Cultural Update: Risks of Marijuana Use; China Reverses One-Child Policy; AI Podcast Hosts

Topics this week:

• Growing concerns about the rising potency and , with increasing reports of psychosis and addiction.
• China reverses its one-child policy, now promoting larger families in a dramatic policy shift to combat declining birth rates.
• AI technology is advancing with , raising ethical questions about its impact on emotions, information accuracy, and human interaction.
• Listener questions on the challenges of politics in church and balancing celebration with sensitivity during holidays like Mother's Day.

Episode Transcript

Scott: As marijuana use grows, so does its potency and some of the harms that are coming to light. China has a new policy on families and children and a new artificial intelligence app that is pretty remarkable, and maybe something else that we ought to think about too. We'll cover these stories and answer your questions. I'm your host, Scott Rae.

Sean: And I'm your co-host, Sean McDowell.

Scott: This is the Think Biblically Weekly Cultural Update brought to you by Talbot School of Theology here at 51����. Sean, I think these are some of the best stories we've had in a really long time.

Sean: I agree.

Scott: And I'm super excited about getting into these. Here's the first one of these. “Marijuana Use Grows in Both its Frequency and in its Intensity.” This is reported in the New York Times on Monday. From coast to coast, psychiatrists and physicians are treating rising numbers of people whose use of marijuana has brought on delusions, paranoia, and other symptoms of psychosis. And in emergency rooms, out of small community hospitals, and large academic medical centers, physicians are encountering patients with severe vomiting and a potentially devastating condition that was rare, but now they say is rather common. As marijuana legalization has accelerated across the country, doctors are contending now with the effects of an explosion in the use of the drug and its intensity. A $33 billion industry, the cannabis industry, is turning out a range of ever-expanding cannabis products that are so intoxicating that they bear little resemblance to the marijuana of a generation ago. Now, it's true that tens of millions of Americans use marijuana for recreational or medical purposes, most of them without problems. But with more people consuming more potent cannabis more often, a growing number, mostly chronic users, are enduring really serious health consequences. This accumulating harm is broader and more severe than anybody's ever noticed or reported, and so are the misconceptions about addiction and about the risks. And the users and the general public—I think what's come out of this for me, Sean—are dramatically under-informed about the risk. The industry's not doing it, government's not doing it, and I think users are coming into this without full disclosure on what they might be getting into. Now, I suspect you have opinions on this. So Sean, tell me, what's your reaction to this article coming out of the New York Times?

Sean: Well, one of my first reactions is just heartbreak. I mean, the amount of people reading this that have bought some of the myths and lies and cultural narratives about marijuana, and the pain they're going through is harrowing. I mean, some of these people, like, just, this guy…I don't understand medically how this use of marijuana causes this condition that the article talks about, but that heat reduces it. And people who've scalded themselves in bathtubs that are hot, pushing themselves against hot cars, the number of people who have died because of this, and no one's talking about it. I read it, and I'm like, oh my goodness, these people thought they were just taking something to relieve stress, relieve pain, and it cost them their job in some cases, cost them their health in some cases, and cost them their lives. So, as much as some of this stuff angers me, we have to respond with, just, some compassion that these are real individuals here. Now, with that said, this article points out some of the cultural myths that have been propagated and believed and claimed on this. So, on the first page, it says many users believe, for instance, that people cannot become addicted to cannabis, but millions do. And as far as I understand, it's not as addictive as some other drugs and tobacco, but as addictive doesn't mean not addictive. And somehow that message has not gotten across to people, even though it's been known for a long time. That's myth number one. You keep going on this, and it has myth number two and three. It says cannabis—and they're talking about the myths in the culture—should not have a free pass to something that is safe because it's legal. The assumption in people's minds is, well, if it's legal, it's not that harmful. Well, something can be legal and harmful, and something can be illegal and not that harmful for different reasons. That's irrelevant. They also said that another myth is, it's safe because it's natural. There's this kind of sense of, like, it's organic and it comes from nature, so it can't harm me. There's a lot of stuff in nature that obviously can harm us. That's another myth. And then it gets to a myth number four. Proponents also argued that a regulated market would be safer and generate tax revenues. Well, sure, it's generated tax revenues, but if this article is right, the amount of lives and suffering and pain, which cannot be calculated in dollars, overrides that. But also, I wonder if somebody did, just, a financial comparison, I think it probably would be a lot worse than the tax revenue if we were just looking at this financially. And it's not safer now that it's regulated. I think we've seen in many states some of the illegal industries that push this get even bigger because they can make it cheaper than the state. And, also, the amount of THC increases—in the 1990s, they said it contained about 5%, and now, in some cases, it's 99%. I mean, that's incredible to me. And so, I'm partly reading this, Scott, going, okay, where did these myths come from? And I went back to my first book that I wrote. So, it came out in 2006. I wrote it in 2005, and I've not mentioned it because it's already out of print. I would tell listeners, don't go get this book, Ethix. But I had a section on marijuana, and I cited a number of articles two decades ago about the effect on the body, the effect on the brain, the effect on energy, on memory. Like, even two decades ago, there was sufficient evidence out of the health risks, in particular for younger people. So, I see this article in the New York Times and I go, good, we need to talk about this. The final message is we need to educate people. And the other part of me says, why are we talking about this now? This should have been told to people so long ago. And they say this kind of drug is the kind of one where doctors—and I'm not condemning doctors, this is just the quote in the book. That it's the only kind of drug we give people and we kind of say, well, let me know how this works out for you. At least, again, according to the article. I don't know how many actual doctors do that, but that's the narrative behind it. And I just look at this, I go, wait a minute. This article is kind of speaking out of two sides of its mouth. It says most people aren't affected by this. Fine. They're kind of in favor of Biden's push towards making it unregulated. Fine. And then there's these harrowing stories of all these people affected by it. And there's a tension here. Why can't we just say this is damaging? We should have seen it a long time ago. We still don't know all the effects of this. Like, that bothers me on this article. So, bottom line, glad the New York Times is talking about this, but it should have been talked about a long time ago. None of this data really surprises me that much.

