Biola UniversityThis week's topics:
Abortion Pill Study: A massive study reveals serious health risks linked to the abortion pill mifepristone, with adverse events 22 times higher than FDA estimates—raising ethical and philosophical concerns about privacy, safety, and the personhood of the unborn.
Fathers Post-COVID: New research shows American dads are spending more time with their young kids, a trend celebrated for its relational and societal impact—challenging cultural narratives that downplay the importance of fathers.
AI vs. College Grads?: A rising unemployment rate among college grads sparks debate on whether AI is replacing entry-level jobs; we discuss the need for adaptability, wisdom, and a renewed understanding of vocation.
What Makes Us Happy?: After nearly a century of research, experts conclude that happiness hinges on purpose, relationships, and service—echoing timeless biblical wisdom about loving God and others.
Listener Q&A: Questions on school taxes, public funding, embryo ethics, and clarify past comments about parental rights and moral obligations.
Episode Transcript
Sean McDowell: [upbeat music] The largest study on the abortion pill ever finds that it significantly harms women. Fathers are spending more time with their kids post-COVID. A possible alarming trend in the job market, is it related to AI competing with college grads? And after a century of study, happiness experts come to some conclusions that should not surprise biblically-minded Christians. These are the stories we will discuss, and we will also address some of your questions. I'm your host, Sean McDowell.
Scott Rae: I'm your co-host, Scott Rae.
Sean McDowell: This is the Think Biblically Weekly Cultural Update, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. Scott, this first story dropped earlier in the week, so some other podcasts have talked about it, but my instant thought was two things: We've got to discuss this, and given that this is in your lane, I've been really interested all week in your take on this. Here's some of the backdrop for folks. This is the largest study, it came out of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Largest known study of the abortion pill, based on analysis from twenty seventeen to twenty twenty-three, that includes over eight hundred and sixty-five thousand prescribed mifepristone, patients who took mifepristone. [clears throat] What's interesting is, according to Danco Laboratories, who markets this, it's a safe and effective abortion pill. But this research shows quite different results. The manufacturer and the FDA rely on the results of ten clinical trials with a total of thirty thousand participants, and they say less than point five percent of whom experienced serious adverse reactions. In contrast, when they studied real-world insurance claims, where individuals, again, prescribed mifepristone, and broadly representative, they said these are not just selective women, but all representatives. They said, "We get very different results in the USA today." They found adverse event rate of almost eleven percent. That's twenty-two times as high as the summary figure reported on the drug label. Now, this article, they walk through the actual number of cases. In detail, I won't give, but these represent women, eleven thousand infections, twenty-eight thousand hemorrhages, forty thousand visits, and other complications, up to over ninety-four thousand complications from this. It's pretty harrowing, they say. To grant approval, they cite the FDA study of eight hundred and fifty-nine participants in the US, like a very kind of lowball, small study, it seems like, is the point they're making. Now, i-- the number of chemical abortions has increased, where it's somewhere between half to getting close to, like, two-thirds of all abortions now. And they have a chart from two thousand, where it's just growing up almost exponentially, year after year, of how prevalent it is, and of course, this is related to the overturning of Roe versus Wade not long ago. Now, maybe a couple more just stats that'll give context for people here. They said almost five percent of cases, there was, there p- individuals who took mifepristone were forced to visit an emergency room related to the abortion. Thousands were hospitalized, more than one thousand needed blood transfusions, and nearly two thousand had a different life-threatening adverse, event. Now, it turns out, that the Food and Drug Administration, in twenty sixteen under Obama and twenty twenty-three under President Joe Biden, really pushed this through and promoted it. By the way, there was another British study that was out earlier that kind of raised some red flags about mifepristone as well, and they're putting this study forward, hoping the Trump administration, not knowing what's going to happen, will take this data into consideration. Scott, what's your take on this study?
Scott Rae: Well, I found this super interesting, and the data point that I found particularly interesting was that the number of abortions that are done this way is more than twenty-eight times more than what is reported by the FDA. And so they're-- I think they're getting, they're getting data that is not-- that the insurers are not reporting all of, all of the adverse events, nor the number of abortions that are done this way to the FDA, like was originally, authorized when, mif-mifepristone was given FDA approval. Now, we've talked about this before with our friend, Dr. Donna Harrison-
Sean McDowell: Yep
Scott Rae: ... Who pointed out that this is enabling what she calls the DYI OTC, do-it-yourself over-the-counter abortion. And it's advertised as a com-- as completely private and can be obtained, a prescription can be obtained over the counter in some states across the country. Now, here, Sean, my first point on this is that the physician oversight on this has been, I think, significantly diminished since it, since the original guidelines were put out under when it was adopted under the Clinton administration. And the reason physician oversight is so important is that the proper dosage of the drug is determined by the gestational age of the unborn child. And so it has to be dosed properly, or else you run-- you get a higher risk of some of these adverse effects. And just by the way, the reason for the trips to the that you cited that are abortion-related, the reason for that is because the drug does not-... Complete the abortion, and it has to be finished, actually, in an emergency room with a, with a surgical intervention. So that I think is the first, I think, important point on this, and to-- the fact that more and more women are doing this without a physician's oversight and without a visit to a physician before obtaining the drug, I think is one of the things that's heightening the, some of the risks of these adverse events. Now, here's my main point on this, Sean, is a bit more philosophical on this, because all of the-
Sean McDowell: Okay
