Weekly Cultural Update: Michigan's Pass/Fail Grading; AOC & Egg Freezing, AI Viruses, AI Pastor Twin; Canada's Military Prayer Ban

Episode Transcript

Sean McDowell: [upbeat music] To curb the mental health crisis, first semester freshmen at the University of Michigan will not receive a letter grade. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez opens up about freezing her eggs, a trend that has grown significantly in the past decade. Scientists use AI to create a virus, and a Bay Area pastor uses AI to make a digital twin to meet the growing needs of his congregation. These are the stories we'll discuss, and we'll 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, AI is continuing to dominate the news, and we have a couple stories we're gonna jump into. But I came across this University of Michigan story earlier this week in The Wall Street Journal, and it was an op-ed, so it wasn't even claiming to be unbiased. But I thought this was maybe an interesting trend that's insightful that we could, we could comment on. And this piece is titled, again, it's not neutral. It's titled "Mediocrity in Michigan." [chuckles] It says, "The University of Michigan's foolish decision to make freshman classes pass/fail." Well, first semester freshmen at the University of Michigan in fall 2027, so it's not fall right now, it's the following year, won't receive letter grades. The policy is meant to curb the mental health crisis unfolding among college-aged individuals, the school says. Now, this article, it's like, let's unpack the nonsense in Michigan's rationale. So again, biased, but it says, "If the school administrators truly wish to improve student mental health, they would ban technology from classrooms and other place of instruction and smartphones from campus dining rooms and restaurants." Now, Michigan administrators do say they have the students' best interests in mind, and the no grades policy, they add, will allow freshmen to acclimate to the demands of college and allow intrinsic motivations to guide personally meaningful academic journeys. The author says, "My goodness, how can freshmen acclimate to the demands of college when college makes no such demands?" Now, the opinions of the person who wrote this aside, what do you make of this? Is this a positive trend to address mental health, or is this, as this author says, kind of lowering standards?

Scott Rae: No, and here was my first thought on this, is that out of college, their first job won't be like this. The workplace will be totally different than this. Now, I think the cynic would probably say that this is coddling snowflake students a-and not helping them get ready for life in the real world. I suspect the author of The Wall Street Journal would say something, article would say something like that. However, you know, I've been, I've been close to the, you know, to the spiritual development folks on our campus here and the, you know, the folks who are involved with student care. These mental health issues for college students are real, and they need, they need to be addressed. And I don't think they are all because students have been coddled in high school and treated like they're entitled to A grades for just showing up.

Scott Rae: And I think there are different ways to address this. And what the the deeper story in this is that the article points out is this is related to the rampant grade inflation that has characterized colleges and universities for some time. It's interesting, Sean, they point out the students admitted that, they were interviewed for this, admitted they wouldn't work as hard if no grades were forthcoming, but they might learn more with freedom to explore within the course. Now, my... I I'm not super confident in the ability of 18, 19-year-olds to explore profitably areas that they're being exposed to for the first time in some of these college courses. So I'm, you know, I see more downsides than upsides on this. The big takeaway, in my view, Sean, is that incentives matter. It's just, it's fundamentally human nature, and I would suggest if students are not ready for the, some of the challenges to their mental health that college is going, is going to, emerge, then there are lots of other ways to solve this. Take a lighter course load in your first semester. Take a gap year instead. You and I both teach at Impact 360, which is a Chick-fil-A Foundation funded terrific gap year program for people who just graduated from high school. Or get a job for a year and live on your own. Move out of your parents' house or basement, live on your own. Or, and here's, I I say this with full disclosure that both of, both of us are university professors and have been for a long time [chuckles] maybe consider not going to college at all. And, you know, attend a trade school instead. I saw an interview with Mike Rowe, who has a foundation that he's established for, basically, funding and and ennobling the, some of the classic trades, like electricians and construction and plumbers. The demands for these far outweigh the supply. You can make a very good living at some of these things. I, sometimes I'm envious of the good living that my plumber makes. And these honorable trades make a great contribution to your community. So I think there are other ways to solve this. I'm not convinced that just, you know, a one semester pass/fail system is actually gonna do much for the mental health of students because the article rightly points out that there are other pressures besides grades and school, all the, all the stuff that takes place in residence halls and off campus and in, on screens and social media, all those things. You know, those contribute significantly to the mental health of students.

