Cultural Update: Supreme Court Religious Liberty Case; The Ethics of Consensual Non-Monogamy; Virtuous AI Chatbots; Policy Shifts on Psychedelics

Episode Transcript

Sean McDowell: [upbeat music] The Supreme Court will hear a new religious liberty case about whether private Christian schools can be denied public funds for denying school access to LGBTQ families. Despite American agreement across the political aisle that infidelity is wrong, is it time to move on from monogamy? The new anthropic AI model looks to religion to develop a wise and virtuous chatbot. Will this work? And Trump signs an executive order loosening restrictions on psychedelics. These are the stories we will discuss, and we will also take 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 one we both flagged because it's the latest religious liberty case and has a lot of implications moving forward, and this piece is in The New York Times, and it's about how justices are going to hear a case on Catholic preschools. And this is the way it's worded, we'll come back to this, that, quote, "reject children of gay parents." So on Monday this week, the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether Catholic preschools in Colorado, and note Colorado, because they keep bringing up these stories-

Scott Rae: That's right

Sean McDowell: ... By the way, that decline to enroll four-year-olds with gay or transgender parents can participate in publicly funded state program. So there's two Catholic parish preschools in the Denver area, are said admitting such children would require them to violate their religious convictions. There's a Colorado program that pays for families to send their children to the preschool of their choice, public or private, including faith-based programs. But the state refused to grant an exception to its anti-discrimination rules to allow the preschools to participate, and then the church then sued. Now, lower court judges sided with the state, which also happened in some of the earlier Colorado cases, which is why they also went up to the Supreme Court. [lips smack] And there was a 2018 court ruling in favor of Colorado baker who refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple and sued. We've talked about that. 2021, the court ruled against unanimously that a Catholic social services agency in Philadelphia could defy city rules and refuse to work with same-sex couples who apply to take in foster children. So there's been similar cases. Now, to specify in this one, it's St. Catholic Parish versus Roy. It's the state's universal preschool program. It was actually voted in 2020, and it requires participating schools to sign a non-discrimination agreement to ensure that all families, quote, "have an equal opportunity to enroll regardless of their religion, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, income level, or disability." Now, let me give a quote from each side, and then I want you to jump in here. So the Attorney General, Phil Weiser of Colorado, who's a Democrat, he said he is... He said, "Faith-based providers have the flexibility to create their own curriculum," but that no publicly funded preschool can, quote, "turn away children and families based on their status." So that's the argument being made from the government side here. On the flip side, Notre Dame Law School, which of course is Catholic, Professor Richard Garnett said the First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty did not permit government to penalize religious schools or the parents who choose them by excluding them from education funding programs. The last thing this article said is that Colorado has tried to evade recent Supreme Court rulings, but again, Professor Garnett said in a statement, "By imposing requirements that religious schools abandon various policies that affect their religious character." So this is basically being poised as do Catholic schools have a right to operate according to their convictions and get public funds to do so, as other private schools might that go along with the government's regulations? Or can the government mandate that if they give public funds, any child can go to any school based upon receiving those funds? That's the heart of the debate. What's your thought, Scott?

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, this is another challenge to religious freedom again in Colorado.

Sean McDowell: Yep.

Scott Rae: And, you know, the times that it has challenged the Supreme Court, they've gotten smacked around. And I think, to be clear, nobody in Colorado is objecting to the preschool living with its religious principles.

Sean McDowell: That's right.

Scott Rae: The debate is over whether they can have access to state funding that's available to other secular and faith-based organizations. Now, the law does not allow the state to discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs, and the funding is available to, you know, secular and faith-based organizations without, you know, without any distinction, except for this one area. Now, they are claiming an exclusion, based on discrimination against LGBTQ families. Now, the state is also claiming that the preschool's exclusion of certain families is not religiously motivated, that it's discrimination. But, but the fact that it's not... The claim it's not religiously motivated seems patently false to me.

Sean McDowell: Yeah.

Scott Rae: Now, the judicial precedent, it seems to me, Sean, would seem to favor the preschool.And typically, in the last, particularly in the last decade or so, when religious freedom has conflicted with state inclusion laws, the court has typically ruled in favor of religious freedom. I mean, you rightly pointed out the Co-Colorado case with Jack Phillips, Masterpiece Cakeshop-

Sean McDowell: Yep

Scott Rae: ... The Philadelph- the Philadelphia Catholic Social Service Agency. You know, those I those are, in addition to the Colorado case, I think are contrary to the state's explic- insistence, are explicitly based on religious beliefs. I don't see any way around that. I think the state claiming that they are not somehow religiously grounded is an attempt to, evade the effect of the First Amendment. And I would be... If I were the preschool, I would be optimistic that the court's gonna rule in their favor. Now, the problem is it's taken since 2022 to get there, and I take it they've been without this funding that they've been entitled to for, you know, for the last three or four years. And so the court's gonna hear this in October of 2026, and we probably won't get a decision until sometime in '27. So, you know, they may, it may be another year before they finally get this resolved. But I think this is, you know, I'm optimistic. R- I think, legally religious freedom has been in the strongest place, Sean, that I think it's been in my lifetime. And I- ... So I would be optimistic that the court will rule in the school's favor.