Scott Rae: ... Justifications for what we call these chemical abortions assume that the unborn child is not a person. Otherwise, they wouldn't make-- they would be-- they wouldn't make any sense at all. You know, take the privacy argument, that the merits of the abortion pill is that the abortion can be done completely within the privacy of a woman's home. Although, with the data that's cited out, that's, that's not really the case, because so, [chuckles] so at le- in at least eleven percent of cases, they have to have some sort of medical follow-up, so that takes the privacy argument away. But even if that were completely true, if the unborn child is a full person, Sean, whether or not the baby is killed in privacy or in a clinic is somewhat beside the point. Or take the safety argument, that it's more safe for women to do it this way as opposed to a surgical abortion, although I think the data calls that into question, too. But even if that were all true, if the unborn child is a full person, that whether the baby is killed safely for the mother is, again, irrelevant and begs, I think, another really important question: safely for whom? Now, these arguments, I think, engage in what philosophers call begging the question-
Sean McDowell: [chuckles]
Scott Rae: ... By assuming the conclusion and reasoning in a circle to get there. And in my view- ... We've talked about this before, this parallels most of the arguments for liberal abortion rights in general. Almost all of them assume that the unborn child is not a person, when that act-- that is the whole point that's under debate, is what kind of a thing the unborn child actually is. So, for example, the argument that, Roe v. Wade being overturned will return us back to the days of back alley abortions, and-
Sean McDowell: Right
Scott Rae: ... And we need Roe v. Wade in place to keep abortion safe and legal. But that's, that begs the question of what an unborn child is, actually is, because if it's a-- if the unborn child is a full person, that then whether or not abortion can be done safely is, again, bes- entirely beside the point. And even the argument, "my body, my choice," assumes that the unborn child is not a person. Because if that were true, designating my body over the life of an innocent person almost never gets done in any other arena of culture and the broader society. So I think w- this is what I think we really need to be careful about in, and it relates to the abortion debate in general, not just this specific, manifestation of it in the abortion pill. [clears throat]
Sean McDowell: That's really good to bring it back. One of our graduates, Scott Klusendorf, who I consider one of the leading pro-life defenders today, certainly Protestant pro-life defenders, has a tactic called trot out the toddler. [chuckles]
Scott Rae: [chuckles]
Sean McDowell: In other words, whenever somebody makes an argument that assumes the unborn is not human, he says, "Does that argument apply to a toddler?" Because everybody admits that a toddler is a human person. Which brings back to the question, what is the unborn? That's the central question that needs to be answered.
Scott Rae: Well, and increasingly-
Sean McDowell: Obviously, Scott-- Oh, go ahead.
Scott Rae: Increasingly, abortion right advocates are actually conceding that the unborn child is a person.
Sean McDowell: Yeah.
Scott Rae: Because technology, you know, things like 4D ultrasound and eventually artificial wombs, are gonna make it really difficult to suggest that the unborn child is simply a clump of cells or a, you know, just a piece of tissue analogous to a kidney or a liver. And I think once you concede that the unborn child is a person, then there's a really powerful argument for actually saying that the unborn child not only has the right to life, but actually has a claim on the mother's body for the things that he or she needs to flourish. Because if, you know, if you and your wife had, you know, had, say, two kids, you know, under a year and a half, and were, you know, had just had enough of all of the difficulties of those early years of parenting, and you decided you were gonna go on vacation, but you didn't d- send-- you didn't have, arrange anybody to-
Sean McDowell: [chuckles]
Scott Rae: ... Provide childcare for your kids while you were gone. You know, you just left a stack of diapers and a bunch of bottles in the fridge and said, you pat them on the head and say, "We'll see you in three weeks,"-
Sean McDowell: [chuckles]
Scott Rae: ... You know, guess what would happen on your return? You know, why would you be charged? You'd have a lot of angry people waiting for you-
Sean McDowell: Yeah
Scott Rae: ... Which would include the police and child protective services, but you would likely be charged with criminal charges for at least child negligence. And if your child died during those three weeks, which they probably would have-
Sean McDowell: Yeah
Scott Rae: ... You would be charged with negligent homicide. But why is that the case? Because a fundamental right of the child has been violated there. And that right, I think, gives them a claim on you and your wife to provide for what they need in order to survive and flourish. Now, if you, if you're not able to do that, then Child Protective Services takes them away and provides someone else who will do that. But if it-- but if we're conceding that the unborn child is a person, the, and a two-year-old has a claim on the parents for the things they need, then why wouldn't we also say that about the mother?
Sean McDowell: ... That's a, that's a great question. I, this whole week, honestly, this study's really bothered me, Scott. I mean, just that you and I have said, and it's not unique to us, a lot of people talked about that this is not as safe as people think, and there's adverse effects for it, and it's been ignored. Which to me, raised the question, what is the pro-choice side really about? They claim to be pro-women. That's what they say. Makes me wonder how much it's more pro-abortion than it is pro-women, when the writing was on the wall for a while that this was not as safe as it was supposed to be. You'd think if women were the primary concern, they would figure this out and lean in and err on the side of making sure [chuckles] they protect women, but they didn't. It's about the right to an abortion post Roe versus Wade. So I'm calling inconsistency on this one. I'm not saying there's not inconsistencies among Christians or pro-lifers, that's a separate issue, but I think this clearly points one out for the pro-choice side, that they're not primarily interested in helping women. Now, when a study comes out like this, the mainstream media and pro-choice side has a few options. Number one, they can counter and challenge the ideas in the study. That might come forward, but it looks like a pretty rigorous, careful, significant size, quantitative and qualitative study. That's one, you can challenge it. Number two, you could kind of admit it and say, "You know what? This is worse. Let's change course," or you can ignore it. And as you do a search this week on the top, you know, sources that deal with it, you see Breakpoint coming up, of course, our friends at the Colson Center. You see publications, a lot of family publications, CBN News. There's a lot of people that have just simply ignored this and hope it goes away. One reason I wanna talk about here is to put it on people's radar so we don't ignore it, and it's a part of the conversation. This is tens of thousands of women who have been told, "This is safe," and it's not, and have suffered because of it. So we should care about the unborn, like you said, and actually care about women. That's what it means to be pro-life.
