what I've found, I don't know, I suspect you found this too, is that marriage is to a r- to a real person who is not a sycophant, who will challenge me about certain things, that is one of the primary things, maybe the main thing, that God has used in my life to chip away those rough edges of my character. And God knows, before I was married, I had a lot of them. And there's something about being known and being loved by a real person who kn- who really knows you inside and out, that is transformative. And I fear that we are settling for cheap substitutes for the real thing. And this is, this is the thing I think that troubles me the most about this, and the... And at least in some parts of the world, the proliferation of these chatbots. You know, Sean, I just saw a piece, the Los Angeles Times had a piece over the weekend that described the proliferation of AI toys. These, these bots are being... This is the first time I've seen widespread availability of these for Christmas gifts. And kids around the world are gonna get AI chatbots for Christmas. Well, and I think the... Like we've never seen before. And I just, I just so don't want us to live in a pseudo world where we're isolated from the real messy stuff of life, because the hypocrisy in that is, I think, so striking. It's, it's the admission that I want, I wanna, I wanna connect with somebody who's, you know, who's not messy, well, but while at the same time, you've got to recognize that you are. And that's a hard one for some people to choke down. And it's, it's a lot easier to swallow if you have somebody who's loving you unconditionally, but who also knows you inside and out. Now, for a lot of people, that can be terrifying.... And before I, before I was convinced that my wife loved me as I was, that was a scary prospect, and opening up was not always easy. And so I, you know, I get the struggle with that, but that's the real stuff, Sean, of which relationships are made, and the real stuff of which transformation occurs.

Sean McDowell: This article shows that a study by the Japanese Association for Sexual Education, that 22% of girls in middle c- middle school reported having had inclinations to fictoromantic relationships up from 2023. So we have this evidence that there's already these inclinations that are drawn out, and then we're gifting people chatbots. What does that mean for 10, 20, 30 years down the road? Those are real questions that need to be asked. One piece I don't understand about this is exactly why this started in Japan and what role anime plays in this. I don't understand anime. I'm not gonna pretend to. If we have some listeners that are like, "Hey, here's an article or something that would really help you," send it my way. But I think there's a connection there. I just don't wanna comment outside of what I, what I understand on this. Last thing I'll say is, I really appreciate your tone on this, and I knew you would bring this. Instead of just mocking and laughing at this, which would be so easy naturally to do, I mean, on some level, the idea of marrying a chatbot is ridiculous. It is. But this is a human being made in God's image, who's yearning for relationship, yearning for happiness, clearly experiencing a brokenness. And we're gonna see more and more people now, I think, in 2026 and beyond, being affected negatively from these chatbots, whether it's this marriage issue or something else. We just need to be receptive and open and kind in how we respond, and then move people towards the truth. All right, Scott, you sent me this article to shift gears radically. I found so fascinating on this one. I would have missed this, even though I read The Atlantic, and the title is "The Truth Physics Can No Longer Ignore." And basically, the article is saying, for most of the 20th century, physics largely ignored living systems and machines, but that's changing. And according to this article, written by an astrophysicist, the central hubris of physics has long been the idea that it is the most fundamental of all the sciences. It's the most objective. Physics students learn about the basic stuff of reality: space, time, energy, matter, and are told that all other scientific disciplines must reduce back down to fundamental particles and laws that physics has generated. This is called reductionism, of course, and part of the search for a theory of everything is if we just knew the laws of nature, we could explain all behavior, how the universe operates. That's what the search is for. Now, in the '80s, they describe how there was a shift towards complexity, realizing that there's more to the universe, so when systems get a level of complexity, [clears throat] new kind of properties and other things start to emerge. But they're basically saying in this article, I'll read it, he says, "The components of a living organism yield something new and unexpected, a phenomena called emergence." So how is it that if the universe is the way they say it in here, 13.7 billion years old, particles interacting, matter, and energy, you have this property emerge in living systems that doesn't seem to be able to be reducible to the physical properties that make it up? And by the way, this is really key. It says, talking about, laws and energy cannot predict a life because it's the only system in the universe that uses information for its own purposes. So basically, this article is arguing that it's time for physics to give up the idea that it's just the particles all the way down, and we need a new revolution. Your thoughts?

