Biola UniversityTeen reliance on AI chatbots, the limits of cash aid, and Canada’s expansion of euthanasia challenge how we think about human dignity, connection, and the value of life. We explore the deeper issues behind designer genetics and respond to listener questions on gender theory, biblical success and the purpose of everyday work — all through a biblical lens.
Episode Transcript
Sean McDowell: [upbeat music] Teen use of AI chatbots has taken off. A new fight emerges to stop euthanasia for the mentally ill. A rigorous study reveals that cash payments to poor families does nothing to help child development. And the hype about designer babies appears to be, well, maybe more hype than science. These are the stories we'll discuss, and we will also address some of your excellent questions. I'm your host, Sean McDowell.
Scott Rae: I'm your host, Scott Rae.
Sean McDowell: This is the Think Biblically weekly cultural update, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. Scott, I've, like, missed this time together.
Scott Rae: I have, too.
Sean McDowell: We took a month off [chuckles] in July, and, like, stories dropped. I was like, "Ah, number one, I wanna know what Scott thinks. Number two, I've got opinions about this stuff." So I'm rested, raring to go. How about you?
Scott Rae: Well, I... The, the break was helpful, but, you know, I collected a whole host of stories that we ended up not doing much with. Uh-
Sean McDowell: True
Scott Rae: ... And wish we had the chance to go back and do that, but we're gonna, we're gonna keep it current from stuff that dropped this week. And that's, that's been our regular pattern, so it's really good to be back. And, I think- I hope our audience enjoyed the bonuses that we posted every Friday- ... During the month of July. But we are, we are back and ready to roll, so let's do it.
Sean McDowell: Well, this story, first one, feels particularly pressing because I was at camps and conferences this summer, and also parent events, and had a number of conversations with concerns about the growing use of chatbots, specifically with teenagers. So this story dropped from Common Sense Media, and here's just a few things to help frame this. Some of these are designed for people 18 and older, but some platforms, like Character A- Character AI, are explicitly marketed to children as young as 13. These platforms present themselves as like virtual friends, confidantes, even therapists, where they kind of simulate human emotions and interactions for users. Now, we've heard, and you and I talked about some of the dangerous responses to this. For example, the suicide of a 14-year-old, Sewell Setzer III, just kind of talked into it by AI, just horrific. There's a story of a 19-year-old who was encouraged by AI companion to kill the late Queen Elizabeth, a 17-year-old who just became socially isolated, had a major breakdown. These are important to know, but I don't think we should frame the whole story through this because they are more kind of the examples than they are the norm, so to speak, outliers. One thing that jumped out about this study, Scott, that was helpful, is AI companions are designed to engage in what's called sycophancy. It's a tendency to agree with users and provide [chuckles] validation rather than challenge ideas. So do we want a platform that encourages the pre-existing beliefs of 13, 14, 15-year-olds instead of challenging them? That's at least a fair question. Now, you know I'm a stat guy, so I'm not gonna read all the stats in this report. We will link to it. People can read it. It's actually a pretty quick study. I'd encourage parents and youth pastors to go through it. But a few helpful ones are that 72% of teens, so basically three out of four, say they've used a AI companion at least once. Okay. 52% basically have... Qualify as regular users, who will use the platform a few times a month. So for every 10 kids in youth group, five have used it a few times. 21%, so one out of five teenagers, use an AI companion multiple times a week. So roughly 20% of teens, one out of five, are consistent, regular users. Now, some of the other things that popped up about this that I think will be really helpful, to know is that of, Like, why are teens using these? 30%, the number one was entertainment, and the second one was just curiosity. So it's actually onl- less than one out of five who really turn to it for advice. So it's a minority of why they're doing that. It's just like a typical teenager. [chuckles] They're like, "I'm curious. I wanna know. I'm interested. People are talking about it." Now, 80% of AI companion users spend more time with friends than AI companions. That's positive. So of those who use regularly, they spend more time with their friends than they do an AI chatbot. So of course, those that don't use [chuckles] an AI chatbot are spending more time with their friends as well. That's a positive thing. Among AI users, 33% have chosen to discuss an important or serious matters with an AI companion instead of a real person. So bottom line, this is a new technology that's emerging. There's concerns we should have, but still, most teenagers are not going to it primarily for advice, and they still understand that human relationships are more valuable than an AI chatbot. What's your takeaway from this study?
Scott Rae: Sean, I had a n- a number of things that caught my attention, but the... Overall, my assessment of this study is that the teens' use of chatbots is a bit of a mixed bag.
Sean McDowell: Yeah.
Scott Rae: I think there's, there's some things that I think that are, that are encouraging in the study and some things to be worried about. But I tell you, Sean, the first thing that caught my attention was just the amount of time spent on screen-based entertainment in this, in this particular study was eight-plus hours a day on that. And that, I mean, if that doesn't get our attention, the rest of this, I think, is kind of irrelevant.
Sean McDowell: That's right.