Scott: Well, Sean, I'll be very interested to see what kind of warnings, what kind of education, will be undertaken by the federal and state governments as a result of this data that's coming out. Here's one of the things that their surveys have showed, is that they estimate roughly 18 million people, nearly a third of all users ages 18 and up, have reported symptoms of some of these problems. Now, what this suggests is that these users continue to use the drug despite significant negative effects on their lives. Now, it says, of these, about three million of these people are considered addicted. But I don't know—maybe they don't meet the technical definition of addicted, but I would think that people who continue to use something despite repeated negative effects on their lives meet some sort of definition of addiction. Now, again, this is not true for everybody. Alcohol has different effects on different people. Some people are alcoholics. Most people drink alcohol without incident. But that doesn't mean that there aren't serious risks for some people who need to be informed of what some of those risks are. Now, I think about this biblically too. There's one place where the Bible talks about being under the influence of substances. Ephesians 5:18 says, "Do not be drunk with wine, but instead be filled with the Holy Spirit." Now, what that suggests is that if you are under the influence of substances that mess with you mentally as drunkenness does, as drug use does, and now what we're seeing as marijuana can do too, since the intent is actually to get high, unless it's used for medical reasons—now, that's an exception to that—but being under the influence of substances can short circuit being under the influence of the Holy Spirit. I think that's the point in Ephesians 5 of having those two admonitions being right side by side, is that they're related. And obviously, our desire is to be as best we can, in most circumstances as we can, under the influence of the Holy Spirit. And if there are things that are short circuiting that, I think those are things, if we're thinking biblically about this, that we ought to be careful about.

Sean: Good word. I love that. I've got a couple other things that jump out to me on this. It will be interesting to see where this goes. Like, if the New York Times, who had another article on this, at least this week, talking about the people harmed by persistent marijuana use…Where is this going to go culturally, when the New York Times is pushing back on this left progressive idea that marijuana should be legal? What I'd like to see is a commercial like the one in the 80s that says, "This is your brain," and then takes the egg, "This is your brain on drugs." That is, to me, one of the best commercials of all time that stuck with me. Why aren't there commercials pointing out, this is when you use marijuana consistently, and sadly seeing some of the people, how they've responded to that, and the guy throwing himself against a hot car and getting burned? Not that I want people to see that. That's not my point. But to realize that jarring image in their mind: whoa, this really messes with you. I think the reason we won't is because the article says it's a $33 billion industry now. So, there's so many factors behind at play. But I hope we can gain a cultural pushback on it like we have smoking. I think maybe we've made some progress there, but we'll see. The other piece, thinking biblically about this, marijuana is not really the root of the problem, it's the fruit of the problem. This article talks a lot about the growth in mental illness, anxiety and depression, broken relationships. One girl, she said she started to use some marijuana, I think when she was 15. She said, "It was just able to give me a little bit of peace." So, really, she was broken and hurting in her life, and this is what she saw as a solution. It's just a reminder that the church, we have an opportunity to not only talk about mental health, but what it means to function as individuals well relationally and spiritually, and our beliefs set, and just be a haven for people that are hurting. I would love to see the church lean more and more into this and get to the root of the issue. And so, am I surprised that it's been increasing? Of course not, because we've seen depression and anxiety increase, and the cultural narrative is, well, marijuana can help. And I want to say, you know what, let's get to the root of the issue. What's causing anxiety in your life? What does it mean to have the peace of Christ, where Paul can be in prison and write a book about joy called Philippians? That's getting to the root of the issue. And if we really want to help people, that's what we need to do as a church.

Scott: Amen. That's a good last word on that story. Ready for another one?

Sean: Ready or not, I suspect you're bringing it. [laughs]

Scott: Yeah, I am bringing it. This is what I would call the great reversal, which is China's new pro-child policy reported again in the New York Times on Tuesday. After decades, Sean, of one child policy that was designed to curb explosive population growth in China, they have reversed course. They are faced now with a declining population that's threatening their economic growth, and they have undertaken measures to urge—some would say coerce—women and couples into having more children. Now, this is true not only in China, but in other Western countries particularly. Growing concern globally about declining birth rates and some of the demographic consequences that all this brings. But in China, government officials are going door to door to ask women about their plans for marriage and for childbirth. They partner with universities to develop courses on a positive view of marriage and childbearing. And at many high profile political gatherings, officials are spreading this message about having children wherever they can. It's being referred to as an in-your-face approach by government, which, of course, has a long history of invasive policies to control population. On social media, women have complained about being approached by neighborhood officials, including some who even called to ask them about the date of their last menstrual period. Now, the heart of this work falls to government family planning associations, which is a network of thousands of offshoots embedded in villages, workplaces, city neighborhoods. They're all over the place, Sean. And for decades, these were the main bodies that enforced their one child policy. But now, they are working instead to promote what they're calling a new fertility culture. So, this is an essential conflict between government's campaign for a new marriage and childbirth culture versus the people's growing view that decisions about childbearing are essentially something that's private and outside of the reach of government, something government, of course, sees very differently. So, I've got some thoughts on this, but this is a huge reversal of policy in China, not surprising nor unexpected, given that China is leading the world in its declining birth rates. So, your take?