Scott Rae: Yeah, and I-- Sean, I would encourage our listeners, too, since, you know, the FDA reports to Congress, and the F- ... The FDA can change, can change the regulations surrounding the abortion pill, and they can reinstate the original regulations, which is what the study suggested, to provide greater disclosure, to provide a requirement of at least three physician visits before getting a prescription, to sort of curb the over-the-counter aspects of this. And I would encourage our, I would encourage our listeners, write to your congressperson to encourage the FDA to implement the original-- at the least, implement the original regulations, if not re-examine, the abortion pill and its acceptability in general.
Sean McDowell: Good take. That's a great action point, Scott. This article, now and then, we like to [chuckles] choose things that are positive and encouraging, 'cause sometimes the news can be discouraging when you read it. The title of this is actually really interesting, Scott. It's a, it's an opinion piece in the New York Times, and it says, "A Great Leap Forward for American Fathers." And this opinion writer says, "It's a glimmer of positivity that American fathers who statistically spend less time with their children and work more hours than mothers do, seemed especially smitten with the ini- additional bonding time." In other words, time spent with fathers is going up. It said, "Fathers of children, ages 10 and under, were doing about seven minutes more per workday and 18 minutes more per weekend, for a total of 1.2 [chuckles] more childcare a week," which is positive. There's a few other points they said. In general, dads are working... W- you know, why is this the case? They said, "Dads are working fewer hours and replacing leisure time with childcare." That's great. "They are also multitasking, which is interesting. So while s- that seven hours seems like a ton, it's probably not the case that they're spending every minute of that time solely focused on their kids. They might be at their baseball games, checking emails," it says. Well, I think this is positive. I have a bunch of thoughts, but what was your take? Did it surprise you?
Scott Rae: No, actually it didn't. And I think this is very encouraging, and I'm delighted. And I think this is, you know, in a la- in a lot of Christian families, this has been going on for decades- ... Where dads have been in the home, they've been present, they've been engaged and involved with their kids in really meaningful ways. You know, the- just a, just a little piddly thing that is a pet peeve with me-
Sean McDowell: [chuckles] Okay
Scott Rae: ... I don't like the term, I don't like the term doing childcare applied to moms and dads-
Sean McDowell: Oh
Scott Rae: ... 'cause they're parenting. You know? You know, we, you know, we, you know, we hire people to do childcare, but parents- ... Do things I think that are irreplaceable.
Sean McDowell: That's a good point.
Scott Rae: And, and I would say, too, you know, the article describes multitasking with kids in sort of a negative light, but I'm not convinced that that's always a bad thing. I think it's, I think it's a good thing for kids to see adults doing adult things and to tag along on things, and we've had, we've had guests who have suggested that in the past. And I- Sean, I think it's okay for kids to be, to be bored periodically and to not always have a device that's engaging their brains. Right? Now, obviously, sometimes multitasking is a problem. You know, I live down the street from a couple of tennis courts, and I've seen on more than one occasion, dads who were playing, hitting tennis balls with their son or daughter while talking on a cell phone-
Sean McDowell: [laughing]
Scott Rae: ... In one hand, holding a tennis racket in the other.... That, that's a problem. [laughing]
Sean McDowell: [laughing]
Scott Rae: And we- and, you know, connected to that is a park where kids play, and I think it's becoming, I think, more the norm when I walk by that park when I'm walking my dogs, to see, parents with their cell phones sitting on the, on the park bench while their kids are playing on their own in the park. And the kids are- the parents are basically watching to make sure the kids don't get hurt while otherwise being on their phones. That, that's, that troubles me as well.
Sean McDowell: Sure.
Scott Rae: You know, one of the interesting things I found about this article, Sean, was that one of the letters to the author of the piece that was included at the tail end of the article-
Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm
Scott Rae: ... He makes a, he makes a really interesting comment. He says, "In an era of debate about what's healthy and what's toxic about masculinity, there is never a bad time to remind that devotion to family is about as healthy a masculine instinct as one could find."
Sean McDowell: Amen.
Scott Rae: "Dads should want to spend time with their kids. They might find that they actually like the little gremlins." "I know I do." And, you know, and my rejoinder to that is, "And guess what? They like you back." [chuckles] And they make life incredibly satisfying. I told... I've told my oldest son this on several times. I said, "Being your dad is the single most satisfying thing I have ever done in my adult life." "And nothing will change that." And, you know, Sean, you think about it, in biblical times, dads the- did most of the parenting with boys. You know, the Bible's clear that dads are important. And I think, in my view, one of the worst instincts of feminism, not to mention same-sex parenting, was to think that dads were dispensable. And the data, I think, is pretty clear that that was s- pretty significantly misguided.
Sean McDowell: I'm glad you made that last point, 'cause I had kinda two takeaways on this. One is, you know, when talking about fathers of children ages 10 and under, seven minutes more per weekday, 18 minutes more per weekend. Throughout the history of the world, [chuckles] you know, people would be like, "Seven more minutes? What is seven more minutes?" Like, what are-
Scott Rae: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... Why is this even news? Because kids were in the home, being educated in the home, working with the parents. That's just the way society was.