Scott Rae: 'Cause th- 'cause that's a big one. Now, I'm en- I'm encouraged by several things. I'm encouraged that, teens don't use these primarily to substitute for human interactions.... I think, I think whether they can frame it theologically or not, I think the teens in this study seem to recognize that there's something about us that's hardwired for community and human connection. And we would say from a Christian worldview, of course, that comes from our God being fundamentally a relational God who hardwired that into us as human beings. So that we are, you know, we're created for connection with other human beings. Now, the part of the encouraging part, in addition, is it does seem, it- these do seem to be helpful in helping some teenagers navigate things like social anxiety disorder, other types of social skills. A s- a small percentage of teens in this study use it for this function, but, and the study also says about 40% of them use the chatbots to practice social interactions. Okay? Now, you know, I suspect that, you know, adolescents have always used some mechanism to practice, you know, g- you know, calling up someone for a date or, you know, initiating a conversation with someone that they're really interested in or really care about. Now, we just have a digital way to do that. Now, I would... This is obviously not the s- not the social- total solution. I think it can help with navigating some social interactions, or I think with some people, it actually makes it harder for social interaction with real people. And I think you rightly pointed out that the really, the really troubling feature about this is that what I, what I call the yes man feature that's built into these chatbots. What, what you referred to as syncophancy, which I think is a, is a fancy word for saying it, the chatbot is a yes person for you. [chuckles]
Sean McDowell: Right. Right.
Scott Rae: And, it, that tendency to always agree with you instead of, instead of even remotely challenging you, that's, that's, I think, a really troubling part. I think what it, what it doesn't do is something we have to be careful about, and this, again, I think, is to think biblically about this, you know, the chatbots are, they're programmed not to have flaws in them like normal human beings do. They don't, you know, they don't do the kinds of unpredictable things with human be- like you would have with interactions with normal human beings who are, who are fallen and compromised as a result of the entrance of sin. So it's not, it's not totally clear that even though they can, I think, be useful in helping people get, sort of get off a dime on some social interactions, it's not at all clear to me that those acclimate you to interacting with flawed human beings who are... There's some s- I mean, the part, the stuff that makes us interesting is that we are so unpredictable, and chatbots, I think, if anything, they are predictable. So I think that, you know, the good news is they still, you know, teens still by and large, prioritize real relationships. But I did, it did point out when it comes to serious conversations, a third of the teens surveyed have those serious conversations with chatbots instead of with normal people.
Sean McDowell: A third.
Scott Rae: A third. So I think-
Sean McDowell: Yeah, it's a significant number.
Scott Rae: It is. The other bad news, I think, in this is that chatbots sometimes, as you pointed out, Sean, give harmful advice. They give inappropriate material. You know, we've got 13, 14-year-olds being exposed to, you know, pretty high-level sexualized stuff on so- on some of these chatbots. Think that I'm not thrilled about that. But I think, I just... It's a, it's a mixed bag, and I think that maybe one of the most positive things that came out of it was one piece of advice that they gave to the, to the parents, and that is, "Parents, don't sit on the sidelines on this."
Sean McDowell: Amen.
Scott Rae: Yeah. Be, be involved. You know, ask your kids about what they're doing with these chatbots and how they're using them. Just be inquisitive. You know, go, you know, offer to kind of look over their shoulder when they have some of these conversations, if they'll let you. And but parents have to be involved in this.
Sean McDowell: That, that's such a good take. This is an opportunity. Ask your kids, "Hey, have you tried one?" Don't get defensive. "Do your friends use them? Why do you think students are drawn to these? What's the positive of them? What are the negatives? Are there any biblical principles that apply to this?" Parents, grandparents, teachers, coaches, just all hands on deck, let's talk about this. I-
Scott Rae: Just like watch- just like watching a movie or a TV show with your kids.
Sean McDowell: Yeah, exactly what we should be consistently doing. Your point about this indicating that we're made for relationships, I think is right on. I mean, so much of the foundation of our faith and ethics is found in Genesis 1 and 2. God is the Creator, not us. The world is purposeful. We have been made in God's image. We're male and female, and we're built for relationships with God and relationships with others. What happens when we don't have those relationships, there's, there's relational counterfeits that come in and play the role relationships are meant to. Some can be bad, like pornography. Some could be not necessarily bad, good, like video games at times, and sometimes things like video games can be done in relationships and encourage relationship.... But things like drugs can be a relational counterfeit. So here's one more area of our kids who are yearning to know and be known, and if they don't lean into healthy relationships, this is one more counterfeit that's available to this generation. So this summer, Scott, I'll tell you one story. I was speaking at a conference, and the head of it said to me that when they have students at this event, they completely take their smartphones away. They detox for the 12 [chuckles] days that they're there.
Scott Rae: Wow.
Sean McDowell: And it's just smart to have them present. And this kid was just... You could tell it's like he was detoxing from a drug, and they couldn't figure out what it was. Is this kid on, I don't know, marijuana? Is he looking at pornography? And they figured out that this kid was hooked on an AI chatbot through his smartphone.
Scott Rae: Interesting.
Sean McDowell: And it was functioning like a drug to him. Now, most kids aren't there. I don't wanna be alarmist, but we're starting to see that crop up more and more 'cause it's another relational counterfeit that's available to play the role in our lives when relationships don't. So as I work with this generation, I'm like, "Is the kid struggling with anorexia? Is the kid looking at pornography? Is the kid, you know, w- you know, on marijuana?" Now we've got to be thinking, "Okay, is the kid on a chatbot in a way that's unhealthy?" And in our ministry with kids, be willing to address that. So I think you're right, though. A nuanced approach to this is probably best.
Scott Rae: Yeah, I'm not, I'm not quite ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater-
Sean McDowell: Yeah
Scott Rae: ... On this.
Sean McDowell: I agree.
Scott Rae: But I do think this is a, this is a good example of what a friend of ours calls disordered loves. You know, when we, when we love God and we love people in the r- in the right priority, in the right order, it goes according to God's design. But when those, when those loves become disordered, and we make idols out of them, and they... We, we give higher priority to s- to some things that we could love normally, then when we- when those loves are disordered, then that's when things start falling apart. And I think, I think most... I think a lot of what we ca- what we refer to as sin today could be, could fall under that heading of disordered loves, and or cou- or counterfeit loves, like you're referring to.