Sean McDowell: I share that optimism, and I thank God that we have a conservative court, and somewhat just, it's jarring to think about if we didn't, and if some of these rulings had gone the opposite way, what that would mean for private schools in our state, in California, in Colorado. So I'm optimistic about this. I have a couple thoughts. You know, it's, it's tied to what it means to be a Catholic or a Protestant school, and there's some schools that are what are called covenantal, and this maps onto, like, universities as well, that there are some private Christian schools that I speak at that they require one or both parents to be Christians. And the reason they do this is they're trying to preserve a l- a certain kind of environment within the school that is shaped by enough families and students who share their Christian beliefs. Now, there's-

Scott Rae: So you're referring to, like, a Christian, you know, middle schools and high schools and places-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Scott Rae: ... Like that?

Sean McDowell: Like, yeah. El-

Scott Rae: More, more so than uni- more so than universities.

Sean McDowell: Yes. Now, universities would less be concerned with the parents, but like Biola that is covenantal, it'd be to create a certain culture on campus. At least people who say they're Christians agree to follow that they're Christians. We're trying to create that environment. Biola's that way. A school like Cal Baptist would be for their faculty, not their students. Now, this is... I'm not saying better or worse, I'm saying Christian schools make a decision based upon their vision and their desire for the community, and I think there's strengths and weaknesses to both, which is a separate conversation. But schools are making these decisions long before the LGBTQ conversation came along, rooted in their understanding of scripture, rooted in what it means to follow after Jesus, and to create a certain environment, especially for elementary and high school kids for a season of their life that they can grow and be nourished by other believers around them. So they're not going out and targeting gay kids uniquely saying, "You can't come. We don't like what your parents do." No, they're saying actually the state is encroaching upon them and singling them out because of these policies and beliefs that they had long before this issue came into play. We see Christian schools emerging a century ago. So the way this article is framed, it's framed as if these Christian schools are saying, "We want to specifically reject the children of gay parents. We are singling out this issue." And I wanna say, no, actually these schools are playing defense because of cultural norms that have changed, namely rules on same-sex marriage and wider beliefs, and they're saying, "We're just trying to operate how we have historically and our understanding of scripture." So when you read this article, even the way it's framed, it's framed like they wanna reject the children of gay parents. It's not about those unique children. And the same thing happened with the Jack Phillips case. He w- had no problems with serving gay individuals. He did regularly. But when it came to baking a cake, that was what he viewed as an expression of his faith, and he had actually denied baking cakes for, like, Halloween and pornography cakes. So he had that built in. Someone came and said, "We want you to adapt and change what you're doing and endorse something you stand against." He's like, "No, not going to do it." Now, of course, there are differences there. You made a key distinction, Scott. Nobody's saying they can't operate as a school according to these convictions, but are they being singled out for funding that other schools and faith-based schools are being singled out with the strong arm of the government that is now saying, "Change your theology, change your culture that existed long before this 2020 bill was adopted"?

Scott Rae: Yeah, like millennia-

Sean McDowell: That's where I think the concern is

Scott Rae: ... Millennia before.

Sean McDowell: M- yeah, millennia. [laughs] I mean, fair enough. So I think that's really what's at stake here, and I'm confident-The Supreme Court is gonna see it and rule rightly here. What I don't know is when we will finally have a case that just settles this once for all, and they don't have to keep cropping up year after year after year. That's what I don't know, but let's hopefully get as many passes we can with this Supreme Court ruling to just preserve religious liberty. And by the way, it'd be interesting if this case was from Muslims, because th- Islam is often viewed differently than Christianity is. Who if there was a Muslim school, you and I would re- wanna reserve their right to operate according to their religious convictions, especially as it comes to marriage. We take issue with some beliefs of Islam applied to a school, but that's a separate issue. And so-

Scott Rae: But, but if-

Sean McDowell: All-

Scott Rae: But i- but if this were a Muslim school, d- you know, doing the same thing that this Catholic preschool was doing, we'd make precisely the same argument on behalf-

Sean McDowell: That's right

Scott Rae: ... Of a Muslim school-

Sean McDowell: That's right

Scott Rae: ... That we're doing now.

Sean McDowell: And we've seen that in some of the other cases. It was Christians and Muslims who spoke up together. So we'll see how this plays out, but this is a very significant ruling coming up. All right, Scott, you sent me this article, I would've missed this one. I found this totally fascinating, in The Atlantic, and it's by a writer named Faith Hill. It's called The Most Tortured Relationship in America. And quite interestingly, this person points out [chuckles] that across political views, there's different views on immigration, different views on a whole host of issues, but there's near recedes unanimous disapproval of infidelity. 90% of Americans apparently said that a married person having an affair is morally wrong, and that their position didn't differ dramatically based on political party, age, or gender. Now, this article cites studies that about a third to half of people in the US have been sexually unfaithful, according to this biologist, Justin Garcia. And if you include emotional infidelity, it might be higher than that. I'm a little suspicious of those numbers, but let's just go with it for now. What she calls in this article consensual non-monogamy, which is basically a way of saying having an affair, but it doesn't qualify as an affair because you've agreed to do so, that's the term for it, is widely stigmatized. I guess about 14% of people said they respect those who practice it, and she defines it as multiple romantic relationships. Well, she says this monogamy serves people well, committing to one partner, growing together through challenge, staying loyal even when it's difficult, can grant them profound purposes. Yet other sources of meaning and community exist as well, and other ethical obligations. So you start to see this kind of subjective morality creep into this article, but we'll come back to that. Some of the things she cites, which I do appreciate, of why is this... What's going on underneath the surface culturally, and she talks about certain individualistic tendencies that we have, and you have... I have talked about that a lot in our culture today. She talks about, this was fascinating to me, how certain technologies, for example, have paved the way for adultery. Now, clearly, the pill plays a role in that. She doesn't even mention that, but the FDA approval of Viagra in 1998 marked a rise in older men cheating. I thought that was really interesting. [chuckles] I've never made that connection before. Now-