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, I was thrilled to read this. And the article was right to point out the reductionism in this, but that, the re- that reductionism is a worldview. It's a, it's the worldview we call a philosophical naturalism, that all of reality is reducible to chemistry and physics. And that, Sean, I'd want our listeners to know that, it... I think it sort of, it masquerades as science, but that reductionist view is actually a faith position. It's, it's a worldview commitment because that's the statement itself, that all of reality is reducible to chemistry and physics, is itself not reducible to chemistry and physics.

Sean McDowell: [chuckles]

Scott Rae: And I think here, I love this part, where they said, "The real, the real challenge for physics is that patterns that make up life are self-organized." And here's the q- the point: I think in a, in a naturalistic world where, as Richard Dawkins has described it, a world of blind, pitiless indifference to life, random events in the evolutionary scheme of things don't produce self-organizing beings. That's a real, a really important point, and you also, rightly pointed out that, it's, it's the only- life is the only system in the universe that uses information for its own purposes. But, Sean, that begs the question, where did that information come from?... The in- that information is not in the system. Because if the system is reducible to chemistry and physics, the only way that information to have been generated at the cellular level is what they're recognizing, is for it to come in from the outside. And as we would say, this is so- I mean, this is- these are things that theists have been saying for some time, and our intelligent, our intelligent design friends have been saying that information is evident at, from external to the organism from the very cellular level. Now, I, there's, there's this, I- those two things, just that they are self-organizing and they need information to come from the outside, those are things that intelligent design's been saying for some time. And I think this... I was so delighted to see how the au- the author in The Atlantic, I think, is seeing there's, there's, there's a sense in which that modern physics is, I think, is recognizing that it operated for some time with the emperor having no clothes. And that's, that... I mean, we'll see. It'll be interesting to see the response from the physics and chemistry communities, from the naturalist community on this. I suspect there'll be very vigorous pushback on this, and we'll, we'll do our best to keep our listeners posted on that. I'm really interested to hear your take on this, too.

Sean McDowell: Yeah, so the points that he makes in this article do not surprise me at all. There's nothing new. The intelligent design movement has been talking about and advancing these arguments, people like Stephen Meyer, William Lane Craig, JP Moreland on some levels, our very own JP Moreland, Doug Axe at Biola. Like, there's nothing new here, but it's new to him that he's realizing, "Wait a minute, I've been sold this bill of goods, seemingly, that the universe can be reduced to matter, time, and energy, and space. If we understand those laws, everything in principle can be described." As you said, that's a worldview commitment that somebody starts with, not something that has been demonstrated. And I think we're starting to see the edifice of that crack in more ways than one. So I just... I didn't post it here, but on my YouTube channel this week, interviewed Charles Murray, Harvard, MIT-trained policy analyst, and he talked about how he was just secularized into a certain way of seeing the world. But when he studied, like, the cosmological argument, fine-tuning, he started to realize... And, and then the moral argument, things can't be reduced down to matter. There seems to be a mind behind the universe. And that's where when you use the term information, every time we have information, this is an argument that Meyer points out. So again, in this article, he's talking about information, and we see that in the cell, for example. That's what DNA stores, information. It's embedded within reality. Meyer says, "Every time we have information, we can trace it back to its source, we find a mind." So if it's a book, we find an author. If it's a blog, we find a blogger. If it's a text, we find a texter. If it's... Any piece of information we have traces back to mind. So we see information embedded into the natural world. The question is, what's the best explanation? You and I argue that it's a mind. Last thing I'll say on this is given this materialistic worldview, they're trying to explain how things like mind and information and living systems just emerge, which they use the word emergence. That's basically a non-explanation. So I had a debate with Michael Shermer, one of the leading skeptics alive today, and I was asking him how he explains things like free will, 'cause even as an atheist or skeptic, he believes in it. And he says, "Well, I believe in consciousness. It just emerges at a certain level of complexity, like inflation emerges in an economic system." In other words, it's like magic. So for a materialist system, living things and mind and matter, words like emergence show that they can't explain it. But it makes perfect sense if there's a mind behind the universe [chuckles] As Genesis 1:1 describes, we shouldn't be surprised by this at all.