Sean McDowell: Well, you said that comes from a friend of ours. That sounds very Augustinian, so if you meant Saint Augustine is a friend of ours here at Biola- ... I'll land with that. [chuckles]
Scott Rae: I th- I think my friend got it from Augustine. We'll put it that way.
Sean McDowell: Fair enough. All right, so this next study, like, honestly, in the back of my mind, sometimes, Scott, I have this voice. I'm like, "What would Scott think?"
Scott Rae: [chuckles]
Sean McDowell: WWST. Like, it goes through my mind 'cause we talk about this stuff so much. I'm really eager for your thoughts on this one. So this came out. It's covered in The New York Times, but obviously much broader than this, and this opinion piece says, "Study may undercut idea that cash payments to poor families help child development." Now, the first line in this is really interesting. It says, "If the government wants poor children to thrive, it should give their parents money." Now, this article starts with an assumption that the problem is kids from poor families are not thriving. Solution: give the parents more cash money. That's rooted in a certain worldview we'll compact- come back to. The article says, "Significant but indirect evidence indicates, it has suggested that unconditional cash aid would help children flourish. But now a rigorous experiment in a direct test found that years of monthly payments did nothing to boost children's well-being, a result that defied researchers' predictions and could weaken the case for income guarantee." Now, this doesn't surprise me one bit, 'cause I have a different worldview than the people doing this study, but here's a little bit more about the study. They did four years of payments, and by the way, the study has two more years to go, so it's possible they'll see something else in two years. After four years of payments, children whose parents received $333 a month fared no better than similar children without that help. They were no more likely to develop language skills, avoid behavioral problems or developmental delays, demonstrate executive function, or exhibit brain activity with cognitive development. And this professor from the University of California said, "I was surprised. We were all very surprised." Now, between you and me, I'm not surprised one bit by this, but again, [chuckles] we'll come back to why. Now, they do point out in the study that it's been clear that children from affluent families exhibit stronger cognitive development, fewer behavioral problems on average, than their low-income counterparts. The question is, why? Is it a lack of funds and money that drives this or something else going on? They looked at seven measures, and they did find mothers in the high-cash group spent about 5% more time on learning and enrichment activities, such as reading or playing, 5%. They spent about $68 a month, than the low-cash mothers, who received $20 a month instead of $333, on things like toys, books, and clothing. But it did no difference in the children, and they say, "One puzzling outcome is that payments failed to reduce stress for mothers, as they predicted this increased cash would actually reduce the stress." What's your thoughts on this study?
Scott Rae: Well, now I have two initial reactions to this. You know, some have to do with the study itself, but others have to do with the worldview that underlies it, and then, and something I wanna be careful about. For, for one, my initial reaction was $300 a month is not that much money.
Sean McDowell: That's fair.
Scott Rae: And it was given during the pandemic.... That's when the study started. So I think it's, it's quite possible that the, you know, the COVID pandemic could have minimized any effect of that subsidy. But for that, for that little amount of money, nobody's gonna quit working, nobody's gonna cut back on the hours they work. And so it's- I'm not surprised that the money had so little impact, just because it was so little. Now, whether you increase it or not, you know, say it was $1,000 a month. In my view, it needs to be enough money to enable people to, g- you know, get into a different neighborhood, get into better schools, you know, be able to f- have good healthcare. So some, you know, some of those things, it is... It's more what the money can buy that's important, as opposed to the money itself. But there are lot, there are lots of things that are crucial from, I think from a Christian worldview, are crucial to a child's flourishing, that I'd say money... It is difficult for money to buy.
Sean McDowell: That's right.
Scott Rae: Having, you know, having two parents in the home, who are there and involved in their kids' lives. You know, b- you know, having role models around them, having people who m- who model the value of education, the value, the value of morality, the value of, you know, basically doing things in the right order. You know, getting married before you start a fa- before you start having kids, for example. I think one of the main indicators of poverty is people who do those, some of those things out of order. So and I think part of it, too, this is... I'll never forget one thing Dallas Willard told me. He said, he said, "Well, the main... One of the main things that contributes," I'm paraphrasing, "to a person's flourishing is earned success." He says, "Still, self-esteem can't be given to you. It has to be earned." And I, and I... What I wanna be careful of is that simply giving people money in order to get them over the hump, and out of poverty is vastly different from earned success. And so I think there's... So there's something, I think, to the parent's flourishing in this, too, that they model, they model success and self-esteem being earned, as opposed to being simply given, by v- by virtue of where you are. Now, Sean, what I don't... Here's what I don't want to happen as a result of this study. I don't want people to say, "Well, we sh- we sh- we shouldn't have any obligation to care for the least advantaged among us." 'Cause I think a, an understandable reaction to this would be to say, "Well, we'll always have the poor with us, you know, therefore, you know, they're on their own." When Jesus said that, what he meant by that is that we'll always have the poor with us, the implication was, therefore, we have an obligation to care for them. And from a Christian worldview, this is... I think this is one of the most important aspects of our, of our, of our particular worldview, is... And that is the biblical obligation to care for the least advantaged among us. And, and let me just... A couple passages of Scripture that say this, I think, particularly well. In Jeremiah, for example, this is in Jeremiah 22:16. They're talking about the king there, and it says, "He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that what not what it means to know me?" declares the Lord. Now, I'm not saying they're the same thing, but there's something constituent about faithfully following God with having a soft heart and an, and involvement with the least advantaged among us. And the Proverb puts it a different way. He says, "Whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for their maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God." So Sean, there's something, there's something deeply connected to our own spiritual maturity and spiritual status, that our heart for the poor and for the least advantaged among us, it just says something important about our spirituality.
Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm.
Scott Rae: And that, and I don't wanna lose that as I think we react, I think, correctly to the study that says, you know, money... You know, just giving people money unconditionally is not g- is not gonna solve everything. It may help a little bit. I think more money would help a little bit more. But I don't think it will deal with some of the fundamental things that make for a child's flourishing.
Sean McDowell: That's a really good take. I... For me, I don't suspect that most Christians hearing this would say, "Well, we don't need to help the poor." I don't... To me, it doesn't strike me most Christians would say, "Well, it doesn't work." I think most Christians would look at this and say, "The way we help the poor needs to be biblically based, rather than based on a secular worldview." Now, one of the things... It didn't surprise me, but it's, I don't know, maybe amusing is not the right word, but the amount of people that were just... They said, "I was surprised." We were all very surprised that this didn't help.
Scott Rae: Yeah.
Sean McDowell: Well, why are they so surprised? There's a certain worldview that sees poverty through the lens of money alone, that we are material beings. I don't mean physical beings, we are material beings wired economically, so to speak. And so poverty results from a lack of monetary, you know, value, and so we fix it by giving more value.... That is a secular Marxist or a neo-Marxist way of looking at the world.
Scott Rae: Our, our friend Brian Fikkert calls that homo economicus.
Sean McDowell: Yes, exactly. And I was actually gonna quote Brian Fikkert. I'm gra- glad you brought him up, 'cause his book, When Helping Hurts, I use in our class. So we use a chapter from it and a discussion that he has in the class I teach, Gospel Kingdom Culture. This is at Biola. We look at the gospel and race, gospel and sexuality, gospel and poverty. And it really... A lot of our students really find it eye-opening and realize how much the culture has even shaped them to think about poverty in a lack of material things, where at its core, a lot of poverty stems from broken relationships with myself, with others, with God, with the environment. And your suggestion that we shouldn't write off this entire study, that monetary value could help some, I think is a good one. You know, if they gave more money in different ways, that could be one piece that helps. But at core, there's spiritual, relational brokenness, and money in itself doesn't solve that. So I don't think any Christian should be surprised by this. When we look at what a biblical anthropology is, we'll get the effects of sin, the importance of relationships. Money can help, and we should help those without material things. But if we think that's going to fix it, that is not a biblical way of looking at it as I see it. Do you agree with that?
Scott Rae: Well, if that, if that was gonna fix it, we would've fixed it a long time ago- ... Just by the amount of money we've thrown at it over the last 50 years. I mean, if money were, if money were the answer, we, [chuckles] we would've answered it by now. Uh-
Sean McDowell: But wait, hold on, let me jump in. Isn't there a difference between money at government programs and money directly to individuals to spend as they want to? Clearly, money at government programs [chuckles] hasn't solved it, although you can make a case it's helped in some areas to a degree.
Scott Rae: Well-
Sean McDowell: But that's different-
Scott Rae: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... Than the study they're doing here, right?
Scott Rae: That's true, that's true. Some of the, some of the non-cash programs, I think you can make a case, have been helpful, you know, like Medicaid, for example, food stamps, things like that. That's, that's different than just giving cash on the barrel over to people to spend as they wish. Now, part of the good news of this study, too, is that, the money was not, generally not abused on things like alcohol, drugs, tobacco, like many of the critics of this had maintained. They did, you know, they did spend it on some of the right things. So, again, I think, you know, it's just... It's, it's a piece of the puzzle, and, what we really need to ki- capture here is the worldview that says, you know, we are, we are more than just, the sum of our material needs. And that's, you know, that's where the, I think, our, you know, again, our friend Brian Fikkert coined it really well when he talked about economic man, and that is, that is a Marxist concept, though not exclusively so.
Sean McDowell: Sure.
Scott Rae: You know, lots, I mean, lots of, people across the political spectrum hold that we are really nothing more than the accumulation of our material needs and desires. So I think the worldview about what constitutes a human person is at the core here, like you, like you've suggested, and I think that's a really good insight that I wanna make sure we don't lose.
Sean McDowell: Good stuff. All right, this third story, you sent me this one, Scott. This is, it's a pretty chilling story. Bothers me to a degree, but I think you're wise to have us talk about it, and this was in First Things. And it starts off by saying, "In 2010, 15 years ago, a 20-year-old Andrew Lawton attempted suicide by swallowing a bottle of pills. His depression had become unbearable," fell into a coma, actually survived. Earlier this year, he was elected to Canadian Parliament and has become an advocate of a new law to halt the expansion of euthanasia to people suffering from mental illness. And there's something called Medical Aid in Dying. Now, the Trudeau government, the former, premier, prime minister in Canada, did not cancel the expansion of MAID, regime twice after sustained pushback, but he kinda paused it. And then this article says, "Most Canadians don't know that under our current law, it's legal, although delayed, to give medical aid in dying, even if people are only struggling with a mental illness," meaning they don't have a physical disease that is in the process of actually killing them. This fella, Lawton, wrote... I mean, this is just harrowing. He said, at the lowest point in his life, he was convinced there was no way he could have a happy life, and he was better off dead. He said, "I was wrong. I got better." His fear with the expansion of medical aid in dying is that it normalizes and legitimizes the dangerous idea that death can be the answer to medical health challenges. "If that option was there," he said, "I would likely not be here now." And then, God, this story, Scott, I mean, this one was just, like, sobering to me, thinking about this, about, British Columbian Alicia Duncan told a story, her mother's story. She joined the MPs, and she said her mother was in a car accident in 2020, suffered a concussion during COVID lockdowns, was taken to a psychiatric ward, to care for her disease. It was not terminal diagnosis other than depression. And she said, "We thought at this point she'd be safe," 'cause she was in a psychiatric unit.... They contacted him, and she said four hours later, received a text message that, "My mom was dead, and her body had been taken to a crematorium." So now, if this story is accurate, I have no reason not to think so, this is involuntary euthanasia for somebody without a medical diagnosis, that their life is even physically [chuckles] ending, but has depression, and somebody made it, this decision without even contacting their loved ones? This article says, I guess this bill, which challenges medical aid in dying, Bill C-218, then this story could become common in Canada. And the end of this article says, "There's few laws that have passed would save thousands of lives." This bill is one of them. Now, some people might say, "This is not a Canadian podcast," although we've heard from a number of people who listen, and if you hear this and have an experience or two cents from Canada specifically, please send us your thoughts or experiences. We would love to hear. But I do know in places like Europe and Canada, these kind of laws tend to creep to the US and beyond, so I think it's more pressing than people realize. What's your take on this?