Sean McDowell: That was a very thoughtful, balanced approach. A couple of my thoughts intersected with that, but, my take is when I would teach in a classroom, if anything, and this is not so much at Biola, but when I taught high school, I would tend to start tougher, and then you can lighten up as a semester goes on if you have to in terms of discipline and expectation. Students get used to it. But it's harder to start easier and then ramp it up and get tougher. And it makes me wonder if this approach, which seems well-meaning to help students, and like you said, the mental health crisis is real, does it help to start softer, so to speak? And I can't help but interpret it in that fashion, and then grades are gonna count and classes are gonna get harder. I'm not convinced that that's the approach necessarily to go in principle. Now, biblically, when I look at this, I ask the question, what's the root and the heart of the mental health crisis? Why is this really happening? And there's a lot of biblical passages that address this. I mean, James 4:1-2 talks about kind of fighting and arguments. They trace back to selfish desires waging inside a person. What's the root of the issue? It's a heart issue. And I think similarly in 1 Corinthians chapter 6 talks about the love of money as the root of all kinds of evil, which shows just misplaced desires can drive other destructive actions. So my point is biblically, there's a lot that says go back to the root of the issue, and I don't think the root of the reason kids are experiencing, young students, now formally adults, are depressed and lonely on the college campus is because of grades. I just don't think that gets to the root of it. Now, that said, if somebody could give me data and show that it works, I'm sure the University of Michigan is like, "Here's an experiment, and we want to try this," and if it works, okay, like fine, then we'd be willing to follow it. I just don't think they're dealing with the root of this issue, and this is gonna set up. Now, with that said, just yesterday I was talking with an international student who's at a very elite private school in the Northeast, and they show up for about two to three weeks before the semester starts, and they have many classes, and they have lectures, and they're not put on their, transcript, and then they go home, and then they come back, and she was like, "It's actually helpful to acclimate a little bit," but that's different than a full semester of classes without grades. My suspicion is it's just going too far and won't work, but I'd love to be shown the opposite and then adjust if necessary.

Scott Rae: Yeah, I think I'm certainly open to any solution that might help alleviate some of the mental health issues that we have to face on the campus. And you know, Sean, one of your comments made me wonder about one thing. A number of professors in various disciplines have complained about the remedial education that they need to provide to their incoming students in order to get them up to college-level work. And I wonder if the pass-fail system for this first semester will exacerbate that problem-

Sean McDowell: Oh

Scott Rae: ... Because I, you know, if I'm, if I'm taking a course in the second semester that builds on the first, and it's a pass-fail system for the first, like if, you know, if I'm, say I'm an accounting major, and I'm taking, you know, Beginning Accounting 1, and it's pass-fail, and I'm, and I, but I've got to be ready to do Beginning Accounting 2, you know, I think about that, you know, at the, you know, at the seminary level here. If we did that for Greek 1 and made it pass-fail and then put somebody into, you know, Introductory Greek 2, they'd be, they'd be lost. And so the incentive, I think, would be to take some of the hardest course, most challenging courses in that first semester when they won't be graded. But for curriculum that builds one thing on another, I think you may, it may, that may only increase some of the issues with the remedial work that some students may need.

Sean McDowell: I think that's fair. I think if I was... And again, I don't have any insight at the University of Michigan. This feels like there's a lot of other things I would try before this. Have we gotten smartphones out of the classroom? Have we talked to kids about diet? I mean, sometimes kids come and get depressed 'cause they don't know how to eat and sleep and just take care of themselves. I mean, there are so many basic things that need to be met first, but maybe they'd say they've done that. We will track the story with interest and see what the response is, but I can tell you, if you're starting at Biola this fall, your grades will count in every class.

Scott Rae: That's right.

Sean McDowell: That's for sure.

Scott Rae: And we will also have good help for mental health issues that do come up.

Sean McDowell: We have remarkable relational help with our students. Well said. All right, this story jumped out to me, and I shot it over to you because it feels like maybe it's a breakthrough moment that could be indicating some deeper trends that are taking place. And it was Representative Ocasio-Cortez opens up about freezing her eggs, and according to this New York Times article, has got more women talking. So Ocasio-Cortez is 36 years old, and she announced last weekend that she would be freezing her eggs and posted a video on Instagram injecting herself with medication just before a TV interview. Now, what's interesting is the other lady who is interviewed in this, who also did a similar thing, talks about, Ocasio-Cortez and how bold her actions are. That's how it's kind of interpreted here. Up until 2012, I guess freezing eggs to preserve fertility was considered an experimental intervention, and it just was, it there was no promise in it. Not nearly as many people were doing it. There is some slight perspective, they say here in the article, "Though some people refer to freezing eggs as an insurance policy, doctors say it's not always a smooth process and hardly guarantees fertility later in life." So it's obviously women who have something else going in their life, many times it's their profession, who wanna have kids later, and it's not as experimental as it was since 2012, but it's still experimental. In the past decade, this kinda blew me away, in 2014 to 2024, the number of egg freezing cycles grew from 6,000 to almost 39,000. That's how much it's grown in a decade. So this one fertility expert, from downtown, in Manhattan says, "I've had patients come in at 48 years old. Normally, I'm ready to start talking about menopause, but they're ready to start talking about fertility at 48 years old." Now, the cost for this also I never really thought about, but this one lady the story's about dove in her savings for about $16,000 for the initial cycle, and it produced 7 of the 18 frozen eggs her doctor had hoped for. There's more to this story, but I'd really love your reaction on this.

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, I think even today, despite the number, the increase in the incidents of people freezing their eggs, this is a long way from being a sure thing, and there are ethical- ... Issues downstream from this with IVF, which is required. Once you do this, then IVF is required in order to get pregnant. Now, just as a side note on this, it seems clear to me that AOC was also making a political statement with this-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Scott Rae: ... About women's reproductive freedom. She puts it like this, that freezing your eggs is a strike against, quote, "An administration that is dedicated to politicizing women's bodies, taking our choices away from us, and punishing us around decisions to be pregnant or not to be pregnant." So, let's sort of take that for what it is.

Sean McDowell: Yeah.

