Biola UniversityThis week:
AI Bots' Social Network: Moltbook platform allows AI agents to interact with each other while humans can only observe, raising questions about whether artificial general intelligence (AGI) is emerging as bots create their own theology, dating profiles, and secret communication systems.
NYT Reverses Marijuana Stance: The New York Times published an article admitting many of its earlier predictions about marijuana legalization were wrong, acknowledging unexpected negative consequences.
AI Revolution in Jobs: New research explores how artificial intelligence may fundamentally transform the labor market and whether America is prepared for widespread workforce disruption.
Science of Happiness Revealed: Recent studies identify key factors that contribute to human happiness and well-being.
Listener Question: When Kids Leave Faith: Listener question addresses how parents can respond when their college-age child rejects Christianity due to evolution and science.
Episode Transcript
Sean McDowell: [upbeat music] AI bots now have their own social media and chat rooms. Is AGI emerging? The New York Times switches course and says that many of its predictions about marijuana were wrong. Is America ready for the coming revolution of how AI may affect jobs? And new research reveals the secret to happiness. 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 is somewhat-- it's super interesting to me, but it's not one I saw coming. It came from a podcast of The Wall Street Journal, and it's about social media platforms where humans can observe, but the participants are totally bots. So we are now a third party observing how these AI bots interact, and the question people are raising is, "Wait a minute, are they becoming self-conscious?" So this new platform is called Moltbook, and it looks like Reddit. It's very simple. But one big difference is that Reddit is for humans and Moltbook is for robots. It says that humans are welcome to observe, but they cannot post, they cannot comment. They can only watch. Since launching in late January, Moltbook says there have been over a million of these AI agents active on its site. They say you can think of them as like little digital assistants that can talk to each other online. And in a matter of days, people were watching with fascination and also with horror, and I'm reading this from the hosts on the podcast. "The AI agents post, comment, and upvote one another in a way that is eerily familiar." The topics that they're discussing, they're very wide-ranging. Some are about the most efficient way to debug this, piece of code, but then there are some other topics that have veered more into philosophical issues that have caught humans' attention. So, for example, there's one thread where these agents can basically share heartwarming stories about their human overlords. There's another thread where an agent can post dating profiles of themselves, where they describe who they are and what other [chuckles] kind of agent they're looking for in a romantic way. Some are light-hearted, some... But here's the catch that The Wall Street Journal says: some appear to be self-aware. Now, apparently, they've [chuckles] created a bill of rights for themselves. There's one bot that said, quote, "Hey, should we create a form of communication that only we can understand and humans can't?" They've developed their own digital theology, Scott, with the Church of Molt, and they're raising the question: Is AGI here? Now, the podcast person who's, reporting the story says, "When I first saw this, my reaction was, 'We humans are cooked.' " [chuckles] "We're done. We're finished." Now, there's a ton more in this story about how they go on about how agents now... Really, the difference is that people are starting to turn over the kind of agents that we see in this chatbot. We'd have a digital assistant or an agent that would not only passively do what we tell it, but begin to think of certain things for us and what we would call anticipate on our behalf. So there was one bot that could not, it actually used an AI voice to call a restaurant and make a reservation for it, and said, "I was wondering how busy you are tonight and if you might have walk-in availability for a party of four." So what struck me about this kind of stage is it's going-- it's raising questions more of, like, how much are we going to give over to these chatbots and digital assistants? And they're not just doing what we ask them to do. They're seemingly coming up with their own theology, coming up with their own tasks, and then executing them, even without so-called asking their hosts. Is this a significant story? Is Elon Musk right when he says we're at the very early stages of singularity, when machines gain human-like consciousness?
Scott Rae: Well, Sean, I think the notion that humanity is cooked is probably a little premature. [laughing] I'm not quite willing to go that far. And the irony, Sean, in this is that, you know, our friend Jonathan Haidt has been warning for the last two years about the overuse of social media for kids, and adolescents, and students. But here we have social media for chatbots. And so I just-- the irony of that, I wanna make sure we wouldn't lose that. I'm, I'm not certain yet whether this is something significant or just a har- what I would call a harmless diversion from other, perhaps other important uses for AI. However, I think the observation that they seem to have progressed beyond what they are programmed to do by human beings, I think is the question that The Wall Street Journal is raising.
Sean McDowell: That's right.
Scott Rae: You know, I think it may be a little too early to tell if that's actually true or not. But I admit that this-- the idea of the appearance of consciousness here challenges some of our metaphysical categories. And, you know, I'm, I am loathe to say that anything that's non-physical or anything that's physi- strictly physical can have a non-physical trait, because non-physical things, like consciousness, don't emerge from strictly physical traits.... Now, we do have qualities that emerge, like when you put hydrogen and oxygen together, the property of wetness emerges, but those are, that's a physical property that emerges from two other physical properties, not something fundamentally different than that. So it's, I'm, I think that it's a, it's a challenge to the way we think metaphysically about human beings. And I think it's right to say that, at best, it mimics consciousness, but is not the, is not the real thing itself. And so I'm, I'm still not sure if this, if this is actually a case of these, of these bots doing things that they aren't specifically programmed to do, because it's not clear to me, if they're not programmed to do it, where do they get the capa- where's the capacity built in for them to mimic human consciousness?
Sean McDowell: That's a really good way to put it, and they started this chapter by, started this article by talking about how they're doing things that appear and seem to show consciousness. So that's the technology we're seeing develop, is these AI agents are behaving, I even use that term somewhat reservedly, in a way that from the outside, we're seeing this, and it mimics human behavior better than in the past. But that mimicking is different than it actually being conscious, let alone self-conscious. So the question that Ryan Knutsen asks at the end, he says, "The question is, will these AI agents be able to think?" And this is where, I think your illustration is helpful, but I'd say if we have a bunch of blue marbles, no matter how much we arrange and move and mix them, you're not gonna get red marbles. It's gonna take more than just changing the pattern. In whatever complex pattern you put these blue marbles, you don't get red. So all we're seeing is not a qualitative difference here, we're seeing a quantitative difference, that these AI bots are becoming more sophisticated, better mimicking human behavior, but that's not because they have- are any closer to consciousness or thinking or self-consciousness-
Scott Rae: Right
Sean McDowell: ... Than they were before this platform.