Sean: I've got a lot of thoughts on this one. So, the article says, "Faced with a declining population that threatens economic growth, the Chinese government responded with a time-tested tactic, inserting itself into this most intimate of choices for women: whether or not to have a child." In other words, what started this whole thing was the top-down control of the Chinese government, rooted in its Marxist atheist beliefs that it could control the outcomes in society by controlling families, as if human beings are like bricks they can move to get the result that they want. But the problem is not only does top-down control fail—here we see it economically, we see it with the family in so many areas—but it fails to recognize that human beings have souls, and make choices and act for their interests. The government of China has not recognized that historically because of its Marxist roots. Well, it seems like maybe they are now. The next line says, "Officials are not just going door to door to ask women about their plans. They have partnered with universities to develop courses on having, quote, 'a positive view of marriage and childbearing.'" So now, they're actually trying to not just force people, they're trying to persuade people, which recognizes that they're not just physical machines part of a system, but they actually have souls. Well, my question would be, what is that positive view of marriage in a Marxist system? How are they going to persuade people? Well, the next line…this woman who's a delegate from the All-China Women's Federation says, quote, "I always feel as a woman, if you've done your time on this earth and haven't given birth to another life, that's a real pity." Okay, that's the narrative to motivate women and families to have kids, that if you lived in this life and haven't given birth, it's a pity. That's not going to motivate anybody to sacrifice time and money and sleep to have children. It's just such a truncated view of the purpose of giving birth. Now, of course, there's a Christian response to this, but the article says in the U.S. now, birth rates have dropped to 1.62 this past year. It dropped to 1.7 around 2007, around the economic collapse. Now it's 1.62. And, Scott, I started thinking about this—you might disagree with me on this take and push back, obviously feel free to—where does the idea that we should have less kids come from? And honestly, Scott, I think it's a satanic idea. Satan is a liar and he's a murderer. If he can lie to people and say, you don't need…at least for most people, not all. There's a value and beauty and goodness of singleness we've talked about. But for most people, their deepest satisfaction in life, their deepest meaning, their deepest joy is not their job and their finances and their possessions, but it's their kids and their grandkids. If I can lie and tell them they don't really need to do that, then I don't actually have to be a murderer and kill a bunch of people in the future, because they're not even going to be born. I can cut it off at the beginning, so to speak. So, in some ways, I think it's a satanic lie. I'm not just picking on China. We're seeing this all over the world and in the Western world and people in the U.S. picking up on this. The other thing I would say—and then I'm really curious if you think I'm crazy on this or not—is here's what they write. They say in the article, "There's no sign that the government intervention has come close to the excesses of the one-child era." That feels like, to me, since this is in the New York Times, that they're giving China the benefit of the doubt. I'm not willing to do so. Not the Chinese people. Not my point at all. Beautiful, amazing people, of course. But what happens when this new era and the way I framed it before that basically says, if you don't have a child, well, that's a bummer, doesn't persuade people? What comes next when they need children into the future? And I have to give full credit to John Stonestreet for this, because he talked about this last week on his cultural update at BreakPoint. He said, "Number one is, we shift to forced birth." He said, "I think we will see," and I think he's probably right, “within our lifetime,” Scott, “China going from the one-child policy to two, and then about three or four years go, to three, to literally forcing people to have kids.” So, they went from forcing women to have abortions to now probably, or realistically, forcing them to give birth. The other option on the table, and you might think I'm nuts about this one, is cloning. Cloning. Now, why do I say this? This is an article. This came up in The Guardian, and it says, "A U.S. man, 81, sentenced to six months for creating, through cloning, giant hybrid sheep in Montana for hunting." We've come a long way since Dolly, like 25 or 30 years ago. If the Chinese government needs babies, and this persuasive campaign doesn't work, they're going to try to do forced birth. I would not be surprised if they started using cloning that's come a long ways to try to have kids. Now, I'm less confident in that last one, but when they become desperate, that seems like it's an option on the table they might consider. Do you think I'm crazy in my take on this article?

Scott: Sort of.

[laughter]

Sean: Okay, fair enough.

Scott: Let me sort of start with this. There's one thing about this that I'm encouraged about.

Sean: Okay.

Scott: And that is that the Chinese government is seeing marriage and childbirth as going together, which I think is a good sign that they're not expecting single women to have children apart from marriage and family. So, that's, I think, a good thing to come out of this. I, like you, am troubled by the coerciveness of this. It's already, I think, become too intrusive in families' life. My guess is the next thing that they will try, say, five years from now, if the trend hasn't changed, they will try more explicit financial incentives for people to have children. I think that's probably a better option than the cloning one, because I'm not even sure that cloning is going to work in human beings. I have grave reservations about that. And we've had plenty of time to pull it off technologically. But that's another story for another day.