Scott Rae: Yeah, and w- and watching them.
Sean McDowell: And watching them.
Scott Rae: Just simply watching them-
Sean McDowell: Yeah
Scott Rae: ... Do life.
Sean McDowell: And interacting with them. So it's such a modern phenomena that this is a great leap, that they're seven minutes per day, [chuckles] even though I love the trend moving forward as it is. The other thing related to your last comments, when it says, "A great leap forward for American fathers," and calls this positive. Now, nobody looks in this and says, "It's not positive." Everybody resonates with that. But why? It's not just about parenting in general, it's about fathers, men. There's something intuitive in us that knows men and women are different, and kids need fathers. We know that, and as much as many voices in our culture have tried to erase this and move away from it... The illustration I often use, Scott, is, like, think of a beach ball. You push a beach ball underwater, and it takes a lot of force to keep it underwater, but it's going to pop up. It's like our culture is pushing down certain things, like you said, "Oh, fathers are not important. Marriage is not a sexed institution." But I look for people, 'cause marriage is God's design, and He's built it into the world as a sexed institution. And we know men and women are different. I look for that beach ball to pop up, and this is an example of this. In The New York Times, an opinion piece, where I'm sure most people reading this are celebrating that fathers are more involved. That seems to contradict the idea that we don't need fathers and mothers, we just need gender-neutral parents. So I think this kinda tells us that fathers aren't optional. And by the way, all the sociological data we don't even need to go into ties a kid's self-image, likely to graduate from high school, not be in poverty, not self-harm. I mean, the most significant sociological factor across so many demographics is that relationship with the father, and I think we all know it. So this gives us a chance as Christians to live this out differently and lean into that.
Scott Rae: Yes. One, one other comment, too.
Sean McDowell: Yeah.
Scott Rae: I'm, I'm sure we have single moms who are among our listeners. And I wanna be careful that we don't, you know, we don't, issue a judgment here on single moms, because we have, we have single moms who are, you know, who are not that way by choice, because of a divorce that they may not have wanted or an abusive situation or that they're, they're widows, you know, raising kids on their own. And so I would... I w- I wanna make sure that we underscore... We can- we consider that single moms doing the job of two to be some of the most heroic people of our culture. And I think they, I think, recognize more acutely than maybe the rest of us do, how important it is to have their kids around good influences who are men in their lives, even though they may not be married to one at the present time.
Sean McDowell: Such a good reminder, and every single mom I've talked with is heroic, like you said, but also says it's not ideal and wished the father was around in their lives for whatever reason he's not, assuming the father's not, you know, a deadbeat or something there.
Scott Rae: Right.
Sean McDowell: So I think that's, that's a really good balance to bring. Good, good word.... You sent me this piece, and, given that you've done so much on business ethics, I'm interested in your take on this. It's in The Atlantic. It says, "Something alarming, something alarming is happening to the job market." Then the subtitle is, "A New Sign That AI Is Competing with College Grads." Now, it should say, "A New Sign That AI Might Be Competing with College Grads," which is just a reminder that taglines are often just meant to entice-
Scott Rae: That's right
Sean McDowell: ... To read, but not always accurate. 'Cause this article lays out that there is unemployment rate, especially for grads, is unusually high right now. Many MBAs are struggling, to find jobs. What's going on? First theory is there's still left over, from the labor market that has not recovered from the coronavirus or possibly even the Great Recession, going back to '07, '08. That's one possibility. Second theory is that college doesn't confer the same labor advantage that it did 15 years ago. There's more and more opportunities for non-college graduates, although they say, "To be clear, college still pays off on average." The third theory is the relatively weak labor market for college grads could be an early sign that artificial intelligence is starting to transform the economy. And they gave an example of how law firms, some have leaned on AI for, like, paralegal work, and consulting firms have realized that five 22-year-olds with ChatGPT could do the work of 20 recent grads without. Now, they do cite, after all, they get to the end of the article, and they're like, "Well, skepticism of this strong interpretation is warranted," and concludes by saying, "No matter the interpretation, labor market for young grads is flashing a yellow light. It could be the signal of short-term economic drag or medium-term change to the value of college degree or long-term change in the relationship between people and AI. This is a number to watch." How concerned are you about this trend?
Scott Rae: Well, Sean, I think maybe first of all, we ought to, we ought to both have a case of full disclosure here that we are both full-time college professors. [laughing]
Sean McDowell: [laughing]
Scott Rae: And, and, we... I'm doing my best not to speak out of pure self-interest for both of us.