Scott Rae: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... She also seems a little bit, like, befuddled why in 2026, there's just not a simple solution to the fact that many people cheat, according to her studies. People should just be more open to the interest in sleeping with or dating other people. Ethical or consensual m- non-monogamy is a more viable option than it once was. So she's kinda surprised why we're still hung up with these regressive ideas and against infidelity today. So bottom line is what's called polyamory or non-monogamy. It's gained a ton of attention, but still has pushback, and the question, of course, is why. Now, she has some reasons in here that she points to, which I'll come back to, but I wanna, jump in before we do that and get your thought on this article and why you wanted to talk about it.

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, I think this is natural law at work.

Sean McDowell: Agreed.

Scott Rae: That God revealing morality both inside and outside the pages of scripture is that moral sense that God has written on our hearts that Paul describes in Romans 2:14. And I think there's something good and right about being committed to another person. We've recognized, in fact, you know, marri- marital exclusiveness is something that, C.S. Lewis pointed out in The Abolition of Man, that most cultures throughout the history of civilization have held in common among a dozen or so ethical things that they've held almost universally. There's something about not taking another person's spouse that is deeply ingrained in the history of civilization. And I think that, you know, the emphasis on polyamory notwithstanding, there's still a very small number of people who actually approve of that. And I don't think that relates to being prudish. Uh- ... I think what it reflects, Sean, is there's something good and right about commitment to another person that Ephesians 5 tells us reflects God's commitment to each one of us. That, that's, I think, what, ultimately what makes it so intrinsically good. And I say, even though lots of people cheat, I agree, I'm a little skeptical about those numbers too. And the article does point out in Europe, it's quite a bit higher, where, you know, roughly half the p- half the population holds that there's nothing wrong with infidelityUh, we still, I think, hold cheaters in lower regard. Now, the other thing I p- I noticed, Sean, in this, the article uses marriage and monogamy somewhat interchangeably.

Sean McDowell: Interesting.

Scott Rae: Though it's, it's not entire- it's not clear to me at all that they are regarded as the same thing. In fact, I'm pretty sure that they're not. But I don't know if the author's just being careless about that or has something that, she's trying to communicate. And I'm also not sure that the reason for decline in marriage, this is one thing that the article points out, that marriage has declined, has to do with people taking the institution more seriously. I'm not so sure about that. I think it may be that more and more people see it as unnecessary, even though they still value monogamy. But I think there's also something about marriage that is just different-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Scott Rae: ... Than, you know, cohabitation, even long-term cohabitation with the same person. There's something I think about marriage that I would say is anxiety and fear producing in people who are contemplating it. And I think it's what I would call, it's the committedness of marriage that I think can be terrifying for those considering marriage. And one of the, one of the best things that one of my close friends did for me when I was single was to tell me that my anxiety about marriage was completely overblown.

Sean McDowell: Huh.

Scott Rae: And, and he was right about that. Now, I also think that this fear is not justifiable because we often do this hypocritically because we don't realize that the other person may be just as terrified as you are of being committed to you-

Sean McDowell: [laughs]

Scott Rae: ... As you are to them.

Sean McDowell: That's a good point.

Scott Rae: So I'm actually, I was quite encouraged by this.

Sean McDowell: Oh.

Scott Rae: Yeah, I think there's inconsistency in how we view infidelity one way, but we don't live that, we don't live that out. But I think the way that infidelity is still hold, held as a, what the article calls a nonpartisan value, I do think reflects the law written on our hearts. Even though as Romans also points out, we have lots of difficulty living with the law that's written on our hearts.

Sean McDowell: That's a great take here, that this resistance to monogamy, i- or non-monogamy, so to speak, is not just societally based and subjective 'cause we decided what marriage is. It's written on our hearts, written on our bodies, and written in the world, and it takes some effort to convince ourselves of something different, and we have to deny the truth to get there, which of course in some ways would bring us to Romans chapter 1. That's in part what Paul is saying there. Now, I, at the end of this article, Scott, I found really interesting is in some way this article, the author's kind of pushing forward some of the same ideas we've had over years and decades behind the sexual revolution. So she kinda hints that one reason people are cheating in marriage and we have a torture relationship with marriage is we just can't live with it. We put too much pressure on monogamy. Now, there's a truth side to this, that sometimes we say marriage itself will make you happy and fulfill all your dreams, and you'll have endless sexual bliss when you get married. Like, sometimes in Christian circles in our society, we've put too much pressure on this that I think we need to at least rein back on, but not go as far as she does and say, "Let's throw the whole thing out," and that as if marriage itself creates shame. That's a part of what we've heard in the sexual revolution. It's these cultural ideas, these religious ideas. These expectations are what cause shame themselves. That's where I would give a serious timeout. Now, she does say, she says, "None of this is to say that we should celebrate affairs. But I do believe that all the self-appointed moral umpires," which would include you and me-