Sean: Sure.

Scott: The thing that I'm really troubled about by this is the parallel that I see people drawing with the restrictions on abortion rights in the United States. And I think what I see is what both of those have in common, that advocates of abortion rights in the U.S. are saying, is that look at how intrusive it is when government interferes with a woman's private decisions about childbearing and family life. Now, of course, there's a huge difference in this, because that equation assumes that the unborn are not persons with the right to life. Since they are, it's simply just not a private decision entirely that has no impact on anyone else. And it's only by begging the question and basically assuming the conclusion that the unborn are not full person, does that argument, that parallel, make any sense at all. But that's what I would encourage all listeners to watch for in the days to come as this emphasis in China becomes more public and reaches more global outlets. If people make that explicit parallel, look what the Chinese are doing, we're doing the same thing here with restricting abortion rights. Now, to think biblically about this, I'm not so sure that we are obligated to have as many children as we can possibly have. I think the notion that children are a gift, which we've talked about repeatedly, comes from Psalm 127. And, granted, children were a gift in the ancient world differently than the way they're gifts today. I mean, children in the ancient world were primarily economic assets. And that's not true today. And I think that's one of the reasons why people around the world are so hesitant to see children as an asset, because they see them largely as financial liabilities. Now, culturally, of course, depending on the system you're in, children, I think, can be seen as productive assets, maybe not to an individual family, but to a society in general. I think that clearly is the case. But I think I would not say that necessarily attempts to limit the number of children you have. I think that can be a responsible decision based on your stewardship of resources and stewardship of your time and energy. I can't imagine—I could be wrong about this—that I would be as good a parent to six children as I was to three. So, I'm not sure it follows necessarily that just because children are a gift, we're obligated to have as many as we can possibly have.

Sean: That's a fair point, and I wouldn't say we're obligated to have as many as we could possibly have. But here's one thing I know about you, Scott. If you had six kids, you would have been a great dad to all six. You would have figured it out. Maybe you would have had to sacrifice in different ways, and unexpected things would come out. But I have zero doubt—I mean zero, not even 0.1% doubt—that you'd have been a fantastic dad to all six of them. If you had 12, you'd have figured out a way to do it. And so, I think, I just, look, I'm at this stage—

Scott: I appreciate that. I appreciate that, by the way.

Sean: Well, yeah, I mean, it's true. I don't have any doubt about that. I guess I'm at the stage where a number of my friends had one and two kids. And they've said things to us like, you know, you're really lucky you have one more 12 year old—we have three kids—who's still coming up. Nobody told them when they were younger—not that you're obliged to have as many kids as ever—as you get older, your greatest joy is going to come from your kids. And you'll never regret having one more. And so, you and I could debate this and differ on it, but I think the commandment in Genesis to multiply and fill the earth, I think that still applies. But nonetheless, I think there are cultural ideas that have seeped into the church where we make too much of an economic trade off with our kids rather than just saying, you know what, be irresponsible. Figure it out, find a way. I mean, when we started having kids, it was like, I don't know how we're going to do this. And I took extra speaking things, and my wife and I just figured it out. Now, I'm not saying there's not times for people where it's difficult. I get that. But I would push more people towards saying have more kids, pass on your faith. This is a biblical calling, and you're going to find joy for it and find a way to love these kids. And I promise you, you won't regret it. That's how I tend to look at it. Now, one last thing from this article, Scott, I thought was interesting is, I want to talk about kind of the worldview that's embedded within this. There's kind of this atheistic Marxist worldview that sees kids solely through an economic lens. Like, that's it. But the last line, on one office's windows in China, 14 different posters promoted marriage and children. It said, quote, "Life is the continuation of love,” showing a young couple playing with three children. That's not an atheistic idea. That is not a Marxist idea. That's a broadly biblical idea, that at the root of the universe is love. We've been made to love God, and we've been made to love others. So, the positive part of this article is, I pause, I go, wait a minute. It's like, we see these biblical truths bubbling up in the most unexpected places, because we live in God's world and it's written on our heart that relationship and love is what brings the most meaning. That's my positive takeaway from this.

Scott: Well, and maybe the advance of the gospel in China over the last couple of decades, maybe that's some of the fruit that we're seeing of that possibility. All right. This is story number three. I can't wait to get into this. It's entitled, "A New Podcast That Will Blow Your Mind." And actually, the story actually did just that for me. This was reported in the Wall Street Journal on Monday. And the author starts out like this, "’Have you heard about the latest hit podcast? It's called A Deep Dive. You have to check it out.’ So I did. Each show in there is a chatty 10 minute conversation about any topic you could possibly imagine. The hosts are geniuses. Their voices are soothing. Their banter is charming. They sound like the kind of people you want to hang out with, but you can't. As it turns out, these podcast hosts aren't real people. Their voices are entirely AI generated, and so is everything they say.” And the author concludes this quote with, "And I can't stop listening to them." It's also useful. It's easy. It's free. All you need to do is drag a file, drop a link, dump text into a free tool called NotebookLM put out by Google, which can take any chunk of information and make it an entertaining, accessible conversation. Google calls it an audio overview, but I think we would probably just call it a podcast. And they quote the host of a very popular business history podcast called Acquired, who summarized it like this, "I don't know whether to be amazed or terrified." And I think that was my reaction to it as well. This is incredible, remarkable technology that's come out. And I would encourage our listeners to try it, check it out. But I suspect, Sean, you have cautions and concerns about it, as well as appreciating the magnitude of the technological leap forward that this is.