Sean McDowell: [laughing]
Scott Rae: But we'll get more on that in just a minute. This is sort of what I thought might happen- ... A few years ago when people started saying that AI was taking all the jobs. Now, it was never, that was an exaggeration. It was never taking all the jobs, but it would be disruptive and would take some of them, and already has. What's new, I think, is that the target audience for who's most newly at risk is different, and they've pinpointed it. It's new college grads that may be most at risk. Now, it used to be, you know, when I graduated from college, nobody didn't get a job-
Sean McDowell: Sure
Scott Rae: ... Unless they were going to grad school. I mean, everybody got jobs, and the reason for that is because college st- recent college graduates were cheap, and they were trainable. And companies, you know, had lot, lots and lots of companies had training programs, especially for new college grads. And the, that payoff gap that you describe is still true between, you know, lifetime earnings, for college grads over non-college grads is still a gap, but that gap is lessening. And I... And that, I think, is actually good news because, you know, and I, this is hard to say as a, as a full-time college professor, but I think that is good news that we are valuing other, occupations and trades that don't necessarily require a full college degree or full college education. So my- Sean, my big takeaway on this was, maybe a little bit of advice-
Sean McDowell: Okay
Scott Rae: ... For some of our listeners who, you know, may be, you know, may be younger, may be newer college grads or, you know, you know, maybe not particularly established in their careers. And here's a couple of things, and I'm gonna weave some things theologically into this as well. But I think the first bit of advice is a, is a practical one, and that is be ready to pivot professionally- ... On relatively short notice. To be open to new training, to new skills, to adapt to a workplace that is changing faster than it ever has before in my lifetime. I'll give you, for example, one of my youngest son's best friends graduated from Biola and and was training to be a youth pastor. He graduated just before COVID hit and was just unable to find a full-time job in a local church. He tried for two or three years while we were still in, still in the COVID aftermath. He's now writing software code-
Sean McDowell: Huh
Scott Rae: ... 'cause he had, he had a, he had a wife and family to support. And he, you know, and he is, he is a very well-qualified person who serves in his local church, and I think, I think the pastoral side of things is probably what he views as the big thing that God's calling him to. But he also-- God's also calling him to support his family. And he had to pivot fairly quickly once he realized that he probably wasn't gonna get it, the job he wanted in a local church. Here's a second bit of advice, and we've talked about this maybe some time ago, but it's a good reminder, I think. I would beware of the maxim to do what you love, and the money will follow.
Sean McDowell: [laughing]
Scott Rae: 'Cause I think that in general, I think that-
Sean McDowell: Yeah
Scott Rae: ... At the least, at worst, is bad advice. At the least, it needs to be amended. But if you do what you love, and the money will follow, will follow only if someone's willing to pay you for doing what you love.... [laughing] And that's not always the case. And I, and Sean, I wanna be really careful that we don't adopt a baptized view of our calling from God that essentially reproduces this notion. And it may be that what you perceive God is calling you to do is not something that you can make a living at. Paul's- the Apostle Paul's main calling was as an apostle, but he was also in the tent-making business, I'd call him in the home-building business, actually, in order to make a living so as not to be a burden to the churches that he planted and served. And I think we need to distinguish more carefully between something that's the heart of our calling and something that is part of our calling from God. In the same way, I think that most pastors who are bivocational are well aware of. You know, they're aware that what God is sort of fundamentally calling them to do is what they do in pastoral ministry in the local church. But a part of what God's calling them to do is also to support their family, and to see that part as equally valuable kingdom service, what they're doing in the workplace. I think that... I think they may get this notion more clearly than the average person out there in the workplace. So, I'm- I've got a few more things to say, but I'm curious sort of what you had, what you took away from this.
Sean McDowell: You know what? I don't have huge theological takeaways on this one. I just think it's interesting that in the past, technology has moved away from physical labor in the past. Now we're seeing it move for intellectual kinds of jobs. That's, that's a trend we kind of see emerging potentially in 2025. As I thought about this, it really relates to what you're saying, just biblical wisdom. What does it mean to have wisdom, to discern our times, and to navigate a changing environment? The Bible says to pray for wisdom, to ask for wisdom. Wisdom in going to college or not. You and I are professors, and I still believe in it, and this article says it pays off. But there might be some cases for individuals where it's wiser, and they don't need to do so. Families need to look at that with wisdom and biblical discernment. What you major in. They point out some jobs today are gonna be more threatened, so to speak, for lack of a better term, by AI than others. So my daughter is going into Biola in the fall, and she's studying nursing. That's what she wants to do. That is interesting to her. I think she loves it, loves working with people, but it's also a wise decision that has some job security for her worked in. She tried to balance the two, like you talked about. What were your other, your other points on this one?
Scott Rae: Now, here's... One, one of them relates to that point, and it's sort of- ... I'm gonna use you and I as an example of this. And I said, the advice is to beware of being a one-trick pony. Because the field... Be, be prepared for the fact that the field you trained for in college may be obsolete 10 years out. And you may need other training. Now, I take, you know-
Sean McDowell: Might not even take 10 years. [chuckles]
Scott Rae: It might, yeah, a lot shorter. Now, you and, you and I were trained to do one thing, right? We were trained to be teachers and professors. And I'd like to, I'd like to think that both... I know, I know you do it really well. I like to think that I do it pretty well, too. But we were trained to do one thing, and I think if I were starting out today, you know, if I were, you know, if I were half my age and just starting out, I would ha- I would have a plan B in my back pocket, and in case AI or some other technological notion, took my job away, and I had something to... I had something else that I could do, that I, that I was good at. Now, let me, let me go back to the value of college just for a minute. And this, you know, if our listeners wanna dismiss this as rank self-interest, then-
Sean McDowell: [laughing]
Scott Rae: ... I can live with that. But I do think there's, there's a counterintuitive point. I think the value of- in college today, I think, is especially in what people think is the least valuable part of a college education, which are the liberal arts. And the reason for that is because it teaches what employers tell us they most value in their employees, which are high-level reasoning, critical thinking, problem-solving, and the character traits that are built, such as perseverance, initiative, a work ethic, and things like that. Now, the... And I would say, to be more specific, the value of Christian colleges, in particular, brings another item that employers value, and that is character and trustworthiness. Now, that's, that's not, that's not true across the board-
Sean McDowell: Sure
Scott Rae: ... But I think in general, I think that's one of the big, selling points of Christian colleges, that if they're not delivering on that, they ought to stop advertising it.
Sean McDowell: Amen.
