Cultural Update: Faith and Politics after Charlie Kirk; Human Eggs from Skin Cells; Pregnancy Robots

Scott is joined by colleague Rick Langer to discuss: 

• Faith and Politics after the Kirk Shooting – A provocative article on whether Christians should see themselves as warriors or servants, contrasting combative approaches with Dallas Willard’s vision of gentleness in apologetics and civil discourse
• Abortion Statistics: Good News and Bad News – New data shows reduced abortions in some states with restrictions, but also a troubling rise in overall numbers due to abortion pills, raising questions about law, intention, and outcomes
• Human Eggs from Skin Cells – Recent breakthrough in creating eggs from skin cells, its promise for fertility, and its troubling ethical implications around commoditization of human life
• Pregnancy Robots and Artificial Wombs – A look at claims from China about developing robotic artificial wombs, and the broader concerns about manufacturing babies and eroding human dignity
• Listener Question on End-of-Life Care – Response to a heartfelt question about “minimal comfort feeding” in hospice, reflecting on the distinction between preserving life and prolonging death

==========

Think Biblically: Conversations on Faith and Culture is a podcast from Talbot School of Theology at Biola University, which offers degrees both online and on campus in Southern California.

Find all episodes of Think Biblically at: https://www.biola.edu/think-biblically.
Watch video episodes at: https://bit.ly/think-biblically-video.

To submit comments, ask questions, or make suggestions on issues you'd like us to cover or guests you'd like us to have on the podcast, email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu.

Transcript

Scott Rae

A new take on how Christian faith intersects with politics, good news and bad news on the abortion front, US scientists create human eggs out of skin cells, and the prospect of pregnancy robots. These are the stories we'll cover today, and we'll answer some of your great questions. Sitting in for Sean today is my Emeritus Talbot colleague, Dr. Rick Langer. I'm your host, Scott Rae, and this is the Think Biblically Weekly Cultural Update coming to you from Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. Hey, Rick, it's great to have you back. I'm really looking forward to some of your insights on these stories.

Rick Langer

Yeah. Scott, thanks for, uh, bringing me in. Thanks for giving me reading material that keeps me from sleeping at night. So-

Scott Rae

[laughs]

Rick Langer

... this is great.

Scott Rae

[laughs] Yeah. Well, sorry about that part, but, uh, I gotta give you something profitable to do here in retirement. So, uh, it's good- it's good to have you back with us. Story number one is a, a story that, that, uh, you sent to me from the New Yorker magazine. It's, it's an interesting take on how Christian faith and politics can go together following the shooting of Charlie Kirk. The subtitle of the article is, I think ver- fairly provocative. It says, "The future of American democracy could depend on whether Christians see themselves as warriors or servants." Now, the article begins with a statement from the Gospel of John, that "Jesus came full of grace and truth," and they point out that this seeming contrast is actually at the heart of Christian faith. Grace and unconditional love, as well as judgments and s- moral assessments based on truth. We are to love our enemies, but also to put on the full armor of God to stand against evil. Now, in one of the church services that, you know, on the Sunday following, following the Kirk shooting, they had an AI-generated video of Kirk. Not his words himself, but an AI gen- AI-created video where Kirk, uh, f- quote, "From the grave," urges followers to, quote, "Dry your tears, take up your cross, and get back in the fight." Now, as Sean and I pointed out last week, Erika Kirk's message of forgiveness toward the shooter was followed by others who spoke not of the language of forgiveness, but rather of the language of girding for battle. This article poses a, I think, a very provocative question. It remains to be seen how Evangelicals mourning Kirk's death will respond. Will they see it as their duty to don the armor of God as soldiers, or will they feel called to a different approach? Now, the author of the, uh, the piece invokes the late Dallas Willard, calling him something of a modern CS- CS Lewis in his championing a different approach. He cites a collection of his work published posthumously by his daughter entitled The Allure of Gentleness: Defending the Faith in the Manner of Jesus. Here's a, a quote from the article. "Willard believed that the ministry of apologetics in the church, the work of defending Christian faith against its critics, had become overly focused on intellectual debates and arguments, and he cautioned believers against adopting an antagonizing, arrogant spirit when engaging with challengers. He wrote that the Christian apologetics should be characterized by its gentleness because, quote, 'What we are seeking to defend or explain is Jesus himself, who was a gentle, loving shepherd. If we are not gentle in how we present the good news, how will people encounter the gentle and loving Messiah that we want to point to?'" Now, the article also points to a section of Willard's book, you know, uh, called the Divine Conspiracy, in which Willard described anger and contempt as the twin scourges of the Earth and observes that the United States has become increasingly sick with rage and resentment of citizen toward citizen. And often, that rage and resentment is upheld and justified in the name of God, end quote. Now, the article finally, I think, raises the question of whether or not such gentleness can have any traction in our polarized culture and politics. As one person has put it, that's close to the administration, that, quote, "Turning the other cheek hasn't worked for us." So Rick, this article raises, I think, a whole host of questions and issues that we want- we'd like to get into. And this, I think, uh, enables us to do the, the, the deeper dive that we, that Sean and I mentioned last week that we'd like to do on this area of c- of connecting faith and politics in ways that are faithful to scripture and thereby faithful to Jesus. So Rick, I'm really interested in your take on this. I suspect we're gonna have a, a good conversation on this first story.