Sean: So, I have three quick reflections, and then my thoughts from actually making some of these podcasts. Number one, this technology is compelling and fascinating. I was blown away at what people made in God's image with their creativity and intelligence could do. What a testimony to, just, God's good gift of creativity, that we can make fake podcasts that are actually interesting by loading a file into this. Like, if you told me this when I was a kid, I wouldn't even know how to make sense of it. I think it's incredible. And then it says, this person writes, "The more I listen, the more I feel like I'm becoming friends with the host. It's the first time I've actually viscerally liked an AI. They're fun, thoughtful." And that just hit me as a reminder that AI is not just about our minds. It can start to affect our sentiments. It can affect our emotions. It can, in a sense, humanize AI in ways and blur the distinctions between humans and machines and robots and AI. I'm not saying that's bad. I'm saying we've got to consistently be fighting back at that, to not dehumanize ourselves and humanize technology. Another thing that jumped out is that how do we bring the utility and magic of AI to people with as little work as possible? I thought, well, I love that. I don't want to spend any necessary work on things I don't need to. But also, our technology affects us. Can it make us lazy? Can it make us to expect things simple and quick that should take more time and appreciate them? I appreciate this because I know what it's like to put a podcast together with you and do this for seven years. And so, it can affect us in that way. Technology is not neutral. Now, with that said, I decided to actually put this into practice. And the first thing I did is I had a debate that posts today with Michael Shermer, a really well-known skeptic, for almost two hours. I took a chapter of his book, threw it in there, and it made a 12-minute podcast and explained his thoughts on the origins of moral truth through evolution in a really creative, interesting, compelling fashion. I was like, this was helpful. I listened to it. I was, like, making dinner. I was, like, great. So I thought, well, I'll go a step further. And so then I took the marijuana article that we talked about earlier. I threw it in there and it was a 12-minute podcast. And it was actually more interesting than listening to the full article on New York Times that has one voice for 25 minutes. So I was like, this is a more interesting way. And then I read something. This is on the NotebookLM website. “It's important to remember that these generated discussions are not a comprehensive or objective view of a topic, but simply a reflection of the sources that you've uploaded.” In other words, they're saying, we are not bringing in any additional information to this. These podcasts simply reflect the sources. So, I thought, you know what? I'm just going to go straight to Mein Kampf and load it and see what it says. So, I took the first two chapters of Mein Kampf I found online, and I told my wife, I said, I think I just got flagged by the FBI.

[laughter]

Sean: Oops. Now the cat's out of the bag. And by the way, it was on a photographed PDF. So, think about this, you could just take a picture of a page and load it. You can do this with YouTube videos. You can do it with a blog. And what happens is, I'm playing it out loud, and it's telling the story of him losing his father, moving to Vienna and discovering Marxism and Jews. And you see his animosity and his hatred develop. But the commentators are not telling it from the perspective of Mein Kampf. And by the way, they called it Mein Kampf. So, you know, sometimes it's like, wait a minute, there are certain things that pop up and you know it's not real. But my wife and I are like, wait a minute, this is not true. They are framing this in a certain way. Which, I actually appreciated where they're saying you can see his, you know, hatred for Jews emerging here, it's so unfortunate. And I thought, well, I agree with that. But now we know this is not just the document itself like it said. This is processing it in a certain way. Now, when it comes to Mein Kampf, I was like, great, the podcast was awesome. And it framed it the way that it should. Then I thought, I wonder what happens if I throw the Bible in there. So, I took a full PDF of the book of Galatians and loaded it in there. And here's what I found. I think it was a 12 minute podcast. And the first eight minutes were awesome. It describes who Paul is, why he wrote this letter, his understanding between a Jewish view and a Christian view of the law. It goes into Hagar, like, it goes into Ishmael. Like, it tells the whole thing. And then when it gets to the end and offers a solution, here's what it says. These are the two podcast hosts. And by the way, our audience needs to know that there's, like, a guy who has this great radio voice, and this girl, and they go back and forth and it sounds conversational. I think if somebody heard this and didn't know what it was, they might not even know that it's fake for a while, is my suspicion. That's how good and interesting it is. But then they asked this question. They said, “What are we getting freedom from?” And this is based on only loading Galatians. Now, if you've read Galatians, it's about a false gospel. That's Galatians 1:8. And we have freedom from the law and freedom from the flesh to love God and love others. That's the root of it. Here's what they say. “It's about being embraced right where we are, flaws and all. It makes it harder to judge, condemn, to draw lines in the sand between us and them. It's like Paul's whole message is pointing us toward a different way of being in the world marked by grace, compassion.” And here it is, Scott, “And this radical inclusivity that breaks down all the barriers we try to erect between ourselves. That message we need today more than ever, don't you think, in a world that is so quick to divide, to polarize, to demonize anyone who sees things differently?” I'm sorry, but that is not the message of Galatians. That's ridiculous. So, when they write again, quote, “These are generated discussions, not comprehensive. It's simply a reflection of the sources you've loaded.” I'm calling nonsense on NotebookLM. False. Now, that doesn't mean there's not value to it. That means I hit a huge pause in this. And I was about to recommend that pastors use this and Bible teachers and parents use this. I thought, I better do it myself. And I listened to this and I had two thoughts. Number one, I thought, well, someone could take this technology and then use it for good, not framed this way. And I hope Google gets a lot of pushback like they did on some of their earlier technology that had DEI, I think, nonsense worked into it. I hope they get the same thing here, because there's the roots of a good technology, but there's a worldview embedded in this and it's not one favorable to a Christian worldview. I hate to say it.