Scott Rae: You know, for, Sean, for example, I- several years ago, I asked our former film school dean how he accounts for all of our film school grads getting hired in the industry. We have a tremendous hiring rate- ... In the entertainment industry, and my oldest son has been a bif- been a bif- a beneficiary of that. You know what he said? He said, he had three simple words. He said, "They show up."
Sean McDowell: [laughing] That's great.
Scott Rae: And what he meant by that-
Sean McDowell: [laughing]
Scott Rae: ... Was that, you know, he meant by that was that, you know, they- when they give their word, they follow through, they're reliable, they're trustworthy, they have character. When they say they're gonna do something, they do it. When they say they're gonna be somewhere, they are. And that, you know, it's not a secret, there's, there's at least a modicum of flakiness in the entertainment industry. [chuckles] and it's not surprising that, you know-... Studios and other people who employ people in the entertainment industry would value those kinds of traits. And, you know, in general, we know, and this has been true for a long time, work environments that have an atmosphere of trust typically have much lower- ... Costs of doing business because they don't have to be looking over everybody's shoulder all the time. They don't have to have costly oversight mechanisms to make sure that employees aren't, you know, doing things that they're not supposed to be doing. So I think there's still, I think there's still value, and I think there's economic value in college, and particularly in Christian colleges, beyond just the general notion that college, I think, is generally a s- a good, safe, healthy place for students to grow up and mature.
Sean McDowell: Good take. You know, one quick thing that hit me while you were saying that is my son is at Biola right now, and he's studying business, and he said a lot of the business professors are emphasizing to use AI in their assignments. In other words, when you get to the professional world, you're gonna want to use AI and know how to do it. That's one thing this article points out, is rather than 20 grads, I want five grads who know how to use AI. So I know our business department is doing a great job in that, but young people thinking about what I wanna do and how I can use AI well in that world will probably help give them a practical advantage as well. Scott-
Scott Rae: Good stuff
Sean McDowell: ... This last, this last study, I mean, this jumped out to me. I love this. I just gave a talk about six weeks ago in Biola's Chapel on happiness, and I've actually kind of tracked, from the outside, not remotely an expert, some of the books and articles in themes in happiness studies. So this is a long article in The New York Times. It's 13 pages, and it says, New York Times Magazine, "How Nearly a Century of Happiness Research Led to One Big Finding." Now, they give a few trends. For a while, scientists early on believed that happiness was random. It just was something that happened to people or built in their genes. They had no control over it. In the early 2000s, happiness studies started to shift, where people were like, "Wait a minute, we actually have some control over what it means to be happy and how we become happy in our lives." They cite a Harvard study. It was a 75-year study, interestingly enough, and it said, "Much of it added up to one key insight. The clearest message we got from this 75-year study is this: Good relationships keep us happier and healthier, period." So they point that out. Another study that came out from the Max Planck Institute, this is in 2016, found that people who proposed a social goal and had taken steps toward accomplishing it were happier a few years later. Interesting enough. And then they basically conclude this: They said, "Finding purpose in serving others, spending more time with others, it all points towards the same thing." In other words, if you have a purpose bigger than yourself, and that purpose involves serving other people, and you cultivate meaningful relationships and connect with people, you will likely be happier. Now, [chuckles] I've got a ton of thoughts on this, but tell me your takeaway, Scott. I'm really interested.
Scott Rae: I've got two things primarily.
Sean McDowell: Okay.
Scott Rae: [lips smack] and then just a sort of a side comment that, you know, they say talking to strangers is actually, you know, contributes to uplifting your mood.
Sean McDowell: Yeah.
Scott Rae: And I... That, that part I found particularly interesting because they didn't bring this out, but my suggestion is, who knows, when you talk to strangers, you might end up talking about spiritual things-
Sean McDowell: That's true
Scott Rae: ... With them. Now, what a, what a concept. But I think what this points out is, you know, so, it's just so s- fits with what we know theologically, that we are relational beings created by a relational God. And this, for our listeners, now, in my view, this is, this is one of the major reasons why the Trinity is so important. Yeah, yes, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all have different roles. All that's super important. What the Trinity reflects is that God is intrinsically relational, and we were created fundamentally relational by a relational God, and that the ultimate reality in the world is fundamentally relational. And therefore, it's not a big surprise that relationships, more than accomplishments, contributes more to our happiness. And here's... I think the point of this, Sean, is God is relationally complete in the Trinity. And what follows from that is a really interesting notion, and I'll just mention this. I'm not sure how it reflects on happiness, but it, I think it does tell us how we ought to relate to the world. God did not need to create us or the universe in order to be complete. All the created world is a selfless gift of God. And our friend, our friend Christopher Watkins, put it s- puts it like this: He said, "Neither we nor the universe are necessary. We may, we may be important, precious, glorious even, but preciously and gloriously unnecessary." [chuckles] That all the world is a selfless gift of God. He didn't need it for Himself. He did it out of love for us. And so to be in the world, accepting sort of everything in the world as God's good, selfless gift, rather than something that we have to accomplish and a treadmill that we have to be on, I think helps contribute to the way we understand our happiness- ... And flourishing.... Now, one other take on this.
Sean McDowell: Sure.