Rick Langer

Yeah. I've, I found this story really, uh, really interesting and, uh, pretty insightful. I, I think the issue of how we engage in politics, I think you and Sean made a really good point, I guess, last week where you s- you said, uh, the question isn't whether or not our Christian faith has implications for the political realm. The question is, how will we manifest those? How will we work those out? And I think there's kind of in the how, there's two questions that are hidden in it. One question is how in terms of what sorts of things will we advocate for? What are the concerns that we're gonna raise a Christian voice for? Things like that, that I think is very important. But the other thing about how is simply whatever it is that we choose to advocate for, how will we go about doing it? What sort of posture will we adopt? How will we communicate Jesus? Because I, I do think, and I think the article, it doesn't spend a lot of time unpacking it, but it, it refers to that issue of Jesus being both full of grace and truth. And it isn't that you get to choose one or the other, it's that you really need to do both. And it was interesting reading this. Eh, you know, they, they had some quotes from Charlie Kirk about himself. I mean, it was from a podcast that he had done with, uh, George Genco, but, uh, h- h- he had some ph- self-reflective moments where he was saying, you know, "I'm kinda, uh, listing..." He was listing the fruit of the Spirit and saying, "Yeah, my, I have a weakness in the area of self-control. That isn't a thing that I, I'm the best at." Um...... but he made an interesting comment, "Nevertheless, Kirk believed that his calling from God came to be a fighter, a combatant in the culture wars." Uh, Kirk said, "Some people are called to heal the sick. Some people are called to mend broken marriages." I... And Kirk felt that he was called to fight evil and proclaim truth. That's it. And, uh, we can debate about the, uh, the wisdom of saying, "That's it," that if you're gonna declare the truth, it doesn't matter how you do it, but I think he's actually making kind of a good point. The body of Christ has different kinds of people in it, and I think there's a place for people like Charlie. There's lots of people who do apologetics in a non-Dallas-Willard fashion that are more confrontational and things like that. And I kinda take a deep breath. That isn't my style. That isn't my preference. But I don't wanna rid th- the ship of faith of everybody who doesn't do it my way, so to speak. Uh, and so I want there to be a place for people like Charlie, and I also appreciate his self-reflection on saying, "I'm not sure I always do all this the best, but there's other people who do other things, and here's the thing that I do and here's the way that I'll do it." So, I think that's fair enough. The one thing I would want to say is, do we want that kind of a tenor to be the predominant voice of Christianity? Charlie was called to very special ministry, did some very, very special things with that, um, but most of us aren't out there doing that. And th- there's... Was a sort of a pugnacious side to the things that he did on a daily basis, that was l- literally it, his job, um, that I don't think most of us have that. So, I think we need to be a lot more discerning in terms of what virtues are called forth for us. And probably, I would assume that by and large, Dallas Willard's description, uh, is a pretty good one to keep in mind. That we represent a gentle, loving shepherd. Jesus's self-description of himself is gentle and lowly in spirit, and if you come to me, you'll find rest for your souls. Uh, we have the fr- fruit of the Spirit that we don't really get to opt out of. So, um... And, and I... Again, I would wanna underscore this. I don't think Charlie Kirk was saying you do get to opt out. He was just being self-reflective about the things he does and doesn't do. But I would want us to say as a church, man, we need to be people who, who exhibit the fruit of the Spirit. And I wo- I would like to point out, I guess, two things about that. One thing is that we don't get the choice of opting out of that. The, the fruit of the Spirit is what proves the root of the Spirit in our hearts. And you don't get... It isn't the fruits of the Spirit. You don't get to choose your favorite one and just do that one. This is a whole package, and so we need to be concerned for, for manifesting the, you know, the entirety of the, of the fruit of the Spirit. The one thing I'd add is that I think it's uncanny. Sometimes, I, I have heard... You know, I, I work a lot with the Winsome Conviction Project and talking to people about civil discourse, and I have heard time and time again the things about, "This is not the time for gentleness. Gentleness doesn't work." And one of my favorite quotes that comes to mind when I hear that is from Vaclav Havel, who was a Czech dissident, but he, uh, was... And he was living in very, very difficult times, uh, the 1980s, 1970s, 1980s in, in, uh, Communist Czechoslovakia. He was put in prison, um, like many other dissidents were, and suffered in that context as well. When the Iron Curtain came down in 1989, he actually became the first president of the newly post-Communist Czech Republic. But, um, he was living in hard times, didn't have an easy job, but he, he was remarkably civil and gracious, and he had an interesting comment when someone asked him about that. He said, "Look, there's only one way to strive for decency, reason, responsibility, sincerity, civility, and tolerance, and that is decently, responsibly, reasonably, sincerely, civilly, and tolerantly." He said, "You're not gonna get the place you wanna go by engaging in, you know, belligerence, anger, schism, division, and wrath." Uh, that only leads to those same things. And so I think Vaclav Havel is a good example for us to, to kinda look at and say, "This isn't the thing... Gentleness and the fruit of the Spirit isn't designed to only work when everything's happy." And in fact, it can be stunningly effective in the context when, when it isn't.