Scott Rae: Well, this is coming to a theater near you. And when, I'm not exactly sure. And I-- let's, let's be clear, too, Sean, this is a dramatic expansion of the right to die and the right to enlist medical aid in doing so. But it's also entirely predictable, given the main argument for medical aid in dying, which is the new way to describe assisted suicide and euthanasia together. But it, the main argument is personal autonomy grounded in a, what is seen as a fundamental right to die. Now, the, then this is, this is the-- this is where I'm, I have, I have-- I'm conflicted about this- ... Because, you know, there, I mean, there are huge problems that we'll, we'll get to with this in a minute. But as we've said before, when we've talked about assisted suicide and euthanasia, if the argument for it is grounded in the right to die as a fundamental right, then any criteria for eligibility are irrelevant.
Sean McDowell: That's right.
Scott Rae: And there is n- i- there is no, there are no criteria necessary for you and me to exercise our fundamental rights. You know, maybe we could put in place that you have to be a, have to be an adult, that we wouldn't do-- we wouldn't allow this for minors. But, I think for the most part, for people, for people who are suffering from a mental illness, you know, the ex... This expansion is totally predictable on the grounds in which the argument was made. Now, f- so I think there's no doubt that I think we will see, we will see this,
Scott Rae: As the criteria in the United States get further and further loosened. We've already seen some of this in California. We've already heard people talking about, [lips smack] you know, what about allowing this in cases of dementia? So but by-- and to be fair, Canada does not allow it for dementia because they don't believe that genuine consent can be given for it, which they're, they're right about that. But there are-- Sean, this raises a whole bunch of questions for me. One is, does the Canadian law require some form of treatment for the mental health condition before medical aid in dying is approved? There's-- I didn't see anything in the law that re, that requires that we actually try to treat the depression or the mental health condition first, to see if it's something that people can recover from. The second question it raises is, for somebody with severe mental health issues, can consent for this really be genuine? I think sometimes I think the answer is yes. Other times, I'd say probably not. And what I, what I wonder is, down the line, that we're not happening now, but if we're, we're planting the seeds for the erosion of full voluntary consent. And we've-- I've maintained all along that with any kind of medical aid in dying, the full consent of the patient is impossible to enforce because nobody has access to those private conversations where family members are twisting their loved one's arm to go get this done. And, and even, you know, we would say that's totally unethical to do that and should be illegal, but who's ever gonna know that those conversations have taken place? And so if we're offering medical aid in dying for people whose consent might be compromised... And now, to be clear, the Canadian law is very clear that consent must be totally voluntary. But if we're sowing the seeds, I think, to, you know, to chip away at this idea of full voluntary consent, then, you know, there are a lot of people who would be candidates for this.
Scott Rae: And here's, you know, I guess, this is, this-- we have to recognize, Sean, that, you know, mental health issues are different than the terminal illnesses that are generally the criteria for medical aid in dying. Now, I mean, there's a reason we call them terminal illnesses, because no recovery is possible. But that's not true with mo- now, some mini, men- some mental health conditions are really tough to deal with. I'll, fully admit that. But most mental health conditions can be treated, maybe not cured, but some of the harmful effects can be minimized.... And we would call, you know, for example, you know, it may be someone with a, with a drug addiction or alcoholism. You know, they- to tr- to treat that fully, to cure that, would be to mean they'd give up the desire for drugs or alcohol, and not- no treatment's gonna do that-
Sean McDowell: Yeah
Scott Rae: ... In mo- in most cases. Now, some, yes, but in most cases, what the treatment is learning to be content without the destructive behavior. And I think that can, that can, that can happen with people, some people who do suffer from degrees of mental illness. And, and here, the interesting thing, too, Sean, is the number of people who, when in the midst of wrestling with a, with a significant mental health issue, have thoughts of suicide, is actually pretty substantial. There are... That's, that's not unusual for people to have those thoughts of suicide. And for, and for most of the time, that's a, that's an alarm bell that's, you know, that raises all sorts of red flags that the mental health situation ought to be taken really seriously. What I don't wanna see is for someone who expresses that suicidal ideation as sort of a normal, understandable part of wrestling with a mental, a mental health issue, I don't wanna see that as something that gives, sort of gives clearance for assist- for assisted suicide or euthanasia to be brought onto the table for discussion when treatment hasn't even been tried.