Scott Rae: The New York Time columnist David Brooks, I think distinguishes in his books between what he calls resume virtues and eulogy virtues. And I love that distinction because the eulogy virtues are those that are embodied by the things we want people to say about us at our memorial. You know, I'm getting ready to go to my mom's memorial in a, in a couple weeks. So this is sort of front of mind. But this research that we're citing here in the New York Times confirms that eulogy virtues are the things that contribute more [chuckles] to our happiness than our resume virtues. And though I do find the accomplishments that we've, that we've... And both you and I are accomplished authors, we find that satisfying. But the real thing that contributes to our satisfaction and the high points of our year when we go back and reflect on those things, are all the things that we do with our families. It's relational stuff, not so much what we accomplish. And I think for myself, one of the reasons the accomplishments are as satisfying as they are is because I had... You know, when I was in my 20s and 30s, I had really serious doubts as to whether I was capable of doing this academic thing. And so to see God move in that way and to dispel my fears in that has been, has been very satisfying. But at the end of the day, it's, you know, it's the relationships that I've built that are much more, much more satisfying to look at than the number of books we've written sitting on the shelf.
Sean McDowell: That's well said. I assume you would agree with this, that it's not relationships or accomplishments.
Scott Rae: Correct.
Sean McDowell: It's oftentimes the purpose and meaning of the accomplishments, whether it's providing for our family, gives those a kind of meaning, or serving other people, is what this study brings out, brings happiness. But at its core, you're right about relationships. I have so many thoughts on this. One is the subtitle says, "Decades of wellness studies have identified a formula for happiness." One of the articles that I saw, Time used to have a annual episode, magazine that they would contribute entirely to happiness, and the title one year was called The Science of Happiness. It's like we've taken happiness and go, "Okay, people are unhappy. Problem. Let's study this scientifically with our hypotheses and then get our outputs of how, what formula we can have to make people happier." First off, this tells us that we look to science as an authority, not something else, but it also, when this comes full circle, I'm thinking, okay, they're approaching this scientifically, and the conclusion that they come to is not surprising whatsoever for Christians. It's exactly what 100 years of study would have found if they had looked to the Scriptures and looked to the person of Jesus. And I'm not saying they wasted their time, that's not my point, but it's, you know, the kind of... It's like 100 years of study, I read this thinking they're gonna have some new novel finding, and they just point back towards serving people-
Scott Rae: Mm-hmm
Sean McDowell: ... And being in relationships. And Jesus is asked, "What's the greatest commandment?" He says, "Love God and love others." That's relational, but we can only love people when we sacrifice and we serve them. So I just love it when these scientific findings match up so smoothly and naturally with biblical ideas, and I think it uniquely does here. One, one other thing, Scott, is when I see a study on happiness, I'm always asking myself: How are they defining happiness? What do they mean by happiness?
Scott Rae: Good question.
Sean McDowell: And they never define it in this article. Dennis Prager, a Jewish talk show host and Old Testament commentator, has a book called Happiness is a Serious Problem. I actually love that book, and he says, "In our culture, the formula is H equals Nf. H for happiness, N equals number, f equals fun." In other words, the number of fun experiences you have equals the level of happiness. That's our culture. Live for yourself. If it feels good, do it. Just have fun. Live for the moment. Seize the day, all these kinds of things. And actually, studies show that living for pleasure is one of the lowest levels of meaning and well-being and flourishing if we take a more classical understanding of what happiness is meant to be. So we gotta define what happiness is before we can actually study it, and you know this better than anybody. The classical Greeks, which I think is in the Bible, had a term, eudaimonia, which meant the good life, flourishing. So it's like our culture today is obsessed with how we feel, whereas happiness was classically more tied to, are you becoming a virtuous person? What kind of life are you living? Who are you becoming? What is your life about? I think that's-
Scott Rae: Eulogy virtues.
Sean McDowell: Yeah, the virtues. I think that's in part why there's a paradox of happiness. The reason we've had these studies on happiness is people are obsessed with their unhappiness and trying to fix it. But the more you obsess with trying to be happy, [chuckles] the less you actually find it.
Scott Rae: That's right.
Sean McDowell: And that's where Matthew 6:33 says, "Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you." In other words, rather than being obsessed with how we feel and finding, find happiness, just follow what this article said, which is in the Bible-... Which is serve other people and have meaningful, rich relationships. That's what brings happiness. I love this article, and if more research comes out-
Scott Rae: It is great stuff
Sean McDowell: ... I'd love to talk about it more-
Scott Rae: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... And more again. Any o- any other thoughts jump out to you on this one?
Scott Rae: This one reminds me of Jesus' statement that, "He who, he who loses his life for my sake and for the kingdom will find it."
Sean McDowell: Amen. And yeah, it's just, that's such a good word. We're so drawn by money. We're so drawn by power, these things the [chuckles] world just tells us. And that, of course, Ecclesiastes is like vanity. The formula is there scientifically and of course, biblically. All right, Scott, we got some good questions here, my man, and, uh-
Scott Rae: Yes, we do.
Sean McDowell: This first one, I'm actually [chuckles] really hoping you can help me out with this first one. It's kind of a business ethics kind of question, and the individual says, "Our city recently proposed a multimillion-dollar bond for our public school, while education outcomes are down. We homeschool, and I'm finding myself frustrated that taxes are being increased to cover this bond. We're proposing that it is, quote," they are proposing it's, "for the kids and using language about how it will be detriment to our kids if we don't vote approval of it." Can you talk about how to think biblically about things like increasing taxes and school bonds? Thanks for all you do.
Scott Rae: Yes. Yes, I can.
Sean McDowell: Awesome.