Scott Rae

Yeah. In fact, those, those, uh, places in the New Testament were written when the Church was facing an incredibly hostile environment.

Rick Langer

Yes, yes.

Scott Rae

Um, and, and the temptation would've been to sort of fight fire with fire. Um, but they... I think th- their style, their style was different, uh, 'cause I think they were, they were called to something different. Now, uh, you know, I had... Now, I had Dallas Willard as a prof in my doctoral program at the University of Southern California, and I... You know, I got to know him a bit. He served on both of my... In my dissertation and comps- co- comprehensive exams committees, uh, and I had a, I had a class or two with him. Uh, and he... I think that... You know, I- I reflected back on this. Of, of all the people I've known, I think he is probably the most Christlike person I've ever known.

Rick Langer

Yeah.

Scott Rae

He was also one of the smartest.

Rick Langer

[laughs]

Scott Rae

And I remember some- somebody asked me, he said... Uh, while I was a doctoral student. I said, "Does anybody ever get the best of Dr. Willard intellectually?" And I said, "If they have, I've never seen it happen." Uh, 'cause Lord knows lots of people have tried, and he, he, he al- he always responded with gentleness. You know? Uh, the old, the old Christian apologet- apologist Walter Martin used to say there are two approaches to apologetics, the broadsword and the rapier. And he said, "With the broadsword, your head- your head's off-"

Rick Langer

[laughs]

Scott Rae

"... and you know it. But with the rapier, you can be bleeding to death and not even know you've been hit."... and that was more Dallas's style. Uh, and I think there's- there's something to that. Now, the other, I've used a kind

Rick Langer

[laughs]

Scott Rae

... observations about this is, Rick, you know, I know this is true of you too. I am angry about some things that are happening in the culture. Uh, some things, you know, I, I not only have trouble sleeping at night, but they, you know, they get my GI tract wound up.

Rick Langer

[laughs] Yeah.

Scott Rae

And I, I'm angry about, I'm angry that, you know, there have been over 500,000 abortions in the US just in the first half of 2025. I'm angry about the- the way homelessness, nobody, nobody seems able to solve that. I think that's a national disgrace. I'm angry about the way free speech has taken a hit most recently. And I mean, it seems to me Jesus was angry about some things, too. I mean, he turned over the tables in the temple. Uh, he was not, not happy. Uh, he had really harsh words for some of the religious leaders. And so, so there, there must be times when it's appropriate to, as we, as I put it in tennis language, to return serve at the pace at which you receive it.