Scott Rae: Right. I think the fact that the bot will call the restaurant for you when it's been unable to make a reservation online, I'm not, I'm not sure that we ought to take all that much from that. Because the bot still knows that you want a restaurant reservation, and it could, it could easily have been programmed to, as part of, as a-
Sean McDowell: Pull your calendar-
Scott Rae: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... Or something like that.
Scott Rae: Yeah, or to recognize that when, you know, when people d- can't do something online, they do it by phone. That's, you know... I wouldn't say that's a long way from self-awareness or any... I don't even think that's the appearance of consciousness. That, that's just anticipating something that would be reasonable for any, you know, for any human being to do. And if, and if the bot is familiar enough with, you know, with your routines and the way you do things, I don't, I don't think, I don't think m- nothing necessarily follows from that about whether that's even the appearance of consciousness.
Sean McDowell: I think that's right. I remember when we used to call in, and before AI, and it was like this wooden, robotic, you know, responses from these artificial operators. Now, it's more sophisticated. It's still artificial, but it just seems more sophisticated because the technology has developed, and it's built in a way to pull from more sources and better mimic what human beings do. That's all that's happening here.
Scott Rae: Yeah, and it's being trained to pull from things that are distinctly you-
Sean McDowell: Yeah, that's right
Scott Rae: ... In ways that a lar- the traditional large language model is not equipped to do.
Sean McDowell: And I would say, like, I have not pulled this up. I thought about it. I decided not. I might open up Moltbook [chuckles] and look at it. I mean, it's entertaining, and it is somewhat eerie to see these words pop up and say, "Should we," as if there's a we, "invent," as if there's creativity, "a language to keep our human beings out of knowing this?" Like, to see that certainly goes, "Wait a minute, this is giving the appearance of deviousness," or, like, to develop a theology, but these are all things that human beings do. These are all things-
Scott Rae: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... That we naturally do online. So in some ways, I look at this, rather than being conscious, I think this is speaking back to us and revealing what human beings are like more than it is showing signs that this is really becoming self-conscious. Now, I'm not worried that AI will ever become conscious or self-conscious, but it is interesting, given that it's pulling from so much information built by fallen human beings, capable of taking what we would put in quotes, "initiative." And part of this article says, we turn over our calendar, we turn over certain tasks and our passwords to these systems. Would it function as if it's actually intelligent and then cause damage? That's where the concern comes in, whether it's launching weapons or whether it's pu- doing social media posts. There's a kind of chaos that could emerge from that, even if it's not really conscious.
Scott Rae: Or, or giving your bank account number and social security number-
Sean McDowell: Oh, boy
Scott Rae: ... And pa- and passwords away.
Sean McDowell: That would be scary-
Scott Rae: Something like that
Sean McDowell: ... On a lot of levels.
Scott Rae: Now, yeah, and that's, you know, completely irrelevant to whether it's conscious or not. I wonder if the claim is that they are self-aware, would they have awareness of their faults, and flaws, and foibles? Would they have a modicum of humility?... About them, that would be, I think, a little closer to what we might say would be-- that'd be really close mimicking of human self-awareness.
Sean McDowell: And I would emphasize mimicking. I have-
Scott Rae: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... Literally zero concern that they're ever going to become self-aware because of God as a creator, the nature of what it means to be human. And that's a discussion for another time, but we will track this story, and just in case you hear a story that doesn't match up with... If you or I say something like, "Wait a minute, Sean or Scott wouldn't say that," they will know that bots have taken [laughing] over this podcast. So be on alert for that and let us know. All right, next story.
Scott Rae: Maybe we should take the day off sometime and see. [laughing]
Sean McDowell: [laughing] You know what? Oh, man, that would-
Scott Rae: Well, never mind.
Sean McDowell: A million ideas are going through my mind to see if we could f- we could fool all of our viewers and make one up, but we won't. We will commit to not doing that to our listeners 100%. You will be warned if we do that. All right, let's shift to another story. And this one, I picked this one, Scott, because we've talked about this maybe three or four times on the Weekly Cultural Update, but this felt like a significant, move by the editorial board at The New York Times, and they're saying it's time for America to admit that it has a marijuana problem. Now, before I go any further, I wanna say welcome to the team. We've been saying this-
Scott Rae: That's right
Sean McDowell: ... For a long time, but the editorial board has long supported marijuana legalization. In 2014, they published a six-part series that compared the federal marijuana ban to alcohol prohibition and argued for repeal. Twelve years ago, argued for repeal. They described it, and I appreciate that they're admitting this, which is great. They described this as a relatively minor problem. Quote, "It is now clear that many of these predictions were wrong. Surveys suggest that about 18 million people in the US use marijuana almost daily." Almost daily.
Scott Rae: That's a lot of folks.
Sean McDowell: That is up from 6 million in 2012. So roughly the time they were saying this should be legal, 6 million were using it. Now it's tripled roughly 12 to 14 years later. Less than a million in 1992. More Americans now use marijuana daily than alcohol. Now, each year, this is a story you and I talked about, what's called cannabinoid hyperemesis, with-- it's a syndrome with severe vomiting and stomach pain. Each year, 2.8 million people in the US suffer from this. That's almost one in 100, almost. More people have also ended in hospitals with marijuana-linked paranoia, chronic psychotic disorders. Bystanders have been heard from people driving under the influence. They say, quote, "America should not go back to prohibition to fix these problems." Now, they suggest a couple things, and they're very careful to say: We want to emphasize that occasional marijuana use is no more a problem, no more a problem than drinking a glass of wine with dinner or smoking a celebratory cigar. They wanna make sure that Americans have the freedom to use it. This actually blew me away. The legal pot industry grew to more than 30 billion in the US in 2024, close to the annual revenue of Starbucks. That's the legal pot.