Scott: Yeah, I think at times we need to remember that AI can stand for allegedly inaccurate.

Sean: [laughs]

Scott: And I think this is the case here. It’s a good example of that.

Sean: But it’s not just inaccurate.

Scott: It’s bias, yeah.

Sean: It’s telling a narrative. That’s the difference.

Scott: Now, I tried it too. And I put in the article that we just talked about, about China and their birthrights.

Sean: Oh! All right.

Scott: And I got a really interesting five minute conversation between a man and a woman. It didn't sound robotic, but it wasn't totally perfect and polished either. I mean, they had a few places where they hesitated, where they stammered a bit. Then, you know, just sort of like normal human beings do, they had pauses, hesitations. And what it didn't have was the stuff, I think, that makes conversation really what it is. It didn't have humor.

Sean: Yeah.

Scott: And it didn't have the kind of going off script that makes things really entertaining and informative. I think some of the best things that we do together in this is just when we're thinking, you know, when things come to light as a result of our conversation that maybe we hadn't thought about before. And, you know, how you poke me for being an old guy.

Sean: [laughs]

Scott: It’s not going to do that. But it was informative. If I had my choice, I'd rather read the article that I just put the text in there. I can do that faster, and it's just better for my time to do it that way. So, I probably wouldn't be a user of this, just for my own purposes, because I can go quicker and more efficiently just by reading it. Now, here's what I wonder about. Is the next technological development of this is going to be able to do what ChatGPT does? Because you can put in, you know, a prompt for ChatGPT. And then you can also say, put it in the voice of a certain individual.

Sean: Oh.

Scott: And that's what I'm really curious about. Because if you can say, I want to analyze this topic, but I want it in the voice of Sean McDowell, and if your voice is public, which it is, it won't have any trouble picking that up. And so, I wonder if they will be able to replicate our voices in conversation like we do. That, I think, is the next thing to look out for, where they may have two, you know, or more specific people rather than this generic voice. So, I hear you. The worldview I think is totally right. And that's been an issue with AI kind of from the start, is it does have biases in there. It does have things that are inaccurate. Don't treat it as if it's infallible or neutral, because it's not. But I think with this, it takes some savvy to be able to point out where it's promoting a worldview that may be hostile to what Christian faith is about.

Sean: That's a great point. I would say a couple of things. There's a difference between using it with Mein Kampf and Galatians, that clearly there's worldview loaded things, and using it for, like, how to fix the engine on your car. Somebody in this article is like, “The History of Mr. Potato Head.” Threw an article in there. Like, those less worldview laden ones probably wouldn't have that bias come out. That'd be my suspicion. So, I think there's huge value and use for this. The engineers who build it…I'm in awe that they can make this. It's phenomenal. Now, I had a test of four, doing this. So, I'd invite our listeners, like, throw another book of the Bible in there, throw an article in there, send us your thoughts.

Scott: Yeah, I’d be very interested to hear.

Sean: I mean, I would love to have our listeners just say, hey Sean and Scott, I tried this. This is my take. And if we get a ton of emails back and everyone's like, nope, you had two standout exceptions, I'll come back next week and be like, okay, I overstated it. Because it's important to do more than just two. I'm just telling you both of these got my attention and gave me serious pause. And I'd like someone to do, pun intended, a deep dive on this, with like a hundred or two hundred. See how it frames it. That's really important before we uncritically just use some technology. I was about to come on this and tell pastors, send it out to your church. I was literally about to say that, because of what they wrote, until I tested it. So, good tool. But in part what this is, is these technologies come out and they're helpful. And the more people push back, like hopefully we're doing here, where either they say, you know what, let us clarify what's going on, or let us change it. That's helpful. Then we can weed some of these things out, and maybe this podcast will just be one small part of doing it. But I look forward to an auto-generated podcast between you and me and seeing what that's like.

[laughter]

Scott: Well, I think we can assure our listeners that we will not be using this as a substitute in the future going forward.

[laughter]

Sean: Maybe one week we'll try it and see who picks up on it first. And we'll give them free tuition or something. I don't know. We'll get back to them on that one.

Scott: I think our president would have to approve of that in advance. All right. Ready to take some questions?

Sean: Yep.

Scott: Here's one that I think both of us can speak to on this. "My church hosted an apologetics conference, and one of the headliner’s two presentations departed from apologetics altogether and was instead a heavily partisan direct appeal that Christians must vote in a certain way for a certain candidate specifically. The presentation was heavily biased and devoid of any nuance or recognition of room for legitimate disagreement among biblically faithful Christians. A significant portion of the church pastors and leaders were blindsided and disapproved. Do you have any advice for working through any fallout from the situation in a healthy way? Perhaps more importantly, might the lack of nuance and charity toward other viewpoints from such a high profile apologist point to any blind spots or other pervasive issues within conservative evangelical apologetic circles beyond this specific individual?" How would you answer this person?