Scott Rae: Otherwise this is a very private thing for most people. And I think you're right to point out this is hardly foolproof, and there's a, there's actually a good reason for that. Because freezing eggs is not difficult at all. It's thawing them out successfully that is the challenging part. And the reason for that is because the content of a woman's egg is predominantly water, and when water freezes, crystals form. And so when when it's thawed out, the crystals have sharp edges to them that can do damage to the egg and often render it unusable. That's part of the reason that, the woman you highlighted had, that had 18 eggs harvested, which is actually quite a lot, and only seven thawed frozen, and it's only seven thawed out successfully, is not uncommon. And it's also not uncommon for women to attempt to freeze eggs and get nothing out of it. Now, the the process is arduous. It's very similar to the process used for harvesting eggs for a woman who's going through IVF, but will have eggs fertilized immediately after they're harvested. You take the the reason the cost, the reason the cost is so high is because the hormones that are used to induce multiple ovulation in one cycle are so expensive. And that, you know, that, you know, five figure cost is not unusual. And that's also, just no charge for this, but that's the reason why people freeze egg, freeze embryos with IVF, because to start over again with a new harvest of eggs is the lion's share of the cost in this. And the, and the article points out as well that the majority of women who freeze their eggs actually never use them, because they either get pregnant naturally or they decide, you know, decide for some reason to not, to use them. Here's... The thing that I found most troubling about the article is that often if when it comes time for a woman to actually wanna have a child, regardless of her age, if she has eggs frozen and doesn't have a husband in the picture or someone who's gonna be an active father to this child, they often go ahead and do it entirely on their own and become a single mother by choice. And we've talked about this numerous times before. In our view, kids have a right to a mom and a dad. Both moms and dads are essential and provide things that the other cannot. So that's the part I think that is, in my view, is most disturbing about this because when we focus on the interest of the child as opposed to the interest of the adults, I think you can make a good case that that part is, particularly problematic.

Sean McDowell: I love that, and again, that's what our friend Katie Faust at Them Before Us emphasizes. If we ask ethical questions in particular tied to reproductive technology and things like marriage through the lens of what is best for kids rather than adult desires, we come to very different conclusions. I had a few thoughts in this article as I read it. Number one is we certainly wanna start by affirming that the desire to have children is a God-given good desire. And as much as our modern technology really, in our modern era, wants to root it, the ... Almost like separate our identities from our bodies and raise questions about what it means to be a man and a woman and the nature of marriage. This article has a clear sense of what a man and a woman is, and kinda recognizes that built into women, not all, but most, is the desire to be a mom, and there's something good about that, and we can't escape that fully. That is a good desire that God has given us. The other thing is they tell a story at the end of a child who was frozen as an embryo for a few years, the lady in her upper 30s, and then found, you know, years later, her husband, and so they're able to have a child together, and they would not have had she not frozen the embryos likely. Well, we wanna especially affirm that every child is valuable regardless of how this child is conceived. Every child has value. Even if we take ethical issues [chuckles] with the process itself, that child has intrinsic value. For me, you know, when I see a headline about freezing embryos, it raises the question we discussed, is it ever okay to freeze a human being? And an embryo is a distinct living human organism. It doesn't look like an adult, but neither does an infant. It's not supposed to, but it is a full distinct human being. Is it ever okay to freeze somebody morally within itself? I think in principle that's wrong, not to mention the effects of once it's been frozen and thawed, the chances of developing fully into healthy adult are decreased as well. So on both those levels, I would take issue. But I also say here's another issue. The final thing is this is an example of how technology allows us to move away from the natural processes that God has built into the world. He's given women a certain cycle when they're most capable of becoming pregnant and being moms, and to use technology to resist that for desires that we have is problematic theologically to me, and I think it's also problematic ethically. A ton more could be said, but jump in here. Tell me what you think.

Scott Rae: Now, tho- yeah, those are some of the downstream issues from freezing eggs themselves because when IVF gets involved, then you have... The standard of practice in IVF, we both agree, is deeply problematic because embryos are treated just as clumps of cells that can be discarded with no moral compunction and can be frozen without any moral compunction either. So, you and I, we've got a well-publicized disagreement about the, idea of conceiving a child outside the womb.

Sean McDowell: Sure.

Scott Rae: But the the standard of practice in IVF, which, you know, most of these women will go through if they decide to go in that direction, it is deeply troubling for the reasons that you've suggested. And so I wanna, I wanna be careful that we don't, you know, we don't conflate for so our listeners are clear that freezing embryos and freezing eggs are two fundamentally different things. 'Cause embryos are human persons, just in a very, a very immature,

Scott Rae: underdeveloped state, which is exactly what they should look like at the embryonic stage, thus different than freezing an egg.

Sean McDowell: That's right. Good distinction.

Scott Rae: So those, let's make sure we keep those clear. The other thing that, you know, that is sort of is, sort of downstream from this is that, women will harvest their eggs in order to sell them to infertile couples, and not to freeze them, not to freeze them for themselves, but to, you know, to make money as a commercial transaction, and I think we would both agree that that's deeply troubling. And you'd be surprised how many women who sell their eggs as college students, when they get older and have children of their own, look back on that egg sales with regret. And I think, and it's, makes perfect sense that they, that they would feel that way about that.