Scott Rae: Yeah, the emergent part, I think, is... That's, that's a really helpful insight. Just to help our listeners understand that concept, when hydrogen and oxygen come together, the property of wetness emerges from that combination. But here, the difference is, Sean, that those are- that's a physical property that emerges from other physical things, right? What, what we're talking about, what you, what you've made reference to, is the, consciousness. It's the emergence of a, immaterial property from two material things, and that's a much harder thing to explain. Now, I, just one final comment on this from me.

Sean McDowell: Sure.

Scott Rae: I love the way the article concludes on this. He s- it says, "To truly understand living systems as self-organized, autonomous agents, physicists need to abandon their, quote, 'Just the particles, ma'am,' mentality. [chuckles] One of their great talents, starting with the laws of simple parts, such as atoms, and working up to a complex whole, cannot fully account for cells, animals, or people."

Sean McDowell: Amen. I'll, I will leave it on that one. Well said. We need information, and we need mind. This next one has been a big story for a while, but we have not discussed it on the Cultural Update. As an ethicist, I'm curious to get your take.... This is a New York Times piece, and, the article says, "Must the military disobey unlawful orders? Pam Bondi, has said yes." Now, kind of the purpose of this article is to show out what they think is inconsistency within the attorney general. I'm less concerned with that kind of political angle that seems to be here. More so, is it okay, and when is it okay to disobey an unlawful order? So they quote President Trump saying things like, "It is okay to do so," and he's in favor of this, such as the boat strikes. When people are alive afterwards, should you still shoot down and kill people that have survived? According to this article, he also apparently made statements about a decade ago about going after terrorists' families. And that's really the debate here, and Pam Bondi had earlier talked about it would not be okay to use, like, SEAL Team Six to go kill a political opponent, and that the SEAL team should say no to an unlawful order. So what's your take on the moral questions being raised here?

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, let's, for our listeners' sake, let's, let's go-- let's take a step back from this-

Sean McDowell: Okay

Scott Rae: ... And go back to what is commonly referred to, as the just war theory. That's, that's where this comes from. And just, I think to be clear, too, the idea that sh- that soldiers not only can, but must disobey unlawful orders, has been well-entrenched in all the military academies for decades, and it emerged from the just war theory. And what-- basically, what it's, it's seven principles that govern, that form criteria for whether a war is a just war or not. Now, really, I think just a helpful point on this, to be clear, the original framers of the just war, theory, like, that go back to the 1600s, did not hold that war was always or intrinsically evil, but permissible if it followed these principles. They held that war actually could be a moral good at times, if conducted according to these guidelines. So I think we-- I think we would all, or most of us, I think, would agree that the war to stop the advance of Hitler and Nazi Germany was not just a lesser evil, but it was a moral good that was provided. So anyway, that's the background to this.

Sean McDowell: That's helpful.

Scott Rae: The main guideline that's in view here is what's called non-combatant immunity, which means that it's, it's, it's immoral to target non-combatants, main- namely women and children and elderly. And it's-- the article points out that one of the objectors to this suggested that, "Well, this is just a hypothetical discussion." Actually, it's not. You know, this has happened before. It occurred, for example, in the '60s in Vietnam, what's commonly known as the My Lai Massacre, that took place under the command of Lieutenant William Calley. And they were, you know, the, Calley was actually held responsible for giving an illegal order that his, that his soldiers under his command actually carried out unlawfully as well. Now, why he was the only one prosecuted, I'm, I'm not exactly sure. But, it is true, which requires a little bit of nuance, Sean, it is true that in the present era of fighting terror- certain terrorist groups, the line between combatants and civilians is intentionally blurred. Because, you know, wep- you have weapons depots under hospitals. You have families storing weapons, and sometimes terrorist fighters themselves. And there have been some instances where if you refuse-- say, if you refuse Hamas's demand to store weapons in your home, they'll burn your house down. And so there, it's trickier, I think, to separate combatants and non-combatants than it used to be. But the idea... And, and there is a place for col- for collateral damage, that is not unjustifiable. But when you, the idea is targeting non-combatants intentionally is a violation of the just war, criteria. And that mainly, that's the argument that most commonly comes into view when unlawful orders are given.