Scott Rae: You and me

Sean McDowell: ... At least I'll throw [chuckles] myself in that one, could take the temperature down. In other words, rather than proclaiming the goodness of marriage and the harms of adulteries and affairs, we should just lower down and be more accepting of other moralities. And my answer is, I'm sorry, absolutely not. I won't do it. Now, here's why, and I'm gonna come back to why I won't in a minute. But she cites this person named Van Hoof, who's found that cheating usually has less to do with unhappy relationships and more to do, frankly, with mortality. She describes how extramarital affairs are less common among young adults than among people in their 50s and 60s who might have been in the same job, seeing the same friends, carrying out the same routines for decades, but who don't wanna stop growing or run out of time for new experiences. She's really just... Th- to me, there's a difference between saying, "Oh, this is maybe what motivates people to do this," versus, "This is what justifies people doing this." And she's saying it's kinda justified, and we should just understand that people want new experiences. Again, sorry, I'm not convinced. She says at the very end, "As for the ethically non-monogamous partnership, psychologists found that they're about equal to monogamous ones in terms of relationship satisfaction, commitment, and sexual satisfaction." I don't know any other way to say it, but I'm calling BS on that. I don't buy it for a second. And she says, "If you like monogamy, go and do that." More summarized, "If you like consensual non-monogamy, go and do that." You see this subjective morality underlying this. You do you, live whatever feels good, and we shouldn't judge those who see the world differently.... Nonsense because of natural law, like you said. And second, we actually know that monogamy benefits society, and it doesn't come from prudes like you and me. There's a great book called The Case Against the Sexual Revolution by Louise Perry, and she's now a Christian, but was not... I don't think she was when she wrote this. And she wrote it, I'm gonna check the date here. She wrote it in, this might take me too long to find, 2022. And she has a chapter called Marriage Is Good, and she means objectively good for society. And here's a quote, "While the monogamous marriage model," meaning a society commits to monogamy and practices it, "uh, may be relatively unusual, it's also spectacularly successful. When monogamy is imposed on a society, it tends to become richer," so that's economic gain. "It has lower rates of both child abuse and domestic violence, since conflict between co-wives tends to generate both. Birth rates and crime rates both fall, which encourages economic development." So I can see why you would have a positive take on this from the angle you took it, Scott. I am far more critical of this article, and I think it's the same negative nonsense that is pushing forward and justifying behavior that's gonna hurt society and hurt kids. That's my take.

Scott Rae: Well, I did, I admit, I did read it a little differently. And I found, I found some of it, you know, I found, I found the statistics, to be the encouraging part, n- more so than the author's take on it.

Sean McDowell: That's fair.

Scott Rae: And it's the statistics about the general disapproval of infidelity being- ... So high- ... I think is I think very, still very encouraging. Now I wanna go back just briefly to one point that you made. Yeah, the article points out, I think, that we've become more dependent on spouses and on- ... Partners in our individualistic, sort of non-community oriented culture, and we therefore we value monogamy because there's a lot at stake, and I think that's right. But the downside is exactly what you point out, is that we tend to expect more out of marriage than it can actually deliver. And I think we baptize this in Christian circles sometimes erroneously.

Sean McDowell: We do.

Scott Rae: 'Cause in Genesis 1, it was never intended that Eve meet all of Adam's needs by herself. It was sh- they were, they were created, yes, both as unique individuals, but also as the head of each of their respective sexes. And it was intended that marriage plus the community that they created would meet those needs. Never intended that they would do it all by themselves. In fact, I think that's a form of idolatry to expect that. This is where the notion of the soulmate or the idea that God has one right person for you, I think feeds this misconception. And we should be really clear, Sean, that marriage doesn't complete a person. We are complete in Christ, and full stop, end of story. And there's really good data that we've been talking about that suggests that friendships for both sexes outside of marriage is an important contributor to the overall wellbeing and emotional health. So- ... I'd wanna make, I'd wanna make sure that our, you know, our listeners who may have, you know, may have been taught that you have a soulmate or that there's one right person that God has for you, I don't think the scripture supports that, and I'd wanna, I'd wanna sort of back away from that, and recognize that there are, you know, there are, there are at least, at least a handful of people who are, who would be very suitable for you to be monogamously committed to in marriage.

Sean McDowell: I agree entirely. I personally would say it a little stronger. I don't think it's that scripture doesn't... We don't have any direct s- positive scriptural support. I think what we have in scripture goes against the soulmate model as it's understood today. And I'm sure, I know you would agree-

Scott Rae: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... With that.

Scott Rae: Well, I think, I think-

Sean McDowell: We-

Scott Rae: ... And I think the ancients, you know, would've been completely puzzled-

Sean McDowell: [laughs] That's right

Scott Rae: ... By the idea of a soulmate.

Sean McDowell: [laughs] Totally. One quick piece before we move on. It's amazing there's an article talking about the shift from, you know, monogamy to non-monogamy. There's no mention in any depth about how this would affect kids. The sexual revolution has been led by people thinking about, "What makes me happy? What do I want?" Rather than thinking about the effects on kids. That's one of my biggest critiques. Right, with that said-

Scott Rae: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... This story was fascinating.

Scott Rae: Kid, kids are not as resilient as we think they are.