Rick Langer

[laughs]

Scott Rae

You know? So, you know, sometimes when you get comments or questions that have some horseradish attached to them, you know, maybe it's okay to return that with a little horseradish as well. Now, I think we, we, we always have to be in mind that the, the purpose of our interactions with people, whether it's in politics or apologetics or the Gospel, whatever it is on, the purpose is to win a person, not necessarily win an argument. And sometimes those things are at cross-purposes. Where, and if you, if you win the argument but lose the person, in my view, you've lost. For end of story. And I don't, I don't want that to be our approach, that the... And, and, and sometimes I think our- our need to respond with a lot of horseradish on it is coming out of our feeling defensive and insecure. And that, I think-

Rick Langer

Hmm

Scott Rae

... is where the, our security all needs to be in our relationship to God and the notion that we- we are standing firm for truth, but at the end of the day, it's God's responsibility to change people's hearts, and it's God's responsibility to change the culture. Our responsibility is to stand- stand for truth, but to do it, I think, graciously and gently. Uh, and- and- and as- as Peter describes in- in 1 Peter 3, you know, may- be ready to make a defense for your faith, but how? But with gentleness and respect.

Rick Langer

Yeah.

Scott Rae

Um, and they were, you know, they were in the midst of some incredibly harsh and virulent opposition to their faith, where people were actually... You know, they were putting them in prison, they were beating them, they were killing them, um, and they, you know, they continually responded in the way that they did. One way, I think, to help, to help understand this, I think there are two sort of strands of thinking going on here that I wanna make sure we don't confuse when we talk about the role of faith and the role of government, or the connection between the Sermon on the Mount and turning the other cheek, and Paul's teaching in Romans 13 about the place of government and civil authority. You know, government is not in the business of forgiveness. The justice system is not in the, in the business of forgiving criminal offenders. In fact, I'd say government's not in the forgiveness business ex- except at the end of every presidential term.

Rick Langer

[laughs]

Scott Rae

And then, and then for a day, they- they seem to be. But that, you know, that's not its role. Government's role is order, safety, and justice, and government is or- ordained by God to those ends, and is, and is justified to use the sword, which I think is a figure of speech for, uh, coercive and sometimes violent means, in order to carry-

Rick Langer

Yeah

Scott Rae

... car- carry out those mandates. How government goes about its role is also important. It can't dehumanize its opponents, and you can't have hateful rhetoric against those whom you disagree. But I think in general, the Sermon on the Mount was intended more for individuals, not for the state. I mean, the state, the state can't- can't adopt the same attitude toward ene- its enemies who are attacking us from, you know, from outside our shores, for example. It can't have the same attitude toward terrorists who are coming into a country, wanting to wreck havoc, as it does toward political opponents with whom we disagree. Those are two diff- those are two different things, but I think to recognize those- those contrast, somewhat contrasting roles, and the scripture has something I think a little bit different to say to the individual who's trying to be faithful to Christ, and government trying to be faithful to its role to provide order, justice, and safety. Your thoughts on that?

Rick Langer

Yeah, I mean, just one thing I'd add to that is that w- I- I think a thing... So, I- I agree with what you're saying. I- I mean, that's a important distinction. I remember Reinhold Niebuhr writing about some of this Christian realism and things like that, where he would make a distinction between personal ethics and where that applies and the reality of- of life in a fallen world. Um, and I think, I, you know, that- that I think is a great, uh, a great point. The one thing I would say is that most of us aren't actually doing politics. We're just talking to our neighbor, and I- I- I would like to argue that that does fall more in the-

Scott Rae

Yes, it does

Rick Langer

... S- Sermon on the Mount category than a soldier who's at war or, um, a person in the... Literally, who is serving as a politician and is crafting, you know, laws and things like that. Um, and unfortunately, we have kind of, uh, adopted this posture of all-out warfare, and if you're not being, you know, kind of combative, then you're not trying. And I don't think that's... I don't think that's true, and- and I don't, I don't doubt for a second that there's a difference between what we ask our government to do and what we do individually, but we need to take a deep breath and say, "Wait, which of the two am I?"