Sean McDowell: Okay, so let me ask you this question: if the boat was blown up, and then people survived, and of course, there's moral questions about whether it's [chuckles] okay for a president to do this in the first place, given just the system that's set up in America. If it's blown up, and say that was justified, and somebody survived and is now swimming not directly in the boat, is that a non-combatant? Is it still a part of the combatant, or is this where we get into kind of the blurry line here because you and I don't know a lot of the facts that have been kept from us?

Scott Rae: I'd say it's a different, it's a different blurry line, Sean, because, you know, it's always been considered unlawful to shoot prisoners of war when they, when they have been disarmed. They're there to be treated humanely. Now, they can be interrogated for information, that's true, but anybody who just mows down a group of disarmed prisoners of war would be doing something, I think, horribly unethical, and in the United States, would also be unlawful. So it's whether these folks are combatants or not at th- at that point, I think is less relevant than whether they are armed and a dangerous threat.... Which it look, from everything I've, I've seen, and again, we don't, we don't know- we don't have all the information, they would... I think they would constitute something akin to prisoners of war as opposed to combatants at the point at which you describe.

Sean McDowell: That makes sense. So I'm gonna ask you a somewhat obvious question, but I'd love you to weigh in on this one. In the article, according to Trump in 2015, he said, "We're fighting a very politically correct war, to defeat the Islamic State." He added, "The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families." Now, your [chuckles] thoughts on that statement, 'cause... Yeah, go ahead. Weigh in, tell me, is it ever okay to do this? Can we use the tactics of terrorists to make a point, or is this clearly out of bounds?

Scott Rae: Well, I think if family, if family members are complicit in terrorist activity, if they are providing, you know, providing shelter for terrorists, providing, you know, aid and comfort, providing w- you know, weapons and material, you know, prov- you know, things like that, then I think that line's a little blurrier. Then I think it's easier to put them under the heading of combatants. But I think to take, to just to say we're gonna take out family members without n- without saying any more about any possible complicity, I would say is immoral and should be unlawful.

Sean McDowell: That's, that's a helpful distinction. So if somebody says, "Well, I'm gonna take out their family to make a point that we are coming after you," then it's like, wait a minute, if they're not a combatant, that is completely out of bounds morally, biblically, the ethics of war. But if they're protecting, like some families seem to be with Osama Bin Laden, if I know the details correctly, to get to him, and you have to go through some of the family, that's a very different kind of metric. That makes sense. Now, of course, with Trump, how much is he just blustering and talking to try to make people worried or not? That's a separate issue. But maybe weigh in here biblically before we move on. When is it okay biblically to disobey an unlawful order? Because clearly we have some biblical accounts when it comes to life, such as the midwives early in Exodus, who disobeyed the order to kill the Hebrew babies. When is it permissible, biblically speaking, to disobey an unlawful order?

Scott Rae: Well, I think it's, it comes from the, I think the general, moral foundation that's laid out in the Book of Acts, in Acts chapter 4, where there are times when we must obey God rather than men. And there is a, there is a higher law than the law of the land. That's the... I mean, the military, I think, is assuming that there- because to call certain laws of the land unlawful, you have to appeal to something else besides the law of the land to do that. And so there's, there's clear recognition that there is, you know, some sort of higher law that we are accountable to. And I think the principle for that comes from Acts chapter 4. And so when, I think when you have an order to, that clearly violates, a written statute, or I think, when you have a, an order that violates a cl- a clear moral obligation that we have, then I think you are, you are obligated. You, you are not only, not only allowed, but you are obligated to disobey that.