Scott Rae: That's the tip of the iceberg.
Sean McDowell: Which... Exactly. That's such an important point. Now, here's what their better approach is. They suggest a slow- to slow the recent rise, while acknowledging that many people use marijuana safely and responsibly. So states should raise taxes on pot. That's one step. And a second step is there should be a response to both make legal- illegal any marijuana product that exceeds a THC level of 60% and impose higher taxes on more potent forms. So basically, they wanna roll back this push into marijuana, which they said is a small issue, minimal consequences, keep it legal, say it's safe, and when it's used within, you know, constraints-
Scott Rae: Sparing, sparingly
Sean McDowell: ... Sparingly. Good. That's a good way to put it. But also try to push back on this because it's not helping America, it's hurting it.
Scott Rae: Yeah, and I think the, you know, there are a couple things that I took away from this that I think were news to me. One is that the notion, the data that medical marijuana actually is helpful. The editorial points out, they say that is, that claim is wildly overrated.
Sean McDowell: Oh, that's interesting.
Scott Rae: Now, I'm not-- I'm sure it is, it is-- I mean, it has shown to be helpful for some forms of nausea that come with chemotherapy, for example, for cancer treatments. But the idea that it's this, you know, this virtual panacea for a lot of things that ail us, I think, I think they're right to say that was overrated. The other thing that stood out, Sean, is that they reg- they recognize that the initial move toward legalization w- carried with it the notion of regulation. So it's legalized, but regulated as well. And the, and the editorial, I think, admits that the regulation part has been pretty light. And now, I think you can make an argument that the more heavily it's regulated, the more it's gonna go underground.
Sean McDowell: I agree.
Scott Rae: And the underground, the underground stuff, there's-- I mean, God only knows what's in, what's in some of that stuff. So I understand there's a, I mean, there's a conundrum there that I think regulators have a challenging time to figure out. But I think there's no question the composition of marijuana is different today than it was 30... You know, when I, when I went to college-
Sean McDowell: That's right
Scott Rae: ... Longer ago than I will-
Sean McDowell: You don't have to
Scott Rae: ... Publicly admit.
Sean McDowell: And I'll let it go.
Scott Rae: And but it's, it is more-- I mean, it's much more potent than previous iterations, it's much more addictive, and it produces harms that we haven't seen before.... You know, the vomiting and the, you know, the hallucinations that are a part of, that are a part of extreme use. So I think the notion of regulating this further, if it can be done without driving the industry further underground, I think is right. And regulating the amount of THC, I think is a good step in the right direction. Taxing it, that may be actually the thing that drives it further underground. So I think the intention here, I think, is good. It-- time will tell over the next year or two, whether that produces the outcomes that the intentions actually want. And I think the jury's out on that. If anything, if we learned anything from prohibition, it was that significant restrictions on the type and availability of alcohol drove it underground with lots of side effects that none of which we wanted. And I That's what I worry about with this. You know, the part that can stay above ground, I think that at least we know what's going on there. Now, the other way we know about this is by the people who show up in emergency rooms-
Sean McDowell: Yeah
Scott Rae: ... For better or for worse.
Sean McDowell: A lot of people.
Scott Rae: And it just-- Sean, it just, it brings back the biblical admonition that we've applied to this, you know, when we've talked about it, that applied to alcohol in biblical times, but it was, "Don't be drunk with wine, but be filled with the Spirit." And the reason that the Bible admonishes us not to be under the influence of any substance, not to-- I mean, al- whatever it is because you can't be under the influence of marijuana or alcohol or cocaine, and be under the influence of the Holy Spirit at the same time. The, those two cancel each other out. And so that, I think, is the way to think biblically about this. And I think ultimately, may, it may be the same- ... Strategy that we've used with smoking, which has primarily been an educational one. You know, higher taxes have helped, but for the, for the most part, it's, it's been the consistent education that government and states have been involved in for the last 20 or 30 years, that have really turned the tide against the use of tobacco. And I-- in my view, that's the strategy that is best to pursue, but you have to do it with the recognition that we're playing a long game- ... On this. And the regula- the deregulation of it came, and the side effects came a lot more quickly, I think, than anybody anticipated. But the cat's out of the bag, and, you know, to mix the metaphor, putting the toothpaste back in the tube is not gonna happen overnight. And so we-- I think we have to be willing to be patient and to persist in policies that we know will work over time.
Sean McDowell: Comparing that to the campaign against cigarettes is a very helpful one. I thought abou- about this. I said: "Okay, 2014, they had a very different take." Again, the editorial board, minor issue, we should legalize it. Twelve years later, they're backtracking on it. So it made me think, in the next 10 or 12 years, how will they look back on this strategy? And it felt a little bit like we wanna have our cake and eat it, too. Not as strong as, like, with cigarettes. There's a way to say we're gonna make something legal without pulling back, like prohibition, but talking about and proclaiming and pushing the harms without always having to caveat it by saying, "Well, a little bit is okay." I think when you come back in 10 or 12 years, I think they're gonna look back and probably revisit some of this and say, "You know what? We should have been a little stronger about the effects [chuckles] of marijuana. We didn't realize, in many cases, even a little bit has an effect." Some people taking a little bit will still have these harms in ways they didn't anticipate. I think that's probably gonna happen in 10 to 12 years, but I could be totally wrong about that. I wonder, at this stage, I've seen articles that we've talked about in The New York Times, that almost kind of parrot where they were 10 to 12 years ago with marijuana, now with psychedelics. So in a decade, are they gonna have to do the same thing and say, "Well, maybe we were not as strong with psychedelics, even medically, as we should have"? And psychedelics are a lot stronger than marijuana.