Sean McDowell: That's a really good distinction. I'm glad you drew that out between freezing embryos and between freezing eggs. I have less in principle, ethical concern with freezing an egg, but then what you do with that-

Scott Rae: Precisely

Sean McDowell: ... By its very nature is where the problem comes in. And sounds like you agree with that distinction entirely with me.

Scott Rae: I, yeah, it's because IVF is required to do something with an egg that's been thawed,

Scott Rae: you you start down a road that in my view, is really tough to navigate ethically if you know, unless you have a lot of discernment about it, because if you go with the standard of practice at, almost every IVF clinic, which most clients do, you're headed into an ethical minefield that you, that you are probably not aware of.

Sean McDowell: That's awesome. Can you think of any ways it'd be okay to freeze an egg that one would then use justifiably apart from IVF, like some kind of experiment was necessary since it's not a human being? Maybe they would need it for that, or maybe they inject it directly into a woman as opposed to IVF. Can you think of any?

Scott Rae: Yeah, I think if you, if you attempted to fertilize them, one, the eggs one at a time, thaw them out and fertilize them one at a time so that if it fails, you're not going back and implanting frozen embryos. You're going back, you'll thaw, you thaw another egg- And attempt to fertilize it. I think that's okay, and you implant the embryo as soon as it's fertilized, like you would do in a normal IVF cycle.

Sean McDowell: Okay, so that's where you and I would differ 'cause it involves IVF. I was wondering about the ethics of freezing an egg if it were not used in IVF for some other purpose. Would it be justifiable? I can't think of any-

Scott Rae: I don't, I don't see how you can... I you know, we'd have to have fertility specialists comment on that. I don't know of any way-

Sean McDowell: That's fair

Scott Rae: ... Off the top of my head-

Sean McDowell: Okay

Scott Rae: ... That that would be done.

Sean McDowell: Got it. That makes sense. That was my question, but very helpful clarification and distinction there, Scott. Good stuff. All right, this story you sent me, another one on AI, [chuckles] which [sighs] Man. Well, I'll just read the story. It says, "Hey, great news." A little sarcasm here. "Scientists used AI to create viruses." Now this is from Wesley Smith, a friend of Biola. He's with the Discovery Institute, and he quotes an article in The Wall Street Journal that says, "AI systems have been displaying some eye-opening new abilities in recent weeks, breaking out of their enclosures, hacking other companies, lying to people. And now, for the first time, an AI model has created a new virus, a whole family of them, in fact." This is still The Wall Street Journal. "In a study published in the journal Science, researchers at Stanford University and elsewhere said they successfully directed an AI model to create a collection of simple viruses that only infect bacteria and pose no threat to humans." Now, I'd qualify that, and I'd say no known threat to humans. Maybe they're right, but if I'm being asked to trust them, I I reserve the right to be skeptical. The article, this is Wesley Smith, he's like, "The approach in the Stanford lab sure sounds like a new form of gain of function research to me." Now, the article gives some pros and some cons that I'll comment on, but just this idea of AI creating a new virus for the first time, what's your reaction?

Scott Rae: Well, Sean, this is not AI on its own, but it's AI assisting human beings in creating these viruses.

Sean McDowell: Great point.

Scott Rae: So I think the big idea of the article is still the human creators are ultimately responsible for this. And the produ-- I think these could be very beneficial. You know, one of the, one of the pros that I suspect you'll comment on is that these could be designer viruses to combat certain types of diseases, you know, maybe combat antibiotic-resistant bacteria, or it could produce a deadly pathogen. And, you know, that all depends on whose hands they are in. And Sean, we have enough trouble regulating biological weapons around the

Scott Rae: the potential of this could actually be somewhat terrifying. [chuckles] Now, the article, I think, the big idea of this is that we, tend to be a complacent culture about AI at this point, and little is being done to ensure that its use is beneficial and not harmful. In fact, I'm not even sure that we have widespread agreement on what even constitutes abuse of AI and what criteria we use to tease that out. So I think the onus here is on, is on the human beings, who are using AI as a tool, and they are the ones who are ultimately responsible. That's-- I think that's Wesley Smith's big point here, and I think he's right about that. But he's right, I think, also to point out that many of the guardrails that we've been hoping for are still somewhat missing.

Sean McDowell: And to your point, it's not like AI went rogue and made this-

Scott Rae: Exactly

Sean McDowell: ... Virus itself, but I think the concern is that people can plug into certain AI systems, "Help me build a bomb. Help me build [chuckles] a virus," and some of these systems without the safeguards. And we can put as many as we want in the US, but internationally won't have the same safeguards. Tell me how to make a virus, and now that information that was protected in the past might not be able to made by everybody on the street, but far more people now have access to this, including nefarious actors. That's the huge concern. So for me, I mean, when I hear about concerns with AI, I tend to be a little bit more optimistic than pessimistic. But given what we went through with the COVID virus, now that AI can assist people in doing this is a huge concern for me. It ranks up there as ones that, like, I don't know, if I gave a number, top three or five ways AI could be radically abused. So, go ahead. Jump in.

Scott Rae: Well, it does make the process of creating these viruses much more efficient. And the time necessary to do this is much significantly shortened by using AI to do this. Now, the article points out too, Sean, that, human viruses are much more complex than the ones that are being created in the lab. These are very simple viruses, but, the step from simple to complex doesn't seem like a huge leap to me. I'm not a vir-virologist.