Sean McDowell: That's good. That's, that's a great point, Scott. I think you're saying-
Scott Rae: Forgive me, I get, I get a little wound up about this one.
Sean McDowell: I, [sighs] I know you do. We've done a lot of shows on this. You're... I think our audience knows that you're- really, your expertise is in bioethics and life and death issues, and you've worked with doctors and patients at their bedside and seen the ef- harrowing effects of making these choices, and know it logically, 'cause of your studies, but also really practically. I mean, years ago, we had family issues that were wrestling with this. 25 years ago, when I was a grad student, [chuckles] and you walked through with me and counseled me and guided, so you've done this practically. I see why you get fired up about it. Now, you're right that mental illness, there are some that are easier to address than others. It's not a simple fix, but as far as I'm aware, no mental illness kills you and is terminal in the same way that a cancer or a [chuckles] tumor-
Scott Rae: Correct
Sean McDowell: ... Or something else does. So it's difficult, it's debilitating, and I'm not downplaying how painful it is, but it's not terminal by its very nature. It can't be, so that distinction-
Scott Rae: It, it... Well, it may feel that way-
Sean McDowell: Sure
Scott Rae: ... To the person, and understandably so. But, m- you know, psychiatrically, medically, it's not.
Sean McDowell: You know, it's interesting that, you know, to make a connection with the last story about poverty, we need to fix it with money, a material response. Well, when it comes to things like depression, because we are body and soul, the way to deal with it often can involve the body. Sometimes people need to eat healthier, or [chuckles] like there's physical ways to get better sleep. But there's also can be a loss of hope, a loss of meaning, a loss of purpose. Since we're body and soul, the way to address this is both, and the solution that we see with this, you know, medical aid in dying is, while somebody's suffering, we're just going to end their life. That's the solution. That's the problem where we step in. So at its root, just like with poverty, this is a worldview question. This fellow Lawton says, "My..." he was the one who felt like his life was worthless, and he was gonna die and would've ended it if he could. He said, "My fear with the expansion of medical aid in dying is that it normalizes and legitimizes this dangerous idea that death can be the answer to our mental health challenges." That's an idea. That's a belief system. We all recognize the problem of people suffering, and we want to alleviate it, but worldview steps in about what we have a right to. Do we have a right to death like we do a right to life? What does dignity mean? This is where we need to speak into this uniquely from a biblical and Christian perspective, and that's often missing in the wider conversation.
Scott Rae: Yeah, Paul is very clear in the New Testament that we are not our own.
Sean McDowell: Amen.
Scott Rae: You know, we don't... And I think when J- when Jesus talked about, [lips smack] you know, di- dying to yourself and, you know, things like that, the denying yourself, what it- what he meant by that was you deny fund- the fundamental ownership of yourself. And principally, you know, in the Scriptures, the timing and manner of our death belongs to God. That's, that's, that's one of... That's, I think, one of the main reasons why, taking the life of the innocent is outlawed in the Scripture. Because that's, that's usurping a prerogative that belongs to God alone. And I think that's, that's, that's, another part of the worldview component that w- I mean, we have, we have to acknowledge that, you know, ultimately, we've, we've been bought with a price. We don't, we don't own our own lives and bodies- ... That God is, God is the one who owns that, and we steward that for His glory and for our flourishing.
Sean McDowell: Amen. Preach it, my man.
Scott Rae: All right, I'm-
Sean McDowell: We got one-
Scott Rae: ... I'm getting, I'm getting fired up here, man. [laughs]
Sean McDowell: [laughs] This is how a professor of philosophy gets fired up.
Scott Rae: [laughs]
Sean McDowell: I love it.
Scott Rae: Ha. [laughs]
Sean McDowell: So this last story, I think, might be a little briefer, but super interesting trend.... It's called, the title is "The Myth of the Designer Baby: Why Genetic Optimization is More Hype Than Science." Now, you and I have talked about this. There's been announcements from software platforms about parents being able to genetically optimize their embryos. One company said for basically $6,000, they promised optimization of traits like heart disease, cancer resistance, intelligence, longevity, body mass index, baldness, eye color, hair color, and left-handedness. It promises to weed out what makes someone an alcoholic. Like, these are pretty significant promises. And of course, some of the commentators are like, "Whoa, are we treating kids like marketable goods? Are we making designer babies?" it- the article says, "As professional bioethicists, we would have these same concerns if this process actually does what it claims." And the article is that this pre-implantation genetic diagnosis is not as effective and promising as many claim. So it can weed out certain genetic disorders, recognize them, and like IVF, maybe weed out, you and I would take issue with this, but weed out embryos that have that certain genetic disorder and not implant them. That's, like, a part of the process how IVF does this. But there's no major genetic markers for many cancers or heart disease, let alone intelligence, acne, body mass index, or longevity. And so basically, they're saying the real danger is that a bunch of wealthy parents-to-be who are too eager to control their children's biological future will spend $6,000 for a product that offers no such control. So what... Tell me your takeaway on this. Should we be that concerned?
Scott Rae: Yeah.
Sean McDowell: Is it really all hype?