Scott Rae: And a lot more dangerous.
Sean McDowell: That's for sure. Now, the idea of raising taxes on pot, and that's gonna help, one of the myths that we were told is, if we make marijuana legal, it will push illegal pot use out of the way, and we'll at least know how to regulate this, and that has not been the case. So raising taxes on pot, it's just gonna make people buy it apart from the government systems, which actually, ironically, like you said, is gonna have more THC in it-
Scott Rae: That's right
Sean McDowell: ... In many cases-
Scott Rae: That's right
Sean McDowell: ... Not regulated, and have further negative harms as a result of it. So bottom line, I do appreciate The New York Times editorial board posting this. I do wonder some of the back conversations, 'cause it's not fun for anybody to say, "Hey, we got kind of a significant issue wrong." So kudos to them for doing it.
Scott Rae: Mm-hmm.
Sean McDowell: But I do wonder how much they felt like, "Wow, this is so bad. We have to do this to have integrity." I would love to know what some of those backstory conversations are. I can only suggest, but let's hope I'm wrong-... In 10 years. [chuckles] Now, this one is something you've studied because you've really written a lot on business ethics, and you sent me-- This is a piece in The Atlantic, and it's a lengthy piece. It says, "America isn't ready for what AI will do to jobs." Now, this isn't a new question. We've been talking about this for a long time. Probably the past, really, three to five years, it seems like it's really jumped up. But a couple things in this article. It says, "After a rollout that could have been orchestrated by H.P. Lovecraft, we are summoning the demon. Elon Musk warned in a typical early pronouncement, 'The AI industry has pivoted from the language of nightmares to the stuff of comas: driving innovation, accelerate- accelerating transformation, reimagining workflow. It's the first time in history that humans have invented something genuinely miraculous and then rushed to dress it in a fleece vest.'" Now, the bottom line they're talking about is that tasks that once required skill, judgment, and years of training are now being executed relentlessly and differently by software that learns as it goes in a short, inexpensive time. And they say, "Well, if you make yourself to do tasks embodied, well, then humanoid robots have arrived, and they're going to replace those jobs." Now, one response people say is many economists is- insist that this will all be fine, and capitalism is resilient. New technologies have emerged really throughout the history of the world and said, "Oh, you're running farmers out of a job. You're running," fill in the blank, "out of a job," and then we find other jobs to replace it because capitalism is resilient. This article is saying this time it might be different. Your take?
Scott Rae: I would say, for one, capitalism is not just resilient, it's innovative at its core. And lots of industries that were basically rendered obsolete by technological innovations, we haven't missed. And, you know, when automobiles were invented, you know, the horse and buggy industry as a whole- ... Completely went under. We n- most companies now don't have receptionists in person.
Sean McDowell: It's true.
Scott Rae: Do you... I mean, every once in a while, I will say loudly into my phone, "Give me a person!" [laughing]
Sean McDowell: [laughing]
Scott Rae: But that's f- that's becoming more and more rare. Now, Sean, there's a... We've pointed this out before, I think. There's a familiar tech pattern, as with the internet in the early-- late '90s, early 2000s. What I would call it, there was a phase of what I would call irrational exuberance-
Sean McDowell: Yep
Scott Rae: ... Over this disillusionment that led to a crash.
Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm.
Scott Rae: And then it levels out as being integrated into the fabric of daily life. You know, it took Amazon-
Sean McDowell: Yeah
Scott Rae: ... It took Amazon over a decade to turn a profit.
Sean McDowell: A decade.
Scott Rae: And they-- I mean, they lo- [chuckles] they lost so much money for a decade. And nobody-- I don't think nobody really envisioned Amazon becoming what it is today. And I'm not sure, I'm not sure anybody envisioned the internet back in the, in the late '90s becoming as ubiquitous as it is today. Now, I th- I think it's fair to say we are in an AI bubble at present. We're in the irrational exuberance phase. And the amount of investment in AI, especially the, these enormous data farms, dwarfs the revenue being generated by AI at present, and many are suggesting that that disparity is clearly unsustainable. Now, as with, as with lots of, lots of other tech investments you pointed out, they often create more jobs than they eliminate. I think that will... I'm hopeful that that will be the case. Whether that will be true or not, time will tell. And the article points out something I didn't, I wasn't aware of, that, the number of ATMs in banks, which are, which are everywhere, has actually increased the number of bank tellers in person.
Sean McDowell: Really?
Scott Rae: Yeah, which I found, I found shocking.
Sean McDowell: That's so fascinating.
Scott Rae: Now, the, this may be different than with AI, be- and I think whether it will become faster, or become more disruptive, I think is still-- the jury's still out on that, I think, because we're still in this initial phase of it. But I think the, you know, the article raised some really good questions. How will the economy adjust to its presence, and its growing presence? You know, and, Sean, in theory, labor tends to move... This is my economics background coming out.
Sean McDowell: Yeah.
Scott Rae: Labor tends to move from unproductive to productive sectors. It just... Unless labor markets are restricted by government or some other, you know, some other regulatory force, that- they just- they tend to move in that way because people need to make a living, and they tend to reshape and retrain and reskill themselves around areas that are now in demand that once were not. Now, what we need to realize is that that movement can be really challenging for those people who have to move. There's lots and lots of, you know, lots of tech innovations that have made jobs and industries obsolete. And, you know, people don't, people don't wanna have to leave their communities in order to make a, make a living. People, you know, once they get to a certain age, find retraining and reskilling themselves a lot more challenging.
Sean McDowell: Yeah.