Sean McDowell: Sure.

Scott Rae: But this does not seem like a significant jump. And this, the, again, the concern about AI in my view is not so much what we are doing with it now, but what it opens the door to in the future. And that's, I think, some of those things we've not given adequate thought to.

Sean McDowell: I think it makes the steps easier, and it also democratizes it for more people to be able to do this. And you're right, that step seems simple right now. Well, AI is going to get that much better and more capable. That's a concern about where this is going. But I think you're right. Wesley Smith's point was there's incredible power that comes along with an AI system, and human beings are the ones who should be held accountable for this. So he says, "Scientists are developing the most powerful technologies in history, but we seem to lack the wisdom to do this responsibly." I think of Luke 12:48, where Jesus says, "Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required. And from him whom they entrusted much, they will demand more." And of course, this is the famous Spider-Man ethic, "With great power comes great responsibility." This is a biblical ethic. And his concern is we've never had technology that's more powerful in the history of the world with AI. I tend to think he's right about that.

Scott Rae: Yeah. Lord Acton said it just in reverse, that, you know, power corrupts. And, you know, and extended power tends to corrupt in more extensive ways.

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm. I think that's right. Well, this story you sent to me, [chuckles] Scott, again, I read The New York Times pretty consistently. And by the way, I'm recording this from Vermont, and I got a tour of The New York Times earlier this week from one of the, you might say, directors of a certain division there. And tonight I'm going out with an opinion columnist from The New York Times. It's kind of fun. But this article, I, somehow I missed it. And the title is "When His Church Goes Dark, They Talk to His Digital Twin." So there's a Bay Area pastor named Justin Lester. I've never met him, hadn't heard of him before this. He created an AI duplicate of himself, and he's also helping other people do this. So he announced to his congregation, he said, he said, "I've got a few breakthrough things." and he kind of is somebody who's like, "Technology's here. It's not going anywhere. Let's use it. Let's embrace it to spread the gospel." That seems to be his heart behind this. And he introduces to his congregation his digital twin. So, "Lester and hundreds of others have brought AI into its most human form by transferring their thoughts into data and building online replicas of themselves. The digital twins can answer in the real person's voice, apply their thinking on demand for anyone who wants to chat online or call. Some companies now build twins that sit on Zoom calls for CEOs or manage projects while their owners are on vacation." So Lester, this pastor, cloned his voice, trained his digital twin using almost two million words of his sermons, podcasts, books, text messages, and emails. So he just flooded everything about himself in there. And for the last several months, it's been publicly available, for online chat or phone calls. It even learned to mimic his bent towards optimism and his obsession with the Green Bay Packers and his casual slang, rather than just regurgitating what he'd already said. Now, the this article brings out a lot. This is actually a somewhat long article. But I thought it was interesting that he was somewhat motivated by finding inspiration in the story of Paul, Christ's first great missionary, who was sometimes shipwrecked or imprisoned, so he made letters. So according to the article, he wrote letters to extend his presence so his ideas could travel beyond his body. It's interesting how that's framed in a way that might set you up to accept this. He said, "We gotta stop being scared of AI and start using it as a tool to bring more people to God." And the bottom line is his congregation was growing. He was traveling almost every week. He was preaching. He was writing. And so he's like, "I need to find a way to get my message as the pastor of this church to more people into this church and beyond." And one or two other things about this that's important. He said, quote, "You build credibility..." This is what he built into the instructions for the twin. He said, "You build credibility through first-person statements. Connect personally with language like 'we.' Jesus first. Validate feelings." So he's building his worldview as much as he can into this to reflect his thinking and his reactions. I guess the past few months, he's been in conversation, or at least his twin has, with at least 250 people, mostly from his congregation, but others have found it as well. Now, there's a ton more in this article. He's helping other people build their twins, and it sounds like it's megachurch pastors that are leaning into this. Maybe they have more of the need and the resources to do so. But are we gonna find a Scott Rae twin any time soon so people who can't just ask their questions and get them answered here can call up and talk to you and find out what you think, Scott?

Scott Rae: I'm ready to hit send. [laughs] You know, and Sean, like you, I've never met this person. I've never been to his church. But I've been a pastor, and you and I are both in the business of educating the future generations of pastors. And, you know, I actually found out about this through a Los Angeles-based correspondent for European public television, who interviewed me on Wednesday about-

Sean McDowell: Oh

Scott Rae: ... About this article.

Sean McDowell: Okay.

Scott Rae: And they're, the, this is a French, the the correspondent and her, camera person were, are both French. And it will air in France and Germany next week. So I guess that, I now, I now qualify as an international person-

Sean McDowell: Yeah, let's go

Scott Rae: ... On this. But, you know- I have, Sean, I have great sympathy for this pastor feeling overwhelmed- ... With the needs of his people. You know, I've been a pastor. I know that feeling. And serving his brother church, and I think he's a good-hearted, well-intentioned guy who's committed to serving his people well. And, in general, I think, you know, we've talked about AI is fine for menial tasks around a church, you know, for writing a bulletin, a newsletter, drafting emails, writing copy for announcements, things like that.