Sean McDowell: Exactly. Exactly. Well, well said. Okay, so this piece I sent over to you is an opinion piece in The New York Times, and it says, "Anthropic wants Claude, its chatbot, to be moral. Is religion really the answer?" And this opinion piece says, "Anthropic said that it wants Claude to be, quote, 'a genuinely good, wise and virtuous agent.' The company raised the moral stakes this month when it announced that its latest AI model, Claude Mythos Preview, poses too great a cybersecurity threat to be widely released." And some of the things it apparently could do is just by itself, not even created this way, go in and break down security a, kind of break down security that's built in to protect systems, and they're like, "Oh my goodness, if this gets out wide, this could have disastrous effects." So behind the scenes, Anthropic has been trying to cons- trying to shore up the ethical foundations of its chatbot, working with Catholic priests and other cro- prominent Christians to foster Claude's moral and spiritual development. Now, the article says, "Anthropic's intentions are admirable, butThe project of drawing on religion to cultivate the ethical behavior of Claude or any other chatbot will fail. Why? Because there isn't moral wisdom, not because there isn't moral wisdom in scripture, sermons, and theological treatises, but because texts like Claude don't have a body. It says, "While Cliot- Claude has a mind of sorts that can process information, it can't meditate, fast, prostrate itself in prayer, sing hymns in a congregation, participate in other aspects of the physical life of religion. It can't practice religion, thus it can't get the character benefits of religion." Now, I love how this article points out, underline it, how the robust data linking religion to greater health benefits and well-being, and this has come out of the Harvard Flourishing project, those who practice religion, less depression, all sorts of positive health benefits, which is wonderful. But clearly, a chatbot can't practice these kinds of things. It can't fast. It can't sing hymns with others. And since Christian traditions are built on using the body as a means of spiritual development, talking with Catholic priests and trying to make ch- this chatbot religious and moral is not going to work. Super curious, since you've written a book on the soul and the body, where are you gonna take this one, Scott?

Scott Rae: Well, I think the article, I think you're absolutely right, nails the main point, that most religious faith, and especially Christian faith, is an embodied practice, not just for the mind or the soul. And all those things you pointed out, you know, confession, charity, fasting, prayer, where all those things require a physical, bodily expression. And I think it's also right that, religion, even if you don't believe it's true, is a rich resource for morality. Right? Now, whether it's true or not is very important in another sense that relates to this. But not only, I say, not only does Claude not have a body, it's also not a person, and never will be, metaphysically. Merely physical things such as Claude, which consist of little more than ones and zeros, they don't possess moral properties unless they're given by an outside source.

Scott Rae: Right? Now, here, when moral properties come from a s- you know, where they come from in a strictly physical, you know, world or universe, that's a hard one for the materialist to establish. And so I would say Claude is, Claude is not a, is not an agent. It's not a moral agent, does not, you know, merely physical things don't possess moral properties. And so to have a person, I think, is to be an em- you know, be embodied, but to, but to have an immaterial component as well, which is why we are, we are body and soul. So, and I think w- it's true, just a caveat on this, true that we will exist for a time in a disembodied state between our death and the Lord's return, but that's not the norm. We will have resurrected bodies for the rest of eternity after Jesus' return. So I just, I think the article, I think, has got, has got a lot of things right here. And I'll, I'll, I'll come to this in a minute. I wanna let you weigh in here with your comments, but I read some of the, some of the more than 400 comments from readers.

Sean McDowell: Oh, interesting.

Scott Rae: They were very interesting about the connection between religion and morality. I'll get to that in just a minute, but I wanna hear your take on this first.

Sean McDowell: Oh, I definitely wanna come back. I loved a few things about this. I love that we have a problem, so to speak, in a chatbot and technology, and people are just raising the question, does religion play a role in solving this? 'Cause we know there's a link between morality and between religion. So that intersection introduction is great. I love that this article is talking about how religion is an embodied practice. As you know, I'm working on a book right now on a Protestant theology of the body, and I think we have radically missed this in the Protestant church and need to make a correction towards the embodied aspects of our faith. I think Catholics generally do this better than Protestants do, and of course, it's biblical to do so. So I love that conversation. But the problem is not just that a chatbot lacks a body. It also lacks a soul. [chuckles] It lacks both. And the article hinted at this a little bit, a mind of sorts, an agent in quotation marks, but it's like it understood profoundly the need for a body, but didn't understand profoundly what a soul is and why an algorithm or an LLM is really just... All a chatbot is a sophisticated algorithm and nothing more. It lacked that. And so it's like this article started to go the right direction. I'm like, "Yes, it needs to be embodied," but what needs to be embodied?

Scott Rae: That's right.

Sean McDowell: Not an LLM needs to be embodied. If you're able to take this chatbot and embody it in some fashion, let's just imagine you could do that, you would be no closer to making it moral than when you began. That wouldn't solve it. So human beings that are souls, that are made to inhabit and be in and wedded to a body, we grow spiritually through our bodies.But that is not what a chatbot is. It's not a soul. It never will be. And so there just, there's a confusion in here. There's clarity on the body, but there's a confusion about agency, and I just think of biblically, Luke 2:52, Jesus grew in wisdom, which is intellectual, his understanding, but also in stature. He grew physically. Favored with God spiritually, favored with man relationally. We are holistic beings. A chatbot is not a being. [laughs] It's not body or soul. And I think of Matthew 10:28, when you think about a human anthropology, when it says, "Do not fear those who can kill the body, but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell." So last thing I'll say on this is I'm encouraged about the emphasis on the body. The new book by Carl Truman, Desecration of Man, we interviewed him, that'll be up soon, is he talks about how we just need, in our disembodied age, embodied presence and embodied practices. But that's for human beings, not for chatbots.

Scott Rae: Exactly.

Sean McDowell: Now I'm dying to know what you drew-

Scott Rae: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... From these comments.

Scott Rae: They, there were over 400 of them.

Sean McDowell: Wow.

Scott Rae: And they had one strand in common, and that is that religion's not necessary for morality.

Sean McDowell: Interesting.