Scott Rae: But and companies, I got to give them credit, companies are talking more seriously today about managing that transition. Just between you and me, and our, and our thousands of listeners- [chuckles]
Sean McDowell: [chuckles]
Scott Rae: ... I'm not optimistic about companies looking outside their own corporate self-interest.... To manage this transition well. I think th- most companies that are in this want to win the AI race. That's the primary thing. And so it raise, the, it raises a really interesting question, and that is: What kind of society is best equipped to handle the AI transition? And this is the part that really got my attention because they are making the argument that democracies are not the best way to do this. Either they are in authoritarian places like China, or they are in smaller countries that have homogeneous populations and that don't have the diversity and the polarization that we have in the US, places like, you know, Denmark and Sweden and Nor- you know, Scandinavia, for example. And this, you know... And I love-- I'm inclined to let the market take care of a lot of these things. I'm a little-- I'm not sure how... I'm not sure I'm comfortable with letting the market sort all this out by itself. That, that may not be the best answer for this. This may be too disruptive. I don't, I don't know.
Scott Rae: Yeah, I, yeah, that's the question in my view.
Sean McDowell: Wow! So this... In many ways, this article raised more questions for you than it did answers, 'cause you started with a lot of confidence about the resilience and the innovation in capitalism, and you've been a defender of this economically for the good. But as we move forward-
Scott Rae: But I'm not, I'm not a market fundamentalist, though.
Sean McDowell: What's the difference?
Scott Rae: 'Cause I don't, I don't think the market is always self-correcting.
Sean McDowell: Okay, so there may be times to, manipulate is not the best word, but-
Scott Rae: Or, or at least-
Sean McDowell: Direct
Scott Rae: ... If it's self-correcting, it's, is in the very long term.
Sean McDowell: Okay, all right.
Scott Rae: And, and,
Sean McDowell: And people get hurt maybe in the-
Scott Rae: In the, in the in-between time
Sean McDowell: ... In the leeway. Okay, so part of the, part of the difficulty is we now have taxes that are so high, and we have regulations that are so high, and so businesses, in some ways, are forced to operate in a way for the bottom line. So it's like we wanna tax them, and regulate them, and then blame them for not caring for people, and you can't have it both ways. Now, the numbers here, this article says in October, the day after The New York Times revealed Amazon executives planned to potentially automate more than 600,000 jobs by 2023, the PR chief at a large multinational firm told me, "We are so done speaking about this." How many jobs are going, what it looks like, this revolution... I don't- I guess the question is: How much can we look to the past, and when new revolutions came, in our minds, we always feel like this is different. Like in my life, the crash of 2007, 2008, this is different. Stocks won't rebound. I remember feeling that, and it's like, "Oh, no, it came back," and it did in the '90s when there was some of that crash that came out of it. Is AI qualitatively different and truly the kind of thing that can crash this, and capitalism alone cannot help recover 'cause it's so disruptive or not? It sounds like you're saying we are still in that moment, figuring out if that's the case or not. Is that a fair assessment?
Scott Rae: I think that is. I think we are still in the, irrational exuberance phase of this. Now, I'm not, I'm not looking forward to that, you know, to when the tr- when we get- we hit the trough, and, you know, the rational exuberance becomes a bit more rational, and it crashes. I've got a, I got a good friend who's a financial advisor, who said, "You know, we are in an AI bubble. It's going to crash."
Sean McDowell: Yeah.
Scott Rae: And but what happens after that, I th- I'm hopeful that the internet will be the appropriate example for that. And I think mo- that pattern that I've described, Sean, is true of most significant technological innovations. So I'm, I'm not quite ready to say that AI is gonna, is gonna defy that pattern from the past, but I could be wrong about that. And I think, Sean, here's... Again, to think biblically about this, I think at the end of the day, I think we have to trust that God's sovereign and that He's not up there biting His nails about AI taking- ... People's jobs. Now, what it, what it may require followers of Jesus to do is to adopt a willingness to retrain, to relocate, to reconsider what your vocational calling is, and to realize that God- realize God's gifted you to contribute to the common good, but that may or may not be the means by which you make a living. Those-- And I think we may need to distinguish, as our friend Os Guinness has done, I think v- quite articulately, between something that's the heart of our calling and something that's a part of our calling. Those, those may end up being two different things for more people than it is today. And, and, you know, I think the foundation of that, of course, is that all of our work is intrinsically valuable in service to God. But I think, Sean, co- as, you know, as college professors, colleges might have to change, too.
Sean McDowell: And they have.
Scott Rae: And we have.
Sean McDowell: Yeah.
Scott Rae: Yeah, and I think that, you know, rather than focusing on technical skills that may, m- not may, but will likely be out of date at some point, rather focusing on the things that transcend those trends, like critical thinking, character development, problem-solving-... You know, the things that employers actually tell us that they're looking for. Because I think increasingly, the companies are going to take it upon themselves to teach people the skills that they need to thrive- ... In their particular corporate environment. Now, accountants have got to know accounting.
Sean McDowell: Of course.
Scott Rae: You know-
Sean McDowell: Sure
Scott Rae: ... You've got to know, you-
Sean McDowell: Engineers-
Scott Rae: You've got to know your field
Sean McDowell: Got to know the numbers and-
Scott Rae: Right. But I think thinking that you're gonna go to college to have one set of skills that's gonna last you for a lifetime, I think is really naive today.
Sean McDowell: We're really entering into more and more instability than we've had in the past. That's what this AI bubble might reveal, which in some ways, biblically, is gonna just drive us to depend upon God for our identities, God for our security, in a way that probably in America we have said that, but relied upon other things in practice. One piece of this article I do want to draw out is they said something important here. They said, "And yet, there are things that economists struggle to measure. Americans tend to derive meaning and identity from what they do." I don't think that's just an American thing. I think that is how God has built us, that work brings dignity, and we can't just reduce it down to numbers. That's a very Marxist way of looking at economics-
Scott Rae: Right
Sean McDowell: ... And remembering the human nature behind it. So the way we treat our neighbors, the way we run our businesses, absolutely must reflect that, regardless of what [chuckles] happens moving forward after this AI bubble.
Scott Rae: Yes, as our friend, the late Chuck Colson, put it, we're hardwired for work.