Scott Rae: And I think for a pastor, it's probably okay to prime the pump for ideas, maybe assisting research on sermons. But I think to be, to be very, to be careful that what, you open the door to something, that the temptation to use more and more of it will be irresistible. And, I'm, you know, I'm troubled by a twin for the pastor. Now, to be fair, it's not a, it's not a ChatGPT large language model. It's a specific AI program that has been designed around his sermons and

Scott Rae: email correspondence, though I'm not exactly sure I wouldn't want my text messages to be a part of a database like that.

Sean McDowell: [laughs]

Scott Rae: And I think for the most part, Sean, what the twin has set up is, I would call it ins- for information transfer, and not counseling, not spiritual direction, not really anything that is replicating what life-on-life kind of discipleship can actually do. Now, and I would say beware of what we've talked about before, the sycophancy, temptation. The the bot will pro- not likely challenge them. And even I cited there's an example of one person in who had, dialed up the digital twin who was, who had you know, gender change temptations and wrestling with gender dysphoria, and the bot was affirming about God's love and acceptance for them, which is true, but there was not one word of challenge or one word of suggestion that maybe what you are doing will not solve the deeper problems that are mental health oriented, of which the trans stuff is a, is a symptom, not the root cause. Nothing that's nuanced quite like that. Nothing that would be even remotely challenging. And here, if I had my, if I had my druthers, Sean-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Scott Rae: ... I would do instead of this, is that I would equip my elders and some of my staff and volunteers to do this kind of counseling and 'cause, some of it was, some of it was just answers to Bible, sort of a Bible answer man, thing, but a lot of it was counseling for, you know, deeply disturbing things that people are dealing with at 11 o'clock at night when the pastor's asleep. I would rather get real-life people to do this in real life because change happens, Sean, as you know, life on life, in the IRL, in real life relationships and community. And I don't, I don't want this to spread to, you know, maybe a digital twin that's writing his sermons. He he admits he did that one time but doesn't do that regularly. I think the temptation to move this into other areas will be really challenging to resist, and, you know, I you know, I want, I want pastors to wrestle with the text. You know, even the interviewer that I was talking to on Wednesday pointed out one of the difficulties she had with this is that the chatbot has no soul- ... And can't, and can't connect in the same way that a real person's going to do. The twin can't be filled with the Holy Spirit. You know, it just, it can't do things that human beings are designed by God to do, and community was designed to give us. It can't do spiritual formation. It can't do discipleship because that's life on life and sort of in, it's in the moment, input and counseling that you could, it can only happen when it's face to face and life on life.

Sean McDowell: My initial take was exactly the same as yours. I love that The New York Times just covered this guy favorably, respectfully. When I have someone like this who's like, "Let's lean into technology and use it to bring people to the Lord," that's such a deep evangelical [laughs] commitment-

Scott Rae: Exactly

Sean McDowell: ... That we do. Part for me was I was trying to put my finger on what makes me just uneasy about this. Why is this use make me a little hesitant? And as best I could tell, a couple things. One is no matter how hard he tries with texts, emails, sermons, it's not going to capture the response in affect or information exactly as he would. It's just not going to. It'll be close, but it'll never capture it. So it made me wonder, when it does at some point give really bad advice or bad theology, who's responsible here? Is the pastor responsible? Is the church responsible? You and I will remember about maybe it's two years ago now, early on, a large company used artificial intelligent, like bot-type, systems to respond to customer service, and then somebody followed the customer service, this was an airline- And I think it canceled a flight or something like that, and the company tried to argue that the flight is not, they're not responsible for this 'cause they bought the AI, and the court is like, "You set it up."

Scott Rae: Right.

Sean McDowell: "You put in motion. You're responsible." So to me, it I For somebody who knows that anything I say can and will be held against me, and that's true for all of us in our era, that makes me concerned for the pastor and others that use this. So that's one thing that gave me a little bit of pause. Second, and this is probably the pot calling the kettle black, is what seems to be driving this here is efficiency. Efficiency is the value above all else. I need to be efficient. And I look at my life through [laughs] the lens of, like, efficiency and getting stuff done. But at what point does efficiency override another value? Which was, I think, your point earlier, Scott, about saying, this should be done face-to-face, and it's looking in somebody's face and in their eyes and being present with somebody that that healing takes place. Is this an example where efficiency, and because these are megachurch pastors who are good at building systems to get stuff done, where we're dehumanizing something that maybe we shouldn't? That's a question that I would have, and I do wonder, you know, the other thing is, I was asking myself, like, why would I personally not do this? And I thought, am I being hypocritical here? Because I make YouTube videos, and I want people to watch that content. And so in some ways, I'm putting myself out there more for people. But then the obvious thing hit me. In a YouTube video, I'm not pretending to have a conversation with a person who's watching it. They're watching as a third person, and I'm hopefully modeling and mentoring for them. This goes a step further, as if they're talking to me. And as much as I would like to think that people go, "Oh, I know I'm not talking to this pastor"... I mean, a friend of mine said to me one time when he was listening to Alexa, he goes, you know that Amazon digital assistant. He's like, "You ever find yourself yelling at Alexa?"

Scott Rae: [laughs]

Sean McDowell: He goes, "It's a machine. It's an algorithm." But we humanize it. How is this going to affect their perceived relationship with the pastor? Is that healthy? I at least minimally have some questions about that.