Scott Rae: And here's just a couple places where they pointed this out. It's, one respondent put it like this. "Using the flawed and oftentimes dangerous retic- rhetoric that comes from religion is most certainly not the answer here." "Religion is not a precondition for morality." In fact, one person said, "Religion warps morality." And the, and s- they confused the, confused the categories a bit. The question is not whether you can have a moral person without religion. And that goes back to the natural law point that we made earlier.

Sean McDowell: That's right.

Scott Rae: But, but the question is whether morality and moral properties can be adequately grounded without a transcendent moral law giver, somebody who can answer th- what I would call the says who question about morality. And this, I think, also, this solves the question that was raised in the article about whose morality, if we're talking about this, whose morality is gonna carry the day in a pluralistic culture. So it was very interesting to see the, people q- really seriously questioning, the ar- the article's insistence that religion was necessary for morality. Lots of people took issue with that. But I think in large part, Sean, they got, they got the fundamental question not quite accurately.

Sean McDowell: Scott, I love that you brought this up. I, some people, if they follow me also on YouTube, about two weeks ago had an in-depth friendly conversation that turned into a little bit of debate with Bart Ehrman, one of the leading atheists in the world, and he has a new book called Love Thy Stranger. And he's made a point that a lot of people have made recently, like Tom Holland, for example, and Glenn Scrivener, that the teachings of Jesus to care for your neighbor that has resulted in orphanages and nursing homes and hospitals, universally we have these obligations stem from Jesus. And Bart Ehrman makes that argument. I love it. But then he says, talking about his Christian friends, "They think I'm deceived when I insist I feel a deep commitment to other members of my species, and this deep commitment originated through time, matter, and chance. Without divine guidance," they say, "I have no grounds for deciding what is right and no incentive to behave well." Completely misses the point. I don't know how time, manner, and chance, by the way, create a feeling in principle, because a feeling is something that you need a soul and something immaterial for. That's not something that a physical process can generate, and this article has the same confusion. He says, "It's the gratitude, awe, compassion, and guilt we feel more than any rationalis we might undertake that determines how we behave." So the article talks about how it's often our emotions that guide our morality, and I'm like, that's the very thing a chatbot cannot experience, because it's numbers for one. And so if somebody's like, "Okay, I wanna understand why you have to have a soul," so to speak, "and ultimately God to ground morality," go listen to that conversation with Bart Ehrman. I think you'll find it very illustrative. And the point I made is exactly one that you made, that atheists can be moral. Atheists can know right and wrong. Atheists can have incentives to be moral, but they cannot ground objective right and wrong and objective human value if there is no God. That's the key of the point that you're arguing here. So materialism can never make sense of objective moral values and duties. And I think a- that's amazing, so many of the comments in this video, that people just miss that. That's amazing, but also encourages me to keep going and making this point.

Scott Rae: That's right.

Sean McDowell: 'Cause one of the best arguments for God is what you said on our first story, natural law. We know there's right and wrong. The best explanation therefore is there's a moral law and a moral law giver. All right, we got one more story. So this one we're shifting gears a little bit, where Trump loosens... This is a New York Times op-ed. It says, "Trump loosens restrictions on psychedelic drugs."So this past Saturday, he signed an executive order seeking to hasten research into the therapeutic benefits of LSD, ecstasy, psilocybin, and other mind-altering drugs. A lot of this will go to Texas, interestingly, that's studying ibogaine, but it's just not gotten federal funds yet. The article says there's a growing number of studies that suggest psychedelic compounds can be effective in treating a range of mental health challenges, anxiety, post-traumatic stress. A number of veterans have expressed benefits from this. One of the people that really pushed this forward is Joe Rogan. Apparently he just texted... I heard Joe tell the story, something to the effect of texting Trump that he wanted FDA approval, and Trump's like, "Okay, you know, let's do it," kind of implication. So Trump is aiming to get FDA approval and funds through this executive order for psychedelics. Now, your thoughts, positive, negative, mixed on both here.

Scott Rae: Well, well, Sean, this is what I call a let's find out executive order. Let's expose these to the rigors of clinical trials, which will expose the risks and benefits, and actually the main purpose of clinical trials initially is to determine if they are better than doing nothing at all. Now, I think to be, to be clear on this too, on Thursday, the administration also loosened some of those restrictions on medical marijuana, and to do some of the s- to do some of the same things. Now, we've talked about that. We're very cautious about that. Psychedelics are, they're a whole different ballgame in my view.

Sean McDowell: Right.

Scott Rae: They've been shown anecdotally to treat PTSD symptoms. They've been-- They can treat severe depression and anxiety, but only with very careful medical monitoring because the side effects can be so severe, and because there's just so much we don't know about how they're going to affect certain types of patients. I figure, Sean, they call them psychedelics for a reason.

Sean McDowell: Yeah.

Scott Rae: And, and I think the purpose of this order is to enable further research, and, you know, one of the compounds I think very encouraging, is shown to treat various types of drug and opioid addictions. Here's the other side benefit that I think is, that I think will be really helpful in this, is to make available experimental treatments to terminally ill patients once they have passed early clinical trials, but not full FDA approval. This, this is a major ethical issue. Should terminally ill patients with nothing to lose be able to access these experimental treatments in the US rather than going to another country to do so? And I think they should, because I think if they, if they are informed of the risks and the benefits, and even if, even if it's a Hail Mary, you know, they have, they have... If terminal, terminally ill patients at the end, the end of their lives have nothing else that they can hope for, and I think that's okay as long as they're not being coerced and manip- and manipulated, and they give full consent to some of these experimental treatments, I think they should be entitled to access those.