Scott Rae: Eh, Sean, we talked about this in the, in one of the previous stories, that the Bible is clear that we're not autonomous individuals, but created for community. As a result, we all have community responsibilities that don't necessarily affect us directly. And since I would say that both politics and economics are both fundamentally moral enterprises because they are about how we order our lives together in community. And economics, particular, is about how we share the burdens and benefits of how we order our lives together in community. And I would, I put it like this: since the majority of kids go to public schools, it's in my community's interest that they be good schools. And it's, it's, it's for the well-being and flourishing of my community that our education system is as good as it can be. Now, I think we can raise a question about whether, you know, whether just putting more money into it is actually the best means to do that. That's a separate debate. But, I, you know, I still pay property taxes, even though my kids have been out of... You know, they've been out of high school for more than, you know, like more than a decade. And generally, I view paying my taxes as part of the biblical mandate to love my neighbor. Although I admit, you know, I freely admit that some taxes are wasted and spent on f- on totally frivolous things, and some things go for things that I morally object to. And I, so that, with that caveat, I think there are... I don't object to taxes being a part of some of the burdens that we all bear for the benefits of our communities.
Sean McDowell: That, that's a good, helpful way to look at it. I've just got a couple quick thoughts here. Thomas Sowell has a huge book. He's an, you know, economist from Stanford, and, he talks about how there's laws of science, there's laws in physics, there's laws in math, but there's also laws of economics, and good intentions don't equal good results. [chuckles] You actually need policies that match up with human nature and actually work. For the sake of loving our neighbors, Christians should care about what works or not. So just like this, you know, they are proposing this for the kids, if it really doesn't work and doesn't help, that's like having good intentions for socialism. It sounds good on paper, but it doesn't actually work. Now, I think the question here, as far as I see it, is a little bit more prudential in the sense of there's a lot of battles that I could fight. I pay taxes, and I'm like, "I just don't have the time to fight that battle," so I have to look at my life, prioritize my energy, and fight the ones that I think I can make the most difference in. So if this really bothers him, and he thinks it's hurting the community, and he wants to speak up, then do so. Just count the cost and be wise about it, given the other factors that are at play. I think that's all I would, I would throw in there.
Scott Rae: That's a good word on the prudential side.
Sean McDowell: We got... So I'm just gonna make a general comment. We get some questions now and then where people send us links and videos and articles and ask us to respond. Rarely do we have time to respond in that fashion. So we get a bunch on different themes, like what's called the manosphere right now and trad wives in the past, and we weigh in on a lot of issues here. Each of the issues we weigh in on, we like to read and do research, but there's just so many that we don't know. So if you write in an article and say, "Here's a link, hope you can read it," prudentially [chuckles] speaking, we probably won't be able to. Anything you want to add on that one before we jump to the third?
Scott Rae: No, let's take the third one.
Sean McDowell: Perfect. All right, so this question is, "A few weeks ago, you discussed whether embryos are property. First of all, I agree, they are human, but I have to point out a problem stemming from a comment that you made." I'm not sure if you is me or you, but one of us made, namely-
Scott Rae: I did. I did.
Sean McDowell: You did. [chuckles] Okay, all right, whew! I feel better. This one's on you, Scott.
Scott Rae: [chuckles]
Sean McDowell: No, I'm, I'm kidding. Fair enough. We'll keep going. "Namely, that the court was right to say that the man had the right to not become a parent if he didn't want to."... How does the same logic apply to a woman who, for example, was raped and becomes pregnant? She did not want to be a parent either, but the conclusion seems to me that a woman has the option for adopting the child out, but she still has to carry it, which is stressful physically and psychio- psychologically, especially someone who's been traumatized by rape. Your comments implied that a man with embryo children is in the right for wa- is in the right for wanting the embryos destroyed, but the woman who is raped has to suffer the hardships of pregnancy. How can you resolve this apparent conflict?
Scott Rae: Well, this is actually an easy one to resolve, 'cause I think your clarification w- in that particular episode actually resolved it. Because you'd, you'd pointed out, I think you corrected some of what I had said on that. I was, I was referring to legally on that, and I think you were commenting more on morally. But your clarification was that the pers- the dad with embryos is already a parent. And so that decision's already been made. And so the court's rationale for assigning custody or assigning property, was actually a moot point on this. And so I would agree, that, the woman who was raped and become pregnant does not wanna be a parent, but she is- ... Even though the sex was not consensual. And I think the s- the same holds true for the man. I think the man, the man whose embryos, who created those embryos, is already a parent and has an obligation to do whatever he can to provide a safe environment for those embryos to come to come to term. So that, and that may, that may involve some means that we're not altogether crazy about, that we wouldn't suggest in, you know, if they were starting from scratch- ... For example. So for example, it may be that if the, if the, if the man's wife was not able to become pregnant again, you know, maybe that might be one i- one instance where hiring a surrogate might be appropriate, as opposed to discarding the embryos.
Sean McDowell: Gotcha. That's a very helpful clarification and distinction on this question, which we deeply appreciate. Well-stated.
Scott Rae: Yeah, very good, very good point made.
Sean McDowell: Yeah. Once again, listeners paying close attention and calling us to clarify, keep those kinds of questions coming. Very, very helpful. All right, Scott, as always, this is fun, and-
Scott Rae: Lots of fun. Good stuff.
Sean McDowell: Yeah, likewise. This has been an episode of the podcast Think Biblically: Conversations on Faith and Culture, which is brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. We have programs, master's programs in theology, Bible apologetics, Old Testament, New Testament, spiritual formation, marriage and family, fully online and in person. Please keep your comments and questions coming. You can email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu. Thinkbiblically@biola.edu. We would really appreciate if you would take a moment and just give us a rating on your podcast app. Of course, we would prefer a five-star, but just taking the time to give an honest rating, really helps us share this widely and equip more people to think biblically. Thanks for listening, and we'll see you Tuesday, when we have a discussion that really is long overdue, Scott, but I'm really glad we're having it, about how to think biblically about disability. Very timely and important topic. In the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything. [upbeat music]