Sean McDowell: That makes sense, and it, uh-

Scott Rae: And the milit- the military actually uses the language of obligation.

Sean McDowell: Oh, wow!

Scott Rae: That you are, you are mandated to disobey those.

Sean McDowell: And we clearly don't think it's just physical life, because there's many Christians who have and continue to smuggle Bibles into countries against an unjust law, and I don't see a lot of Christians pushing back against that. In fact, I told my students this week, I was like: "You're supposed to honor your parents, but if your parents tell you to deliver drugs for them, that's where it's actually [chuckles] the right thing to not listen to your parents." And of course, it gets sticky if they say, "I'll shoot your sister if you don't deliver the drugs." [chuckles] That's why I think the only reason you hesitate is that there are so many nuances that have to be applied to particular situations, and higher laws taken into consideration. But in principle, there's a law outside we're accountable to, and we have a basis for not following unjust laws, is the key takeaway.

Scott Rae: That's right.

Sean McDowell: Fair enough. All right, so this last one, I've also been eager to [chuckles] get your take on this, another very different approach. This is from our friend Ross Douthat, who's one of the only, conservative columnists at the New York Times. He's Catholic, and this is an op-ed piece from his newsletter. He says there's a simpler explanation for the rightward shift of young men. So he's basically asking, why are young conservatives so radicalized? And he walks through a number of the different reasons that are given, like economic struggles today, polarization between men and women. People say you can blame President Trump, post-liberal philosophers, racist podcasters, then economic uncertainty brought in by COVID. He's like, "There's a lot of factors here," but he says, "Sometimes a narrower and more purely material analysis is helpful," and here's his solution. He says, "For a decade, under woke and racial reckoning conditions, certain important American institutions appeared to systematically disfavor younger white men from employment."... Preferment and advancement. In the process, these institutions forged a cohort that had concrete economic material reasons to regard the existing system and its values as a racially motivated conspiracy against their interests. He says, "It's about jobs, professional opportunity, and feeling like a door has been slammed in their face, so to speak, before they can even reach it." He's citing this article by Jacob Savage, who wrote in Compact Magazine, called The Lost Generation, and he argues that the effects of the diversity, equity, and inclusion era were eminently material and practical. Across a wide range of elite professions, from academia, journalism, entertainment, et cetera, there's discrimination against younger white men. And this point, I had kind of thought about intuitively but hadn't really jumped out to me, Scott, is he says the young part is crucial, 'cause he says older white men in charge of institutions mostly were able to keep their jobs. So most white males in their forties, fifties, and sixties didn't have to hand over all the power to women and minorities, but this is not the case for younger Americans. And one thing he observed is, I thought it was fascinating, not a single white American man born after nineteen eighty-four has published a work of literary fiction in The New Yorker. [chuckles] Like, that's a fascinating point. More can be stated here, but his bottom line is... Let me say one thing he says: "One counterpoint might be," this is Douthat, "for the entirety of American history, discrimination ran the other way, and if the past ten years were unfair to some subset of white men, well, revolutions are always a little messy." He says, "But even if you set aside the moral problem of collective punishment, is a young white man who a- wants an academic job in twenty twenty responsible for how white men behaved in the nineteen sixties?" He says, "This still doesn't solve the issue. You're left with a political problem," and here's the final line: "This particular attempt at revolution has created a cadre of potential counter-revolutionaries with a clear material grievance against the entire system, especially against its claims to moral superiority on issues related to race." What's your take on this?