Sean McDowell: How concerned are you the fact that a lot of marijuana was pushed by, through medicalization first to get it, you know, you might say the camel's nose under the door of acceptance, of use, of public attention in a way that's positive? And of course, psychedelics are just eons exponentially more powerful than marijuana. So I'd have to think a little bit more about somebody in the state that you're describing, in a terminal state trying-

Scott Rae: Well, those, yeah

Sean McDowell: ... A psychedelic.

Scott Rae: Well, I'm, yeah. Well, psych- these are, psychedelics are not for people with these terminal illnesses. These are other, the application would be to other experimental treatments-

Sean McDowell: Okay

Scott Rae: ... That have been, have had some clinical trials, but they don't have full FDA approval. 'Cause a lot of these terminally ill patients, Sean, they're gonna die-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Scott Rae: ... Before the FDA approval comes through. So my point-

Sean McDowell: Oh, okay

Scott Rae: ... Was just, my point was, you know, an application of this that the executive order actually opens, may open the door to some of those things, which I think would be a good thing.

Sean McDowell: My, my only caution here, I've read some on this, and I hope I'm not speaking too much out of my lane here, because there's so much involved in psychedelics that... I interviewed a fellow by the name of Joe Welker, who has a whole, entire blog. He's very carefully tracked these. He's a pastor, had some experiences in the past with psychedelics before he came to the faith, and has kind of been somebody who's been a whistleblower on the public persona of psychedelics, in terms of the public not being given the whole story of some of the dangers. And he just raised even some of the spiritual risks tied to this that he personally experienced and went through. These tests and these are not going to analyze that. The kind of deception that often follows for people, false beliefs that sometimes emerged, misplaced trust in experiences. I don't know how we test these things. I don't know how we analyze these, but I just have to put out there for people who are only looking at this through a medical lensThere's a reason why they were so popular in the '60s and '70s, and people were tripping out and having these spiritual experiences. There's a lot of caution we should have about certain pathways and doors of perception that are opened by medical drugs, and that's because we're body and we're soul, like we talked about in the last episode. Are there soul and spiritual implications of these drugs? There's some we found with marijuana at times that can create certain kinds of psychosis, psychoses or psychosises. Not sure how to say that. But if we're concerned about that with marijuana, we should be triply, quadruply concerned with psychedelics. So I'm-

Scott Rae: Yeah. Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... Personally, I want more study on this. I wish I had more confidence that the FDA would do it when it's being pressured by [laughs] the government with a certain amount of money to do it carefully and wisely and slowly. We have to get this right. Because people pushed through with marijuana, and now as you and I have talked, even New York Times has done articles like, "Yeah, this has had a lot of negative effects of people-

Scott Rae: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... We didn't anticipate." I personally fear the same thing is happening with psychedelics.

Scott Rae: Well, we'll see. But I think the let's find out is a good s- is a, is a necessary step before we can draw that conclusion. And Sean, just to be clear, I'm skeptical of most things that alter a person's mental state. Because you can't be filled with the Holy Spirit if you are under the influence of some other substance. But I say let's, let's, you know, let's find out. Let's test what we can, and be sober about the risks and the benefits, and let's see. And, you know, maybe we come back to re- have a reassessment period at some point where we draw some of the same conclusions about these that we have about marijuana.

Sean McDowell: That sounds reasonable. I think, for the record, I think maybe you're a little bit more optimistic [laughs] about how this plays out-

Scott Rae: Fair enough

Sean McDowell: ... Than I do. That doesn't mean you're wrong, I'm just critical and skeptical of this one, but, we will let our audience decide. And speaking of our audience, they've sent in some great questions. And before we get to questions, friends, just wanna remind you this is brought to you by Talbot School of Theology. We would love to have you come study with Scott and I in philosophy, in apologetics. We have programs in marriage and family, spiritual formation, online and in person. Some you can go full-time. Some people just start chipping away with one class at a time. But we're really growing, Scott. Some exciting stuff is taking place here, and we'd love to partner with you to just go deeper in your biblical and theological thinking. All right. We got some [laughs] great questions here, Scott. This first one is fascinating. It says, "AI has been used to quote, 'portray' the deceased Val Kilmer, who died last April, in a movie that should release later this year. I've heard one commentator call this necromancy, but this isn't the first time technology has been used to portray a deceased actor in film. I'm just wondering if this is necromancy and whether Christians should be concerned about the AI-generated material that they consume." What do you think?

Scott Rae: I'd say probably not, because necromancy is a practice regarding a real dead person as acce- as accessible and seeking to communicate with him or her as opposed to an AI creation. So I would say, I would think it's fun- it's fundamentally different. And the, you know, the, accessing a, you know, a dead person, in the movies goes back, you know, a lot farther than this Val Kilmer film. Um- So there's, you know, there's been a quite a few of those. And I f- I would say that's for the most part, probably harmless entertainment.