Scott Rae

Yeah. Well, and I- I don't think it would hurt to have a dose of gentleness and respect, uh, and winsomeness in, among our politicians.

Rick Langer

... yeah, they might get more done-

Scott Rae

They might

Rick Langer

... um, if they could talk to each other. And- and they, and I, uh, I feel bad blaming the politicians 'cause honestly, uh, I- I see this s- so often in our culture today. One- one thing I wanna add with this, Scott, it... We- we live in a kind of a perverse culture, and this isn't about, you know, our- our ethical boundaries or things like that. It- it just the way we do our politics is now in a format with the internet that is incentivized by... sold almost entirely by click advertising. You know, y- y- you know, you get a click, it counts, those add up, you get your money. And the bottom line is human psychology is such that we click on things that outrage us more than things that are good, far more than things that are good, and also far more he things that move our heart

[speaker_2]

[laughs]

Rick Langer

... or we go, "Oh, isn't that nice?" Uh, I- I- we- we do click on those things, but not nearly as much as the things that- that trigger outrage. And so if you're going to be a person who's making their money in that realm, you kinda have to push the outrage button. You know, the world is incentivized to make you push the outrage button, and that makes it even more testing and I would argue therefore more of an issue of our spiritual formation to say, "Wait a minute, the- the world is incentivizing me to do something that Jesus tells me not to do. Which of those two things am I gonna do?"

Scott Rae

Here's one final comment on this, Rick, and then we'll move on. Uh, the AI statement attributed to Kirk in the- in the church service that I referred to earlier talked about, eh, eh, encouraged people that, "Take up your cross and get back in the fight."

Rick Langer

[laughs] .

Scott Rae

Which strikes me as really an interesting combination of-

Rick Langer

Yeah

Scott Rae

... admonitions to have in the same sentence. Now, I think that's, you know, I understand that, uh, you know, we- we need to stand for righteousness and we need to do it out of faithfulness to Christ, but I think we're also called to take up our cross and- and what that means, uh, you know, for, I think, uh, interacting with people with whom we disagree, um.

Rick Langer

Yeah. You- you would think that the phrase was, "Take up your sword and get back in the fight." Uh, the cross is sort of exactly a refusal to engage into that kind of course of power, a- and it is a striking... Eh, I, uh, deeply ironic that you use that combination. Yeah.

Scott Rae

Yeah., The- the, yeah, that... Those- those don't strike me as going together particularly well. Uh, now, I think there's, you know, there's a, I think there's a place for... Uh, I think there's- there's a- there's a place to stand for righteousness and to do it- to do it with firmness and a conviction of truth. But I think to also do it not out of rage or resentment, but to do it with- with respect and civility.

Rick Langer

Amen.

Scott Rae

All right. I'm gla- I got an amen on that.

Rick Langer

Yeah, you did.

Scott Rae

And we can move on. All right. Here's... The story number two is about abortion rates coming down q- and it has a- I have a question mark by it because this is a good news and bad news story coming from the Washington Post that emerges out of the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which is a leading pro-abortion foundation and think tank. The good news I would suggest is twofold. One is, uh, th- the report suggests that fewer women are having abortions in states that have restrictive abortion laws, which suggests that those laws are working in some respects to curb the instance of abortion. And fewer women are crossing state lines to get to states that have greater abortion access. And even in the states that do not have restrictive abortion laws, there are roughly 5% fewer abortions than previous to 2022 when Roe v. Wade was overturned. Now, the bad news is that in those states that- that f- for whom the overturning of Roe didn't really change much about their laws, there were still over 500,000 abortions done in person in the first half of 2025. The other bit of bad news is that the fe- in the figures compiled by the Guttmacher Institute, they don't include women who procured abortion through the abortion pill, which is available in virtually all 50 states regardless of their laws restricting abortion. The reason for this is that the pills can be prescribed remotely and purchased from pharmacies in states where it is legal and mailed to individuals in states where it is not. And it's b- and that- that in particular means it's proving difficult to enforce the law in those states. Now, part of the reason that it's difficult to enforce comes from states like California, which recently passed a law allowing providers to dispense the medication without listing the name of the patient, the prescriber, or the pharmacist. And this measure's g- I think it's clearly an attempt to protect clinicians and pharmacists and u- and users from legal action initiated by anti-abortion activists and lawmakers in states where laws are more restrictive. And shield laws, which we've talked about before, prevent providers in states where it is legal from being prosecuted or sued by states in which abortion is more restricted. So Rick, this is sort of a mixed bag coming out of the Guttmacher Institute. Now, we've talked on the show several times before with our- our colleague, Dr. Donna Harrison, that, uh, what she calls the- the- the DYIOTC, the do-it-yourself over-the-counter abortion, is becoming the predominant way by which abortion is being done today. So it's... The- the- the figures that are cited are helpful, but it's incomplete and doesn't- doesn't tell the whole story, which I- I suspect will tell us that the overall instance of abortion is rising.