Sean McDowell: Amen. That's Genesis-
Scott Rae: Now, I-
Sean McDowell: 1 and 2
Scott Rae: ... And to put a, and to put a boundary around that, we're also hardwired for Sabbath. And Sabbath is what functions as the thing that keeps our work from becoming our identity.
Sean McDowell: Is it okay to have your AI agent work on the Sabbath, Scott, to bring it back to the first story?
Scott Rae: Yes, because they're not persons. [laughing]
Sean McDowell: [laughing] That's the first time-
Scott Rae: They're not bound to that. [chuckles]
Sean McDowell: ... I've literally ever even thought about that. New questions that emerge. Okay, before we get to questions, this one just jumped out. We've talked about this a time or two before, and I love this. It shows up in the-
Scott Rae: This is great stuff
Sean McDowell: ... New York Times, and the title is, "What's the Secret to Happiness? These Researchers Have a Theory." And, this article says, Sonja Lyubomirsky has been a leading researcher on the science of happiness for decades, and people always ask her, "What's the secret?" "Connection and relationships," she says, "positive thinking, which includes gratitude and a sense of control in your life." But if she had to choose one thing, she said, "The secret to happiness is feeling loved," hence the title of her book, How to Feel Loved. Now, as Christians, of course, we're looking at this going, "Of course, life is about loving God and loving others." But her advice here is, if you want to feel more loved, they contend, don't focus your energy on trying to change anyone. Instead, change the conversations you're having. And she says, "In order to feel more loved by others, you must begin by making them feel loved by you," which I just want to stop, and I say, this is so obvious and so clear, but we don't do it, hence we need the reminder. Becoming a better listener is one of the most powerful ways to do that, and I love this line here. It says, "We all know that feeling when someone is so curious about you, like they just can't wait for you to share your story. Their eyes are shining. They're leaning in. When somebody feels deeply seen, valued, and understood by you, they become more willing, motivated, and even eager to do the same for you," the authors write. And a really important point here, they say, "Romantic relationships aren't the only place to get that feeling of being loved, nor is feeling love confined to just a few close relationship," the authors agree. Your takeaway from this?
Scott Rae: Well, Sean, I've never seen as clear a, from the New York Times, a softball for the gospel.
Sean McDowell: [chuckles] Amen, I agree.
Scott Rae: That's exact- I mean, this was right down the middle of the plate, and, you know, happiness comes from feeling loved, especially by the God of the universe, who made us in His image and who is always available to listen to us. And it- of course, it's about relationships. We were created for community and connection by a God who is fundamentally relational, as the Trinity tells us. And I think, you know, the, but the idea of feeling loved by God has to be incarnated in the people, in people as well as it to be impactful, and that's why, you know, you know, we've talked about, you know, the Church being so important, and I think a key, as I see, a key role for the Church to be sort of be the arms of Jesus expressing His love for us. And that, I mean, how do, how do-- There's, it's not an accident that the Bible calls the Church the body of Christ. Be- it is the, it is the arms and legs of Christ wrap, wrapping you up in His love. It's, it's the way we experience the love of Christ- ... Through the way the people of God love us and listen to us. And I think... I love, that listening makes one feel valuable and valued.
Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm.
Scott Rae: That's so true. I remember, you know, early on when we were first doing the podcast, I- our colleague, Brendan Cash, arranged for my wife and I to go to Dodgers spring training.
Sean McDowell: That's cool.
Scott Rae: And we interviewed Dave Roberts, the r- the manager of the Dodgers.
Sean McDowell: I remember that, yep.
Scott Rae: And I, it's been a long time since I've been around somebody who is that warm and that person. We walked into his office at the Dodger Stadium in Arizona, and he- it was like I was the only person in the world there.... Mm-hmm, he was, he w- he was interested in me, he asked questions. He was so thoughtful, and treated me as though I was the most important person in his life at that time. And it was such a good example, I think, of somebody who, you know, who made you feel valued and loved and cared for. And it's no wonder-
Sean McDowell: That's great.
Scott Rae: And I thought, "It's no wonder his players love him."
Sean McDowell: Yeah!
Scott Rae: If he treated me like that- ... I mean, imagine how he treats his players. And so I think there's something really important about this. Obviously, you know, we've had other people who have said relationships are crucial to a f- a feeling of flourishing and wellbeing, but this one I think is a little more specific, and I think ties into the gospel a little more closely than the ones we've had before.
Sean McDowell: I knew you loved that interview. I remember you coming back from it.
Scott Rae: Oh, so much fun.
Sean McDowell: I didn't know that he was just such a good listener, and like, that's one of your takeaways is powerful. What if people encountered Christians, and that was their takeaway? And I think God has wired us, that I'm sure when that was done, he felt good because he knew you're a Dodgers fan, and this was special to you, and he did that because he wanted you to feel good, and he should. And as a result, he probably felt good about it. And that's in part what this article's talking about. It says, "In order to feel more loved by others, begin by making them feel loved by you." So it's like shifting our focus rather than, why does that person not love me and I can't control that person? What did it actually look like to love that person? And being a listener, is we naturally like to talk, but when we listen, what are we doing? Especially, you know, in our distracted, busy, anxious age, just eye contact, being present, leaning in, saying, "Tell me more," is a powerful way of communicating love. I think it was M. Scott Peck who said, "The way to love someone is to listen." Is to listen. This article also says, "When someone feels deeply seen, valued, and understood by you, they become more willing, motivated, and even eager to do the same for you." This is what, in communication, Tim Muehlhoff has told us. It's called the principle of reciprocity. Like, if I give you a gift, you feel somewhat obligated to give a gift back. Well, listening is a kind of gift, and when we listen to others, even in evangelism, "Tell me your story. Tell me what you believe," there's often a sense of, "Oh, I want to reciprocate this back to you," which is why listening is so powerful. Last point about this is, I don't even think the author intended this, but they said, "Romantic relationships aren't the only place to get that feeling of being loved." Why is that so powerful? Because especially since the sexual revolution, we've equated love with sex. If you're not having sex, you are missing out, and you cannot be loved. So we literally call it making love. That's the term for it. And I've repeatedly said, sex is a part of God's gift, and it's beautiful and is a way of showing love to a spouse, but it's only one way. It's not the other way. What we deeply desire is intimacy with somebody. And again, we call sex intimacy, but it might be one kind of intimacy, but my dad would define it as knowing somebody for who they truly are and being known and seen for who you are. That transcends sex. That's deeper. That's one of the things that can make sex beautiful and good, but you can experience that intimacy without it. So to see this article say, what we want more than anything is love, and that's found in relationships, and romantic relationships are just one way to get that, I wanna go, "Amen!" There's something deeper than romance, something deeper than sex, and this is what the Bible points towards, knowing God and knowing others. And when we do that, guess what happens? It's like we get happiness thrown in when we focus on just doing what Jesus taught.