Sean: I have two things. Notice they're not asking, should you even be talking about apologetics and supporting one candidate or another at a apologetics conference? They didn't ask that. I think if you're going to have an apologetics conference and you want to talk about politics, have two people that give different perspectives. Just do a debate. That helps people think about this and why, and then take questions. Or if you do a breakout session and say, look, I'm going to make an argument for this just so you know coming in, but bring your questions. I'm going to respond. There's ways to navigate this if that's important to you. Now, how do you navigate the downhill from this? By the way, I don't have a clue who this apologist is. They didn't give us a name, so I don't know. Maybe it's a friend of mine, maybe somebody I don't know. I would say I want to know what was communicated beforehand. So, whenever I speak somewhere, I have a whole team, and many times I get on the phone and Zoom and I'll just say, what are your goals for this event? What can we speak on that's in my lane but that's a win for you? I try really hard to make sure I serve the people. I'm not saying I've always done this perfectly, but we work really hard to have a topic that's a win-win. So, if you ever run a conference like this again, have that conversation with a speaker. Make sure it's clear what they speak on and why. Now, here's what I would not do. I would not write an angry letter to that apologist. I wouldn't go online and criticize him or her. I would reach out and just say, we want to thank you for coming to the conference. Would you be willing to Zoom with my pastor and a couple of us? We want to follow up because we've had some questions and concerns from the presentation. Now, I've got to think most apologists would meet and have that conversation for one reason: that apologists just like to argue, you know, for better or worse.

[laughter]

Sean: That's in part what it means to be an apologist. So, I suspect they would take it. But just do it graciously, not defensively, or you can write a letter, again really graciously. And I only say that so it's best received. And lay out some of your concerns. Because if this apologist has shown up and done that, it's probably not the only time this has happened and there's been a disconnect between that speaker and between the event. So, do that. Second, I would, however you want to within your church, get together some of the key leaders. And I would just say what happened, what are the concerns, and I would try to communicate to my own people in a way. I wouldn't make a huge public deal about it unless you have to for some reason. And I would just try to do it in a way without throwing the apologist under the bus unnecessarily. But just saying, hey, maybe we didn't communicate exactly what the topic was. We don't want to communicate this. And just clarify who you are as a church, and own if you just didn't invite the right speaker, if you didn't clarify the topic, whatever you didn't do. Or, if this person surprised you, what happened and what you're doing differently. And then if it's really a big deal, just say, we're going to have a meeting for people to come, and we want to hear your concerns and we're going to talk about doing this better. Those are some of the things I would do.

Scott: Those are great practical suggestions. The only thing I might add to that is that I would suggest to the church leaders as they communicate this that—what we've emphasized numerous times before—no political platform is going to be perfect. And in a fallen, broken world, no political platform was written with biblical fidelity as its goal. So, there are going to be issues on whichever side of the partisan aisle you come down on. There are going to be parts where you have to hold your nose. And I suspect that's going to be true for any particular candidate too. No candidate is going to be perfect either. So, I think just recognizing that there's room within the realm of being faithful to Christ for a variety of political opinions on issues where we agree on the principles, but we may disagree about the application of those and what that looks like.

Sean: I mean, last thing. I agree with that in principle. Is it the place for an apologetics conference, when what is apologetics? It's not worldview. It's not activism. It's about defending objections that come across the Christian faith, being ready with an answer and putting forth a positive case. That's the purpose of apologetics. So, if I go to a conference on apologetics and hear a political lecture, I'm going to rightly feel like I didn't sign up for this, unless the people made it crystal clear what you were going to expect.

Scott: Yeah, there may have been a bait and switch on somebody's part in this.

Sean: That’s right.

Scott: All right, here's the second one. I'll take this one since it's addressed to me. “On a recent podcast episode, Scott mentioned that he and his wife could not attend church on Mother's Day or Father's Day also for the pain it caused when they struggled with infertility. What wisdom would you give to pastors when it comes to Mother's Day and Father's Day as we hold the tension of wanting to address the pain that holidays like these can cause while also speaking words of exhortation and encouragement to the mothers and fathers in the room?” There's, I think, a pretty simple answer to this. And I think just recognize that while you are praising fathers and mothers who have children, recognize that Mother's Day and Father's Day are not great days for everybody, for a variety of reasons. You may have lost your mother or father recently. You may be estranged from them. You may have been abused by a mother or father in your past. And it may be also that you desperately want to be a mother or a father, but biology is just simply not cooperating. All of those, I think, are ways to point out, just, the reality of how people experience those days. So, I've got a prayer that a student gave me several years ago, a prayer that we offer to churches, especially for Mother's Day, that acknowledges these various reasons why these might not be great days. And I'll dig it up again. I've got it somewhere. But I will post this on the site where we post the podcast so you can have access to that. I'd encourage you just to recognize—and it doesn't have to be any more than about 15 or 30 seconds max—that this is not a great day for everybody for the reasons that we've pointed out.

Sean: Well said. I got nothing to add to that. I think that's great wisdom and very practical.