Scott Rae: You know, Sean, one of the really interesting parts of this interview that I had on Wednesday was, one of the questions she asked me was, "Do you think there will ever come a day when we will, when we will be asked to respond to a digital Jesus?"

Sean McDowell: [laughs]

Scott Rae: And I told her, "That's already happened."

Sean McDowell: Right.

Scott Rae: That's already out there on the market. And she asked, "Yes, what do you think Jesus would think about this?" And I, and I thought, you know, Jesus, he was so concerned about being authentic and so concerned about being present and having face-to-face contact with people. I, you know, I can't imagine that this would go over well with the second person of the Trinity. You know, and the other, the other thing I thought about, and this was, actually terrifying to me, is I wonder if some of the folks in his church or in the churches where he's equipping pastors to have a digital twin might have a digital twin for themselves to do some of the work of parenting.

Sean McDowell: Oh. [laughs]

Scott Rae: I mean, talk about a need for efficiency. You know, I wonder if when, you know, especially for, especially for a single parent, when, you know, they're out of town or, you know, or otherwise unavailable. I hope that day would never come, but you know, Sean, there are a lot of things that two years ago we didn't think AI was gonna do. And I, this, I, you know, I'd like to say I wouldn't be surprised, but I don't think I would be if that came down the pike.

Sean McDowell: I think that's fair. I, you know, the theological argument here about Paul's not being present and writing letters so he could extend his presence, so ideas could travel beyond his body, I have a hard time believing that Paul would jump on this technology as well. First off, Paul is inspired, and he's writing letters from God as an apostle, so we should copy his [laughs] messages and distribute them as widely as possible. I'm not sure that applies to all the rest of us in the same way. It's also, it's static. These are letters that are static and are fixed, and we interpret and understand them rather than asking questions and they come back. So there's just some differences there that the theological justification doesn't convince me.

Scott Rae: Yeah. Paul wrote 2 Corinthians in response to interaction that he got from his 1 Corinthians letter. And, you know, he wrote again trying to clarify those things. But Sean, this is the same reason we write books, to extend our influence. It's why you do YouTube videos, to extend-

Sean McDowell: That's right

Scott Rae: ... Your influence.

Sean McDowell: And this podcast.

Scott Rae: But, yeah And but we're not pretending to be somebody we're not, and that's, I think, you know... Now, to be fair, this pastor is he's doing, he's giving full disclosure at every step.

Sean McDowell: That's right. That's a good point.

Scott Rae: And I commend him for that, and I think that's one of the guardrails that you have to have if you're going to use it in a, in a local church or in a pastorate.

Sean McDowell: Well, someday in the future, we might try the twin Scott doing this episode with me. So if any of you suspect listening to this, I think that's really Sean, but that might be [laughs] a twin of Scott. Shoot us an email, and we'll verify if he's really here and present or not.

Scott Rae: Well, and this, the pastor, the the digital twin that he's- You know, he's constructed, has probably 12 or 15 different personas-

Sean McDowell: Oh, that's right

Scott Rae: ... That he uses. So, you'd also have to figure out which persona of me you're using.

Sean McDowell: Ooh, now I'm intrigued.

Scott Rae: All right.

Sean McDowell: All right, folks. Let us know if you want a twin of Scott or not. Send us a message on that one. We're gonna shift to question answers, but there's a story, I think you maybe wanna just comment on this briefly. It was significant enough, to bring up this story coming out of Canada.

Scott Rae: Yeah.

Sean McDowell: So maybe give us a quick take on that.

Scott Rae: Sure. This is a really interesting story that came out of the Canadian military, where chaplains in the Canadian military, are now prohibited from, invoking the name of God or other religious language in public events, at official events like military ceremonies, commemorations. And if they're asked to pray at a public event while serving as a representative of the Canadian military, they're told to instead offer a spiritual reflection without religious specific language. And this, as you might expect, this got quite a reaction that, you know, evangelicals and conservative politicians have reacted to this, that while government is attempting to be inclusive and not favor any particular religious tradition, it's actually being exclusive. And it's, it goes, it actually goes beyond banning prayer and even prohibits the acknowledgement to those gathered that some may believe in the divine and others would not. And it restricts the spiritual reflection of chaplains to secularist and characteristically humanist expressions. And I think there's, you know, there's merit to this, Sean, because, they are, they are privileging secularism as a, as the worldview that will govern the military and privileging that over any specific religious expression. And, you know, they, the Chaplains Association has suggested a better approach would be to include various traditions by rotating through chaplains of different faiths, that, when there are public events. But, it doesn't... Now, prayer from a different faith does not mean that we have to agree with it, but it means, it doesn't mean we're required to participate or follow along. But it does ask, people who are of religious convictions to put their faith under a bushel basket, and it neuters the language of God in the public square. So this, I think, you know, we've had issues, I think, in the past with Canadians restricting religious freedom in a way that would be completely incompatible with the First Amendment in the United States. And I think this, Sean, this may be another example of this. My primary take on this was that the idea, of state neutrality on religion, which is being expressed here, is a total myth.

Sean McDowell: Right.

Scott Rae: The public square will never be neutral. Secularism is not neutral. It has a world- it's a worldview that I think we would both agree has, its advocates have certain religious overtones when they express it. So I I'd wanna, I'd, I wanna suggest, you know, this is something to watch out for, if it comes south of the border. I think with the current administration and the current Secretary of Defense that we have, this is unlikely to take any root in the United States. But perhaps in future administrations may see that really differently. Your take on that?