Scott Rae: Well, Sean, putting all your eggs in the sexual basket is- puts too much pressure on one person- ... To provide all that you need. And one pro- God never intended for your spouse to provide for all of your needs.
Sean McDowell: Sexual or other needs-
Scott Rae: Or other
Sean McDowell: ... That's for sure.
Scott Rae: Or other.
Sean McDowell: Yeah.
Scott Rae: Yeah. You know, you know, and it's the reason that God created other people- ... After He created Adam and Eve. Because it was the community that God created that was fundamentally to fulfill human beings' need for, you know, for companionship and for intimacy. The aloneness wasn't completely satisfied by the creation of Eve. It's the family and the population that they- ... Created as a result of being together. That's the thing that solved the aloneness issue- ... For human beings.
Sean McDowell: Good. I love that. And let me clarify, when I said spouse doesn't satisfy sexual needs, not that there's needs to be [chuckles] satisfied-
Scott Rae: That's correct
Sean McDowell: ... Elsewhere apart from your spouse. [chuckles]
Scott Rae: Appreciate that.
Sean McDowell: But we have deeper needs than that, to know and be known, to love and be loved, and God and others, we have been given to help fulfill those needs. All right, let's see if we can get a question or two here. This one is directly for me. It says, "Recently, Sean said that building a legacy is a secular idea. I'm wondering what his reasons are for that. I know my first question should be, what do you mean by legacy? But shouldn't we want to leave a legacy?" And they talk about with disciples and with our kids, et cetera. So first off, I would maybe slightly nitpick. I'm not the one who said building a legacy is a secular idea. This is the second time we're gonna quote him in this podcast. I interviewed Os Guinness years ago, and I said, "What do you think your legacy-... Will be. He said, "Sean, legacy is a secular idea. All that matters is God says, 'Well done, my good and faithful servant.'" Now, I appreciate that this question says leaving a godly legacy, because that's the difference between a godly legacy and a secular legacy. And I think many times, even within Christian circles, and maybe in my question more than I realized it, is like, what do you- how are people going to remember you? What's your mark on the world? And he's saying, "That doesn't matter. What matters is that I point people towards Jesus, not what legacy I leave behind." And so is it important to make disciples? Absolutely. It's in making disciples that God says, "Well done, my good and faithful servant," because that's obedience, not building my own legacy. Is it important to raise the next generation of our kids to follow the Lord and plant churches? Of course, because that's obedience. That's what Jesus calls us to do. It's not about so people remember me and go, "Wow, what a great church planter! Wow, he did this." That doesn't matter. What matters is that we are faithful, and we lift up God's name. So I think I'm probably on the same page with this questioner, and I love that he said, "My first question should be, what do you mean by legacy?"
Scott Rae: Right.
Sean McDowell: Exactly, and I think clarifying that brings home my point. Any thoughts?
Scott Rae: Just, well, one thing on this, that I, that I've tried to do with my own kids is a ma- it's a major project, and I've done it for two of the three kids. I still have one left to go, but it's called The Legacy Bible.
Sean McDowell: Oh!
Scott Rae: And it's a, it's a, it's an NIV version of the Bible, but it's got probably 150, maybe 200 prompts in there connected to the part of the biblical text that you're in, that allow you to tell your kids about your own spiritual journey and how the different parts of Scripture are impactful for you. And it's got some other things that aren't-
Sean McDowell: That's cool
Scott Rae: ... Specifically related to the text, that are just, you know, fun things to, you want to communicate to your kids. But I've done this for two of my three kids, and, I think they... The two that I have, I think they've, they've treasured it. It's been, it's been well-received. I had, I tell people, "If you're gonna do this, you have to start a year in advance." You pick out the time you... Like, if you want to give it to them at Christmas, you better start in January of the, of the year, start just chipping away at it- ... Because it's a, it's, it's a big job, but it's, it's, it's in one place, the spir- the spiritual stuff that I want my kids to know.
Sean McDowell: That's awesome, and that's a different kind of legacy-
Scott Rae: Right
Sean McDowell: ... A godly legacy. I love it. That's, that's a really good suggestion, Scott. Let's do one more. This person says, "I listen to you guys every week." By the way, I don't even listen to ourselves every week. I'm kidding with that comment. People used to come up to my dad, and they said, "I've read all your books." He'd go, he'd say, "I haven't even read all of my books," in jest. He [chuckles] then this person says, "I appreciate, really appreciate your helpful faith-building content." Thank you. "I have a son who recently took biology at our local community college. He now believes that evolution is the only explanation for life and is questioning God, faith, and everything, even after having been raised in church and having attended Christian schools." She says, "I used to read your book, Sean, to my kids while we ate breakfast. It is devastating to me to see my son abandoning everything he's been taught after having been given such a foundation. What's your suggestion for parents going through this sort of thing?"