Scott: All right. We have a third. This is not just from one listener, but from several who gave us some pushback on the episode that we recently published with our friend Jeff Myers entitled "Should Christians Support Israel?" Okay. Here are a couple of questions that came out. “Dr. Myers' comments suggest that ethical concerns over Israel's actions are somehow misguided or only the result of misinformation. How do you respond considering the documented concerns from recognized humanitarian organizations about aid being restricted by Israel as well as Israel's other moral and ethical violations?” The second question is related to that. “Dr. Myers presented a very pro-military, pro-war, pro-Israel perspective. Given the way you typically help people navigate complex issues, this episode seemed very one-sided. Would you please consider having a guest on about this issue who holds a different perspective?” And this listener, I appreciate this, gives a suggestion for someone. So, here, I'll start out with this. Over the past year—and we just recently commemorated October 7th when the whole thing began—we have had people with different perspectives. We've tried hard to do that. We had Mitch Glaser on from Chosen People Ministries who had one perspective supporting Israel. We had our friend Darrell Bock who had another perspective giving, I think, greater attention to the interests of the Palestinians who were being harmed. And then we had Jeff Myers recently. So, we have tried hard to give some balance to this. And we recognize that this is complex. It's got lots of nuance to it. And so, I think there are legitimate questions that can be raised. Both for Hamas, obviously—I'm not inclined to put them on the same level playing field, because I do think the lion's share of the responsibility does rest with Hamas—and now Hezbollah. For one, their stated objective, which is to make sure that Israel no longer exists as a nation, which in my view is what the phrase "from the river to the sea" actually means, is they would like Israel to settle west of the Mediterranean, which I think essentially means that their goal is that Israel no longer exists as a nation. And I think as well, there are moral questions for Hamas and Hezbollah that are being raised about how they consistently embed weapons depots and armed fighters in civilian neighborhoods and in places where it is inevitable that the collateral damage is going to be off the charts. Now, I think there's a question we can raise about Israel. Is their response so far, is it proportionate to the harm that's been inflicted upon them? As you know, one of the tenets of the just war theory is that any response to an aggression, a response itself, must be proportionate to the threat that's being received. Now, Israel, I think, can counterargue to that by saying, well, the threat is obviously coming from people who wish us to be completely destroyed, and therefore any response would be proportional to that. I admit it's a little hard to look at what has happened to Gaza and what's happening in Lebanon as being proportional. I think it's fair to raise questions about the proportionality of Israel's response. So, that'd be my initial response to this, and I think it's a good word that we should consider having a guest on who holds a different perspective other than what Dr. Myers put out. Sean, quick response to this.

Sean: Yeah, I think that's great. One of the downsides of doing our podcast on Tuesdays that are like 25 to 30 minutes, sometimes a little bit more, is it just goes by so fast. That's why here we struggle to keep it under an hour. I mean, YouTube, I do hour-long conversations—just had one almost two hours—because there's so many nuances we want to get into. I think you and I had 12 or 15 questions for Jeff, and I remember, I think, we got through four or five. So, like we do with our guests, we try to push back and challenge ideas whether we agree or not, but we didn't get close to the amount we want to. Now, maybe you would have not been persuaded by Jeff, maybe you would have been persuaded by him. I can't answer that, but that's a reality, that we would just invite you to look at the history of the podcast that we have and the range of voices we try to bring from a biblical perspective. And it's not a salvific issue. That's for sure. It's a vital issue. It's an important issue. And clearly, lives are at stake, but it's not a salvific issue. [It is an issue] that well-meaning Christians can debate and can discuss and look at the theological issues about the right to the land, look at the ethical issues you're discussing and debate and discuss these. So, I appreciate a couple of the...One of the emails in particular was not very gracious. [laughs] It was a very angry email. Fine. The other ones really, I think, were respectful and said, think about this. And we don't have time to walk through all that, but just know we read it and we thought about it and we appreciate it. And those are super valuable pushbacks for us that in the larger picture of what we're doing, we want to incorporate better.

Scott: Yeah. I think well said there. I appreciate that. And I, too, appreciate the listeners who give us pushback on things and bring things to light that we may not be aware of. That's really helpful for us. So, we greatly appreciate that. Sean, these are great stories today. So glad we've had a chance to talk about this.

Sean: I agree.

Scott: And I say for our listeners, on all three of these stories, watch what happens in the future and pay attention to where these things might go on marijuana use and the harms, on China's now pro-family policy—whoever saw that coming—and then particularly on where artificial intelligence is headed in this area. So, great conversation as always. Great being together and great stories for this week. And this has been the Think Biblically Weekly Cultural Update brought to you by the Talbot School of Theology at 51����. We have more master's and bachelor's programs in Southern California and online than we know what to do with here. There's lots of things to choose from in philosophy, apologetics, Old Testament, New Testament, theology, spiritual formation, marriage and family therapy, and then undergrad programs in Bible, theology and apologetics. So, if you'd like to submit comments to us or ask questions or make suggestions on issues you'd like us to cover or a guest you'd like us to consider, please email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu. If you enjoyed today's conversation, give us a rating on your podcast app. Please do that. It's really important that you do, and feel free to share it with a friend. And join us on Tuesday when Sean—I'll actually revert to being a guest—will be the host as he interviews me, myself and my colleague, Mihretu Guta, about our new book, Taking Persons Seriously, connecting philosophy and bioethics. Thanks so much for listening, and in the meantime, think biblically about everything.