Scott Rae: Well, I th- I would call it a pump-the-brakes moment-
Sean McDowell: Okay
Scott Rae: ... On designer babies. Now, what the polygenic screening has done is give us a whole lot more conditions for which we can screen, but that's all they're really-- all they're doing is screening embryos. Nobody's altering those traits yet or advertising that we can do that. Now, we have the technology to do that with the CRISPR, you know, gene editing technology, which we've described before-
Sean McDowell: Yeah
Scott Rae: ... As a, as a set of basically genetic molecular scissors with a GPS locator on them. But I think what the article points out is that many of the things that parents would be most interested in, aside from preventing clear, you know, traumatic genetic diseases, are the interaction of multiple genes all across the genome. And so when you screen for this, you're s- you know, you're looking for not really, sort of a needle in a haystack. And what it gives you is just a, at best, an elevated risk of developing those things that you're concerned about, but it doesn't g- it doesn't give you the chance to, the opportunity to engineer, in a, in a classic sense, engineer the child to your own specifications. Now, at some, at some point, we may be able to do that, but the science is not quite there yet. And here's, I think, again, going back to our worldview, this is-- I think this is a really important part of a Christian worldview, that... And the article, I think, does a good job of reinforcing this notion that there are certain, what I would call, givens of life theologically, that are simply part of being human, part of the limitations of being human, and not necessarily the result of the Fall. But as our friend Kelly Kapic has pointed out, they just, they're just p- they come with the territory of being limited, finite human beings. And, and in the Scriptures, children are always viewed as a gift to be received open-handedly, gratefully, and with no specifications. The reason for that is because God knows what we need. He knows what our kids need. He gives us good gifts for our flourishing. And, and of course, Sean, this is not to say that we don't correct some of those things that are the result of the Fall, and if we can prevent these severe genetic diseases through a gene-editing program that actually snips out the gene and replaces it with a corrected one, then I think that's a good thing. And medical technology, in general, is God's good gift to keep the results of the Fall, such as disease, at bay. And by common grace, He's given us the wisdom, the ability to unlock those things that He's embedded into His world. And so I'm not s- I'm not as skeptical about medical technology as some people might be. But I think this article, I think, is right to point out that, you know, maybe we need to pump the brakes on what exactly this polygenic screening will give us- ... Because we've been doing this screening for a long time. We just have more things that potentially we can screen for, but, you know, the va- what the value of that in giving you certainty of what kind of child you're gonna have, I think that's where they're raising questions about this, you know, much more expanded screening. The value of that to the parents is probably not what they're paying for.
Sean McDowell: That's fair. I think, you know, the only distinction I'll draw out of this is that there's a big difference between using technology to weed out cancer, heart disease, [chuckles] potentially things like baldness. Fine, as long as you're not destroying embryos in doing so.... I would be all for technology as long as the money is used wisely and not excessively, to do so.
Scott Rae: Well, and-
Sean McDowell: But then-
Scott Rae: And I think to be clear, too, [clears throat] pre- this prenatal genetic diagnosis, the embryos that aren't chosen [clears throat] are most likely discarded.
Sean McDowell: And that's exactly where we would have a huge pause with this. But then being able to, even manipulate intelligence or left-handedness to give a kid an advantage, that's what turns a human being into a product with certain expectations built in, rather than-
Scott Rae: That's the key... That's the point.
Sean McDowell: Exactly. Rather than loving what God delivers to us sovereignly, we aim to control. That is shifting from loving to using. Some might think it's a subtle way, but it's a profoundly unbiblical way that I think can have a disaster played out in the relationships. So that's the pause that I would put.
Scott Rae: Yeah, this-
Sean McDowell: But I think your take-
Scott Rae: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... Your take is good, that this is, some of this stuff has been overhyped, and maybe the brakes are being pumped a little bit.
Scott Rae: Yep. Same, same thing is true of sex selection, which we can do basically without throwing away embryos. But the question is, what are you expecting with a child of the gender that you're choosing? And I, we say, be really careful about what your expectations are.
Sean McDowell: And we've seen the disaster of that in China in so many ways with their one-child policy and selecting males over females, but that's another conversation.
Scott Rae: It is.
Sean McDowell: All right. As always, we've got some good questions, and if you're listening, folks, please keep your question and comments coming. All right, so this first one is about when you had Thaddeus Williams on as a guest host. Question for him. I texted him, got his response. This person says, "In a previous weekly update, Dr. Williams argued that because the founders of critical theory, especially critical gender theory, were pedophiles and hence morally corrupt, then we have reason to doubt and be critical of such theories. He claimed that such an argument is not an ad hominem or genetic fallacy because their ideologies are in the realm of human sexuality, so their actions were in direct correlation with their ideologies. My question comes from imagining how a critic of Christianity might use the same logic. A person could say that anybody who espouses Christianity publicly but acts immorally is a living argument against Christianity. How do you answer that question in a reasonable way? Am I missing something philosophically or logically?" All right, from Thaddeus Williams in a [chuckles] text this morning, he said, "A few thoughts. First, the claims of the fathers of gender theory are false on their own, regardless of their own pedophilia or pedophile rights activism. Kinsey, Money, and others have been proven to engage in pseudoscience, and more and more studies nowadays are further debunking gender ideology's core claims." He says, "Nonetheless, there's a deep truth underneath the question. Hypocrisy really does undermine one's moral authority. For example..." So now he's talking about moral authority. "The sex scandals in the Roman Catholic Church doesn't mean that the Roman Catholic Church official doctrines on sexuality are therefore necessarily false, but it does mean we probably wouldn't want the actual pedophiles or pedophile supporters to be the primary sources for a correct view of human sexuality. Thankfully, Roman Catholic views on sex have origins in sources like Church Fathers and the Bibles who were not pedophiles." "One more point," he says, "the Bible's authors themselves often own their moral shortcomings, like Paul does as the chief of sinners. The real authority of Christian truth claims does not come from its flawed authors, but from the Spirit who inspired the Scriptures, and Jesus, who is the truth and who never sinned, and the Father who cannot lie or commit injustice. Same can't be said for the fathers of gender theory and their defense of pedophilia." That's comparing apples and oranges. Bottom line is, I think we can't dismiss anybody's arguments because of their behavior, but when it comes to these fathers of gender theory, it's very suspicious, given their behavior. Doesn't disprove it within itself, and like Thaddeus says, has to be assessed on its own merit, but should give us serious pause following the reasoning when so much justification for their behavior is built into their theories. Anything you want to add to this one, or are you good?