Sean McDowell: That, that's a fair take. It it's interesting because it's showing up in a film. Val Kilmer was an actor, and so it's within the realm of where he worked, and everybody knows that he's passed away. Where I get a little bit more concerned is you and I did, maybe it was a year ago, it was where they would take an image of somebody and all the information online and create like a chatbot where you're having a conversation with somebody who's not there, but it's getting eerily close to how it looks and talks like that person. Now I wanna go, "Okay, wait a minute. This isn't a real objective spirit that's here, but we are summoning something that we shouldn't do or at least should have serious pause before we do." Now how is that different than educational purposes of doing this with, say, Abraham Lincoln? I don't know how to perfectly answer that, and I think I agree with your answer, but I would definitely say we need to proceed step by step very wisely rather than just jump into this kind of technology. Okay. This one says, "I have a philosophical question about AI. I think the popular culture's understanding of AI is inaccurate. From a technical standpoint, LLMs are complicated math functions with billions of parameters running on high-performance computers. From a Christian worldview, I think that persons are a fundamentally different kind of thing. It seems misguided to me when people say thank you to LM- LLMs or refer to them as he or she. In light of this, I see AI as, in principle, morally unproblematic when used as a tool and not treated as a person, although of course, we should use wisdom for practical concerns. What are your thoughts on this philosophical approach to AI?"

Scott Rae: I think this is spot on, absolutely right.

Sean McDowell: Boom.

Scott Rae: That metaphysically, they will never be persons, nor should we treat them like that.

Sean McDowell: That was the quickest, most concise response you gave. Mic drop on that point. I agree as well, and I thought you might. My concern is, yes, wisdom for practical moral concern, but we also have to realize that technology affects us. It's not neutral. So we call technology he and she when it starts to function like a human being.I was, I told a friend of mine, I was like, "It's just technology. It, it doesn't matter. It doesn't shape me." And he goes, "Have you ever yelled at Alexa and said, 'Turn up the volume, Alexa!'" And I said, "Yes." [laughs]

Scott Rae: [laughs]

Sean McDowell: He said, "You're talking to it like it's a person, not a computer system." And I was like, "You know what? You're right about that." So that doesn't make it wrong, but we have to be very careful because technology is not neutral. It affects how we see the world and affects how we potentially relate to persons. That would be more my concern, even though I would agree with the phlo- philosophical position that was raised here. Okay, third question, also an excellent one. This person says, all three of these are on AI. "I'm currently unemployed and have been looking for, looking all over for a job. Some employers have started using AI systems to interview candidates as part of the hiring process. Some use an AI voice for a phone interview, but others include a lifelike person on the other end of a video conference call. This is supposed to allow companies to vet more candidates, but it feels like these companies are choosing to outsource opportunities for human interaction to technology. Do you think Christians should participate in a system that choose to do that, or does that seem like a humane, does this seem like a humane way to use AI?"

Scott Rae: I'd say, Sean, not particularly. I think companies are choosing to outsource opportunities for human interaction to technology because technology can do it faster and more efficiently. Whether they can do it more effectively or not, I think is still a wide open question. This... I say this is for interviews where somebody has passed an initial resume, vetting. And I would think if you're gonna, if we're gonna treat potential candidates with the kind of dignity that they deserve, I think at some point it requires, you know, significant human interaction and human discernment to decide, you know, whether somebody advances in the process or not. I don't know if I would feel devalued by that. Probably. You know, if I went through a whole interview pr- a whole process and got cut and never spoke to a face-to-face person, I probably wouldn't take that well. But I wonder if that's just something that people are gonna need to be prepared for in the future, and that, I mean, that may end up, Sean, just being a get over it moment. I'm not thrilled about it, but, this may be, this may be one of these things that we just have to get used to and do the best we can with it.

Sean McDowell: The principle underlying it is we should have concern about AI and technologies when they replace what human beings should do. But we also are in an era where AI is becoming so ubiquitous that sometimes it's gonna have to be used to get us to the point where maybe people can then have a personal kind of interview that you described. So there's difference between depersonalizing the entire process and using AI along the way that leads towards a personal process. Now, I think some businesses are doing this because there's now the technology, from what I've heard, that you can plug in a resume, or probably have AI make a resume, and then it'll tailor it and do all the work for you, sending it to hundreds of businesses. And then if out of that maybe you get 10% calls for interviews. So if you're not using AI that way, you're now behind those who are. So now businesses are getting flooded with these resumes, so they need technology to function to even be able to interview candidates and get to the candidate that they desire. So this is where AI is creating a problem, and then it's a problem how it's solving it. [laughs] And it's somewhat of a vicious cycle. My only concern, I don't have any data on this, is I wonder if these kind of processes would have a negative effect on certain people or groups of people that communicate in a certain fashion different than others. Like, AIs can't pick up on body language. How much can it pick up on nonverbal communication? Does it favor some people over others? And I don't know that it does, but that's a caution that I would have that we don't jump into a certain technology that ends up maybe hurting a certain segment of people who are well deserving of the job, would do as good a job, maybe better, because of the way these AI systems are set up. I wouldn't want that negative human repercussions, and that's something I think we should, we should look out for.

Scott Rae: Fair enough.

Sean McDowell: All right, my man. Great stories this week. [laughs]

Scott Rae: Good stuff.

Sean McDowell: As always, looking forward to next week. This has been an episode of the podcast Think Biblically: Conversations on Faith and Culture, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, Biola University, where both Scott and I teach. As I said earlier, we have master's programs in theology, Bible, apologetics, spiritual formation, and more, fully online and in person. We have doctoral programs as well in our DMin track. To submit comments or ask questions, please email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu. And we'd love it if you'd consider taking a moment to give us a rating on your podcast app. It helps more than you may realize [laughs] to get other people to consider hearing about how to think biblically, and consider sharing this episode with a friend. Thanks for listening, and we'll see you Tuesday when I had one of the most interesting conversations with Kayla Gillespie about her new book, Transformed. She is a detransitioner who speaks out about her experience, and it's fascinating. You will not wanna miss that. In the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything. [upbeat music]