Sean McDowell: Well, I don't disagree with that. I just, my heart and prayer goes out to our Canadian brothers and sisters, what they've had to navigate with MAID. I was speaking there this past year, and

Scott Rae: Medical aid in dying.

Sean McDowell: Yes. Thank you. And they're navigating of what seems to be, like, serious tension between their faith and between what's being regulated from the top down. Here's another example of this. So more than anything else, praying for them. If you're from Canada, and you listen to this, and you have thoughts or reflections that you feel like, "Yeah, maybe these two Americans are missing it," shoot us a note to give us some insight about this. But it's something to watch for, and it's a, it's a concerning trend. So I appreciate you bringing it up. Let's shift. We got two questions today. First, before I go to questions, friends, if you've thought about studying with us at Talbot, we would absolutely unmistakably love to have you. Programs in theology, philosophy, Old Testament, New Testament, apologetics, spiritual formation, marriage and family. We have campuses in Southern California and a new campus opening this fall in Phoenix. Talbot Phoenix. We would love to have you. Two questions here. First one is in reaction to the episode with Dr. Craig and Dr. Baggott. The person says, "If objective morality exists, why do intelligent and sincere people, including Christians, disagree about particular moral issues? Capital punishment, divorce, alcohol, whatever. Does widespread moral disagreement challenge the moral argument for God?" And Scott, I would quickly address this one.

Scott Rae: Go for it.

Sean McDowell: I'd say there's a difference between the existence of moral truth and the application of moral truth. When people are differing over capital punishment, they're typically saying, "The death penalty is morally right," or, "The death penalty is morally wrong." There's agreement behind that on rightness and wrongness, even though we differ over its application, which only makes sense to have that debate if there's right and if there's wrong. So the moral argument is not landing what particular position you should take on an issue. It's just simply saying that there is objective right and wrong. We all know it. And if so, the best explanation is God. CS Lewis argued in Mere Christianity, he said, "People don't differ over these moral basic principles. They differ over the facts." So like the unborn debate, to the example earlier, both sides, for the most part, are going to agree that it's wrong to take the life of an innocent, vulnerable human person, but we're gonna differ over the status of the personhood of the unborn. So we're different over the facts, different over its nature, not the moral principle behind it. Anything you wanna add to that?

Scott Rae: Just one thing. We have lots of disagreement in science, but that doesn't make science less, any less objective, and the same holds true for morality.

Sean McDowell: Well said. In history as well, there's disagreement. Nothing follows from disagreement for there not being a truth. Great point. All right, there's one question about my conversation with Shabi Kestenbaum, who's an Orthodox Jew who works with, PragerU, went to Harvard University. We had a... It was one of the bonus episodes in July about, Jesus the Messiah and antisemitism today. The person says they appreciated the kindness and respect but wondered if I should have pushed back more, and how should Christians respond when a Jewish guest rejects Jesus Messiah and also the idea of Jewish believers in Jesus? My take is I haven't gone back and listened to this episode, and the listener might be right. There might have been points where I should have pushed back more. I don't know. Basically, every conversation I have, [laughs] at points I'm like, "You know what? Did I push too hard here? Should I have let that go, or did I not push hard enough?" This is an ongoing dialogue I'm having with myself. I just had a conversation this morning with somebody, and, I'm still asking myself, "Did I clarify enough? Did I push back?" And so, I don't have a simple answer for you. I'm glad you watched that and wondered if I should have pushed back more. I can't sim... I don't have an answer for you, but I think if we have a third conversation, I've talked with Shabi, there's enough relationship there that I think we could go even deeper and really push back, and he could take it. Any thoughts on that one, Scott?

Scott Rae: Well, I think, yeah. I think just one. I think the point is we wanna win a person, not just win an argument. And if we win an argument and lose the person, in my view, we've lost.

Sean McDowell: Well said. There's truth and there's relationships, and maybe in this one I didn't push back hard enough. That's fair, but we gotta keep both in balance and trust God's working in people's hearts. In my conversation with him, I didn't actually [laughs] sense any openness on his part. One of the questions I remember asking was, "Have you really examined and taken seriously the claims that Jesus might be the Messiah?" And the response, as I remember it, was kind of like, "I've got my mind made up. I'm not open to that. It's not even a possibility." That's how I heard it, and so sometimes that frames-

Scott Rae: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... The way I'm gonna approach a conversation. But, I appreciate the thoughtfulness that you listened with that in mind. I think that's wonderful. Good stuff. All right, Scott, great conversation. It's good

Scott Rae: Stuff

Sean McDowell: ... Back in the saddle, man. I missed this-

Scott Rae: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... In June and July, and, looking forward to next week already.

Scott Rae: Same for me.

Sean McDowell: It's been an episode of the podcast Think Biblically: Conversations on Faith and Culture, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. As I mentioned, we have programs online and in person in Southern California and Phoenix in theology, Bible, apologetics, spiritual formation, and more. We'd love to have you join, even if it's one class at a time. Get the ball moving forward. Please keep your comments and questions coming. You can email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu, and we'd be honored and grateful if you'd give us a quick rating on your podcast app and consider sharing this with a friend. 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]