Scott Rae: Nope, I'm, I'm good to go on that.
Sean McDowell: All right, good, 'cause the next one is for you specifically. It says, "I'm a longtime listener. I appreciate the cultural updates, even when I don't agree with you, Scott. I always agree with Sean." No, I'm kidding.
Scott Rae: [laughs]
Sean McDowell: I just made that up. [laughs] Just kidding. "I appreciate your thought process as you get to your conclusions. Recently, I heard Scott say there were no rags to riches stories in the Old Testament you could think of. My question is, what you think about Esther, Ruth, and David? Why don't you see them as rags to richet- riches?" And he also points towards Moses. He's like, "I don't want to be picky here, but give me your thoughts."
Scott Rae: Well, these were not rags to riches stories in the traditional sense that I intended it, of someone who started out penniless with nothing and started a business that succeeded and made one wealthy- ... Sorta like Rockefeller, Cornelius Vanderbilt, others. The people, David and Esther became wealthy through royalty, not through business. 'Cause David be- when David became king and Esther became queen, they, I mean, they became incredibly wealthy as a result of that. Ruth, I'm not so sure about. It's not clear to me that Boaz was... He had some means, but it's not clear from the, from the text that we would call him a super wealthy person. But R- but at, in everything, that Ruth married into it, as, and she, so she doesn't fit the traditional sort of business-... Rags to riches stories that I was referring to. So I appreciate the chance to clarify that, but I think my point still holds.
Sean McDowell: I agree. Great distinction. Very, very well stated. All right, last question is for you. This is more of a practical one. This person enjoyed your session at Acton University, and, has- is having a hard time convincing his or her son-in-law that all work is ministry. He's a solid Christian, but just doesn't see it that way. "I've tried to convince him, but haven't succeeded." Do you have any good tips on how to convince him otherwise? [chuckles]
Scott Rae: I do, actually.
Sean McDowell: All right.
Scott Rae: I've had this conversation with more people than I can count. [chuckles]
Sean McDowell: Okay. [chuckles]
Scott Rae: So I would take him to a couple places in the Scripture. First in Genesis 1:28, where it talks about God blessing them, and he said, "Be fruitful, increase in number, fill the earth, rule over it, and subdue it." And that first term, be fruitful, is a, is an economic and vocational term. It's to be fruitful in terms of fulfilling the do- the dominion mandate over the, over the creation. And God or- God ordained work in Genesis 2, in more detail, prior to the entrance of sin, which means that their work has intrinsic value itself and is part of what it... Part of fulfilling that imperative that's for all human beings. The other place I would take him is in Colossians 3, verse 23 and 24, where Paul is speaking to household servants who did arguably the most mind-numbing grunt work you can imagine in the first century, and said, "In whatever you do your work heartily, as unto the Lord. For in whatever you do, it's the Lord Christ whom you are serving." And you are... And what he, what he meant there is that the very work you do is part of your kingdom service to Christ. It's not a, it's not an adjunct to that. It's not just, it's not just sharing the gospel or helping the poor that is ministry- ... It is kingdom work. It's the very, it's the very work you do in the workplace that counts as kingdom service. And I'll... And then, and if that's true, then also k- has eternal significance. The other thing I would suggest is to see the Greek term for ministry, diakonia, better rendered as service. And it's service w- our work is service, enable, to enable human beings and their families and communities to experience the shalom, the flourishing that the Scripture outlines for us.
Sean McDowell: Scott, w-
Scott Rae: That's, that-
Sean McDowell: Do you-
Scott Rae: That's a short conversation, but-
Sean McDowell: In which-
Scott Rae: ... That's the gist of it
Sean McDowell: -book of yours or resource do you most lay out your thoughts on this?
Scott Rae: It's in the book that my colleague, Kenman Wong and I wrote, called Business for the Common Good. It's the first two chapters of that-
Sean McDowell: Awesome
Scott Rae: ... That really lay this out.
Sean McDowell: That's a great resource. The only small thing I would add is sometimes people resist persuasion, not because you haven't made a good argument, but because they're stubborn, or they've had a bad experience, or something else at the root of it. So I'd just try to get to what's the root of why he resists this, through asking questions and listening, and address that as well as the arguments that Scott made here. Scott, this is fun, my man.
Scott Rae: Man.
Sean McDowell: I miss this-
Scott Rae: Me too.
Sean McDowell: -and I am already looking forward to next week. [chuckles]
Scott Rae: Good stuff, my man. Good to be back with you.
Sean McDowell: Likewise. 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 and work and love it. We've got master's programs in theology, Bible, apologetics, marriage and family, spiritual formation, online and in person. Please keep your comments and questions coming. You can email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu. [upbeat music] Huge personal favor, if you've enjoyed this podcast, please take 30 seconds, a minute, two minutes at most, and write a review on your podcast app. I'm not kidding. This helps us get the word out, helps us with analytics. We don't ask and sell stuff here, ask for money. We're here to serve, but one way you could help us if you benefit from it, is just writing a review and sharing this with a friend. Thanks for listening. We will see you Tuesday when our regular podcast episode airs. In the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything. [upbeat music]