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, from the very beginning, back in the, you know, late sixties and seventies, of what was, what were then called affirmative action programs were criticized as being reverse discrimination. The interesting thing about that is that that claim was never really contested- ... But it was justified as redress for past wrongs and the subsequent disadvantages that those created. And I think we need to be clear, that there were past wrongs from slavery and from Jim Crow and, you know, and even things, even things that went, you know, as recent as the nineteen seventies. There were redlining was very common in the real estate business in the sixties and seventies, where certain neighborhoods were considered redlined, that banks wouldn't make mortgage loans in those largely m- largely African American neighborhoods. Now, I think Douthat is right. I think that this is basically requiring succeeding generations to atone for sins that they had nothing to do with. And the idea that someone else can atone for my sins, not named Jesus, I think is a really difficult thing to choke down. And I think w- part of the q- the question that we're raising, Sean, is what exactly is owed to those who were, have been disadvantaged by a racial past and those policies? Now, in my view, part of the, part of the answer to this is not preferential treatment in the workplace, and it's not preferential admission to college, you know, colleges and universities, but recogni-- I think we have to recognize that the starting place for kids like yours and mine, who have attended great schools, and they got a, you know, they've gotten a good education, they entered the race toward adulthood far... You know, the starting line for our kids was different than folks who were raised in largely minority communities. And I think what that, what that means for a solution is that the educational opportunities, starting early, need to be expanded, and there's needs to be greater equity in the quality of education that's provided across the board. Now, that's a, that's a deeper subject that's, you know, for a much deeper dive. But I do think we need to be clear about what we mean by the term privilege and to disentangle economic privilege from race and ethnicity. Because increasingly today, Sean, that just, that doesn't fit any longer. We've, we've had-- more African Americans have emerged out of poverty into the middle class since the nineteen eighties than ever before in our history. And, you know, we've had, we've had African American students at Biola who felt like there was some question about whether they deserved to be here, but they were at the top of their class. We had a student in our business ethics class years ago who was valedictorian in his class and felt like he was an affirmative action project.... Nothing could have been further from the truth. So I think we're better off defining advantage or disadvantage based on socioeconomic factors instead of simply based on race, because that's insulting to minorities who have, you know, who have, emerged from poverty and come into a middle cl- or even or who were raised with the same sort of advantages that, a lot of folks in white communities have. My, my- I'll give just one example of this. My teaching partner-

Sean McDowell: Do it

Scott Rae: ... For a long time, his daughter is as blonde and blue-eyed as you can imagine.

Sean McDowell: [chuckles]

Scott Rae: And she married a Hispanic guy- ... Who was 50% Hispanic. And her ma- her married name is now distinctively Hispanic. And about shortly after she got married, she was enter- she was applying for grad school, and sh- all of a sudden, her applications had got all sorts of scholarship offers because- [chuckles]

Sean McDowell: [laughs]

Scott Rae: ... Of her married name. Now, what, apparently-

Sean McDowell: Interesting

Scott Rae: ... What they didn't, what they didn't connect was the ethnicity that her married name suggested with the picture that [chuckles] she may have, she may or may not have submitted with her application. 'Cause if you could have seen the picture, she is... I mean, she is so un-Hispanic looking, it just... You know, but it's simply, it was simply based on her married last name. And it had no- and it had nothing to do with the type of environment she was raised in, you know, it had nothing to do with her background or upbringing, anything like that. It was simply based on the ethnicity of her married name.

Sean McDowell: That's a great example. I've not heard that story before, but kind of [chuckles] I think it makes the point well. So you mentioned how clearly in the past there have been just racist and discriminatory practices, and I know you agree with me that we're not pretending everything has been solved today. For example, we've talked about this, probably a few months ago, about how the number of job applications that are sent out when studies are done with names that sound more like minorities, and in many cases, Black names, studies show will get less callbacks and interviews than others. So clearly, there are still some issues we need to deal with [chuckles] in America and beyond. There's no debate about that. The question is how we best do it. And I can just tell you anecdotally, Scott, from not a single person at Biola or Talbot, but I've been on a lot of college campuses, a lot of high school campuses. There's just a lot of white males, Millennials, and Gen Z that tell me they feel like they have been let down and discriminated against distinctly because they're white. This is how a generation feels. Now, how extensive that is, whether it's justified or not, there's a generation that resonates with that. So I've had conversations with people in their 20s about Nick Fuentes, who just has become this voice, who, in some ways, 'cause he was on the-- what really popularized him was his interview by Tucker Carlson, but he is a young voice, I think he's about 26, 27, anti-Semitic, has some strongly racist views that he's just owned, really kind of this politics of resentment, and it's a new kind of identity politics on the right. So I think Douthat is right in there's a sense that to deal with racist injustment- injustice, which is motivated by the right things, we've adopted a certain identity politics on the left, which now has resulted in an identity politics [chuckles] on the right as a backlash against this. And so it just brings us back to a point that you and I talk about so many times, that good intentions are not enough. Good intentions are not enough. You've gotta have policies that deal with this injustice, policies that service and deal with this racism, that don't create resentment. And sadly, there's just a lot of white males who feel that sense of resentment, and a lot of voices and podcasters are feeding into that and exacerbating that and throwing gas on the fire. And I somewhat fear for what it's gonna mean in the next two, five, 10 years beyond.