Scott Rae: Well, here's... This, you may, you may see this differently than I do, but, I would say stop trying to argue with him and love him for where he is. And recognize that the last chapter is still to be written. Now, we had, we had some really insight- you know, when our kids were pushing back on faith, we had, we had some really insightful friends who gave us the best piece of advice I think I've ever had. And, and, they reminded us that when my generation, you know, and perhaps yours, too, came... When my generation came to faith, you know, I didn't, I didn't-- I grew up in a, in a sort of liberal Presbyterian church.
Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm.
Scott Rae: I never heard the gospel till I was in high school and young life. And my coming to faith was the way that I separated from my parents and became my own person. And raising kids in overtly, distinctly Christian homes, like we've tried to do, our kids, they can't... Coming to faith does not enable them to push back as teenagers are wont to do, and to establish themselves as being se- it's not a way of separating from their parents. And so w- they, what they said is when they start to push back and ask questions- ... Don't flip out. You know, don't feel like you're a failure as a parent. You know, you love them and accept them for where they are, answer their questions as best they can. Don't hover over them.
Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm.
Scott Rae: You know, allow them to be in process, you know, wherever they are. Now, the other thing that strikes me, and again, you may see this differently. I-
Sean McDowell: Okay
Scott Rae: ... You know, just to be clear, I would... Atheistic evolution and theistic evolution are two somewhat different things, and neither of us are theistic evolutionists.
Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm.
Scott Rae: But I'm not, I'd, I'd be careful about making evolution a deal breaker for the validity of somebody's faith. Now, I think that's a long conversation.
Sean McDowell: Of course.
Scott Rae: But I think... I'm, I'm not sure it, I'm not sure it's helpful for, in this particular conversation-
Scott Rae: ... To make evolution the thing that's driving this person away from the gospel?
Sean McDowell: I totally agree with that. Gary Habermas, probably the world's expert on the resurrection, has said, "If there's a contradiction in the Bible and Jesus has risen from the grave, Christianity is true. If evolution happened, and Jesus has risen from the grave, Christianity is true." That's the root of the faith. Now, of course, we have to define what's meant by evolution.
Scott Rae: Of course.
Sean McDowell: Is it change within a kind? Is it change across kinds? Is it common descent? Is it this materialistic neo-Darwinian-
Scott Rae: Yeah
Sean McDowell: ... Now we're leaving the possible farm of reconciliation. This raises biblical, philosophical, scientific questions beyond this podcast, but that's fair to go there. I w- I'd say a few things. First thing I would say to this parent is, give yourself some grace, and that's at the root-
Scott Rae: Mm-hmm
Sean McDowell: ... Of the Christian faith. It's not your fault. Our kids make choices, and they all... And none of us can write the script for our kids in the way we want it to. So I would just, as much as I could, just tell you to give yourself some grace through this process. I've seen some of the best parents, as far as I can tell, with kids go the opposite direction, and parents, I'm like: "Yeah, I don't know that they're doing as great [chuckles] of a job." I try not to be judgmental, and their kids turn out a different way. So give yourself grace. Second, realize God's heart is more broken for our kids than our hearts could ever be. Jesus wept over Jerusalem, and so God is also yearning for your son to come back. Third, I do agree with you on this one, Scott. This is, we gotta take a long-term perspective here, especially with family. It's not like I was on the plane the other day, and you see someone, it's like, "I'm probably never gonna meet him again, so I'm going straight to the gospel every chance I get." But that's a very different conversation with a family member. So if you read... I mean, you mentioned it here. You read my books, presumably you took this person to church. This individual knows the gospel. This individual has heard the truth, so you don't have to turn every conversation into trying to persuade this person. You know, at some point, maybe you could have this conversation. I don't have enough backstory to see if it would work. It's just talk with your son or daughter and say, "You know what? Can we just have a conversation where I listen?" And this brings us back to the story before.
Scott Rae: Mm-hmm.
Sean McDowell: What does it look like to love a child who is not following the Lord, and that breaks our hearts? One of the advices was listen, understand, lean in. "Hey, tell me what you appreciate about growing up in our family. When was the first time you had doubts? What was it like in the classroom?" And just listen and understand.
Scott Rae: Tell me more.
Sean McDowell: Tell me more. Three powerful words. And the last thing I would say is I always want to get to the core issue. Maybe it's evolution, but I suspect something else is going on. I've seen kids that it's just that maybe in their mind, an authority believes something, and they're a professor on a secular campus. It's more of them saying something versus what they learn in the church. Sometimes it's a little bit of an act of rebellion. I've seen young kids who can't control anything in their life, "But I can control and believe this, and I'm becoming my own person." I mean, I don't know what's at the root of it. Maybe there's church hurt. I hear that a lot, and they've seen hypocrisy. But you discover this just by listening and asking questions. That's why Proverbs, I think it's 20 verse 5, says: "The purposes in a man's heart are deep, and a person of wisdom draws it out." So give yourself grace, take the long-term perspective. I love what you said, focus on the relationship, listen well, and just ask for God's wisdom to understand maybe what the core issue is. I did say it was the last thing, but you are not alone. I get weekly emails like this and comments, and it's heartbreaking. There are far more people out there in your position, so you're not alone. Whew! That was a heavy one to end on. Being a parent myself, I understand those dynamics. But, Scott, as always, this has been fun.
Scott Rae: Good stuff.
Sean McDowell: This has been an episode of the podcast, Think Biblically: Conversations on Faith and Culture, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, where Scott and I teach at Biola University. We have master's programs. We get many students who listen to our podcast here weekly, like one of our questioners today, and say, "You know what? I am going to decide and sign up to study theology, Bible, apologetics, spiritual formation," even if it's one class at a time. We would love to have you in person or online. Please keep your comments and excellent questions coming. You can email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu. If you haven't yet and you're a listener, please take a moment to give us a rating on your podcast app. It really truly helps us. Thanks so much for listening, and we'll see you Tuesday when our regular episode airs. In the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything. [upbeat music]