Scott Rae: Well, there's, there's, it's, it's widespread enough, Sean, that there's been a... There's a term used to describe that, and it, and it's called white fragility. And it just used to describe the defensiveness that white people feel when, you know, when racial issues are addressed. And this is, in my view, there's... This is, this is, in my view, nothing more than a, like, what I call a glorified ad hominem argument, where you attack the person, not the position, and it, and it insulates the person who has, is promoting the agenda from any type of criticism. And so I think really understanding privilege and fragility, I think, more accurately, I think will help us get over some of the obstacles that we've been facing so far.

Sean McDowell: I think that's right, and that's fair, and I think one thing I would invite people to do is if you're gonna critique wokeism on the left, critique wokeism on the right. And some people have been clearly willing to do that. But I think that that's important. Now, for Christians, if there's some people listening and they feel like, "You know what? That's me. I've been wronged. I had a job, I was passed over"... This is a question: How do we deal with an injustice? And I'd just point out, you know, in Leviticus 19:18 says, "Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself." When injustice happens, we can lean in towards fighting and anger and bitterness towards others, or we can ask the question, "All right, I was wronged. How do I respond in love?" I hope that will characterize more and more Christians moving forward.

Scott Rae: Sean, one final thought on this just for-

Sean McDowell: Sure

Scott Rae: ... Our Christian community. I'd wanna be careful that we don't equate people who take race and racial issues seriously, like I, like I hope we have been, and, we don't equate that with being woke. Because those are not the same thing. And I think you- we are obligated to take racial issues seriously because the Bible's got a lot to say about the importance of racial and ethnic reconciliation, and you can do that without buying into an ideology that I think is foreign to the pages of Scripture.

Sean McDowell: Very helpful. Love it. Thank you. It's not about dealing with race and injustice, which we are called to biblically, it's how we do so. That's the key. All right, so we got a bunch of questions here, [chuckles] and this one has been going through my mind a little bit. I don't know exactly perfectly how to answer it, but this person just listened to our AI episode last week, where we had on some experts from Biola and Talbot, and this person has recently discovered AI-created music. Some of it is really impressive. This person's not a professional musician, who's played in worship bands, but here's the question: "As Christians, should we be okay with worshiping and getting an emotional response from something that was generated by AI? Is it theologically sound to listen to AI-generated worship? Should churches use AI-generated arrangements in live worship services?" Do you have any thoughts on this one, Scott? [chuckles]

Scott Rae: Well, I... Sean, the first thing that came to my mind is we use synthesizers. I mean, every worship band I've seen uses a synthetic piano to re- to repro- to mimic the sound of a real piano. I mean, in fact, it mimics a lot of different sounds, and nobody thinks twice about that. And I wonder, you know, I'm just thinking out loud here 'cause I've, I've never thought about this until today, but I wonder if that's just a difference in degree and not in kind- ... From AI-generated music. Now, I'd wanna make sure, I'd wanna-- like anything that you use AI for, I think we're obligated to disclose it to people who might, who might need to know. But, there's nothing immediately obvious to me that is a, is a red light, that says to stop. Maybe a yellow light that says, "Let's be careful that we don't completely, [chuckles] we don't, we don't have a chatbot worship band, that we're using, instead of real people." But I don't, I don't think this... I think this prosup- can supplement the people who are leading worship w- and not replace them.

Sean McDowell: That's great. I still am working this through in my mind, and I thought about the question people say, "Is it okay to listen to music from musicians who've deconverted their faith?" It's kinda similar, like... And I think I don't have, in principle, a problem with that if it is good, theologically rich music. That's really the question, AI-generated or not. Is it the kind of tool that can drive us closer to the kingdom and generally worshiping God? But with that said, what do we lose in using AI to make worship songs? That's a question we can't skip over. Is there value and something good in the process itself? And I also think about certain songs, like Amazing Grace, partly what makes it so powerful is the backstory about how it was created. If I look up and I see the song, and below it says, "AI-generated," there's a part of me [chuckles] that's like, "Really?" Like, "Come on." So it just, it would, it would knock it down a few steps. But on the flip side, if I went to AI and said, "Give me the most powerful worship music rooted solely in Psalm 33," and it came up with a beautiful music that helped me enjoy Psalm 33, I don't know that I would, in principle, have a problem with that. So still working it through in my mind. Let's at least ask these questions and be slow to adopt it, and not do it just out of ease.

Scott Rae: Yeah, just so our listeners know, the, these conclusions on this question for both of us, I think, are in major wet cement.

Sean McDowell: [chuckles] Very fairly stated. So this last one relates to conversations we've had about women who have abortions and whether or not they should be charged with a crime. Now, there's a longer questions that are here, but really the question is, can a case be made that women who seek out abortions are hiring physicians to be hitmen, doing their dirty work for them, and thus, if doing so, a woman would have some moral culpability behind this? Your take.

Scott Rae: I think the women do have moral culpability. Whether they should have legal culpability or not is really the question. And I appreciate this listener made it clear that, this person is not, in favor of prosecuting women, but just wants to maintain principled consistency in this. And my response to this is that part of the reason for taking the position that we did on this was prudential and not principled. And I should be clear, women who authorize abortions are complicit in the death of their unborn child. They're just not the direct cause of it.... But in my view, if women are criminalized in this, abortion restrictions, I think, will have a greatly diminished chance of being passed into law. And the unborn, I think, are the ones who will be the losers in this. And in my view, we are under obligation to protect more unborn children than less. And, you know, public policy in a fallen world is about compromises and settling for limited objectives. And generally, as we've talked about, Sean, if you, if you, if you are demanding all of the pie in a public policy discussion, you're probably gonna end up with none of it. And so that, it, I admit that there's a bit of a principled inconsistency here, but it's for prudential reasons.

Sean McDowell: Can you think of any examples where a woman should be charged, or is it just these are such few and far between that we don't even need to go there in practice because of the trade-off, like you said, prudentially speaking, and maybe even the precedent that that would make?

Scott Rae: Not, not off the top of my head.

Sean McDowell: That's fair.

Scott Rae: You know, I don't know, maybe some third, you know, third trimester abortions where, you know, they're at, you know, eight and a half months pregnancy. You know, maybe in those cases, I'd be willing to consider that. But j- I say generally no, for the reasons we gave.

Sean McDowell: This is actually a really heated debate within the pro-life community. Maybe at some point, if, listeners want, we could spend some time walking through the arguments for and against it. Might be a little too narrow for here, but let us know if you find that helpful, and we'll take a look for 2026 and maybe beyond. 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. If you're a listener, you know we've got master's programs in theology, Old Testament, New Testament, marriage and family, spiritual formation, philosophy, apologetics, so much more, online and in person. We'd love for you to study with us. Please keep your comments and questions coming. You can email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu. And if you wanna give us a Christmas gift, just give us a rating on your podcast app. I say that slightly in jest, [chuckles] but it would really help. An honest rating, of course, we prefer a five-star, but an honest rating is the most important thing on your podcast app would help. We appreciate you listening, and Tuesday, we're posting a fascinating discussion with Ryan Burge about the American religious landscape. For the next two weekly cultural updates, we will be taking a break, a much-needed break, but we'll have our regular episodes airing, and we'll be back early next year to hit the ground running with a weekly cultural update. Thanks so much for listening. In the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything. [upbeat music]