Rick Langer

Yeah. I... So I've done some reading on this as well and I think e- where, you know, when you're... The Guttmacher Institute does a lot of collecting of abortion statistics just in general.... and so they parse things in a variety of ways, just like you usually do with the studies. So I'm not complaining about what they do with that because you usually, you know, thi- this, this many people travel across state lines, all those sorts of things. But I think your point is exactly right. I- i- when, when you look at the big picture, the big picture statistics I've seen is that the number of abortions has increased since the Dobbs decision, um, uh, more or less on an annual basis. You know, and we're maybe 10% higher in terms of number of abortions than we were in 2020. And those abortions have to happen somehow, [laughs] and if there are fewer clinical abortions, I think the obvious explanation for that, I mean, I don't actually hear many people disputing it, the obvious e- explanations we have more people doing medical abortions, and those have indeed become practically over-the-counter. When, when it can be anonymous, you can go across state lines, the physician doesn't have to record th- who, who he or she is. You know, y- that, that's awfully close to an over-the-counter, uh, situation. And I think that's basically where we are. And so tha- that's o- one issue and I think, I think you're right to point that out. Let me make a point kind of connected to that. And this actually goes back to what you were talking about earlier, too, in terms of government and personal ethics aren't the same thing. It isn't... I'd, I'd never wanna say that our morality has nothing to do with politics, but they act in different realms in and in different ways. And so when it comes time to do, you know, p- personal moral assessment, and I would even say criminal assessment when people do something wrong, intentions are extremely important. So if you, uh, ha- happen to kill someone absolutely accidentally, had no intention to do it or whatever, but the outcome was that, that this person was, was died, at the most you'd be guilty of manslaughter. In all likelihood you wouldn't be, uh, prosecuted at all. Why? Not because you didn't kill someone but because you had no intention to do it. So intention is really pivotal there. I would argue the almost exact opposite is true of social political... politics and social policy, um, that you have good intentions when you put a social policy in place, it's great, but the real question is what is the actual outcome of that social policy? So y- you have outcomes, uh, you know, you, you think back to, uh, establishing a welfare system in, uh, you know, the Great Society and, uh, Lyndon Johnson. Um, I would think any Christian would have been in favor of the intentions of a welfare policy to provide tangible care for the poor. But then you have to look and say, "Did it actually help the poor?" And if it didn't, then you need to change it. [laughs] And no amount of intentions, good intentions will make up for the fact that, uh, th- the outcome has been, has been bad. And, you know, si- similar things happened with prohibition. Uh, we recently legalized ha- hard drugs in Portland, um, and it was interesting in that case they, they, they followed my wise advice. They said, "Well, we think this is a good idea. Oh, dang, it wasn't a good i- this is really bad idea. This worked out terribly," and they took the law back off the books. Their intention all along probably remains the same is they wanna decrease the criminalization and discrimination of drugs. They thought maybe legalizing would do it, they found out it didn't. Um, so this is a general thing and we can't confuse good intentions and good-sounding policies with good policies, because good policies are determined by the outcomes they actually produce. And I do think we've had this problem with abortion for so long, Roe v. Wade was kind of synonymous with pro-life and being anti-Roe v. Wade was the same as being anti-abortion which is the same as being pro-life in a lot of people's thinking and a lot of people's rhetoric. Um, I remember writing some things and talking to some people before the Dobbs decision about this relative to abortion and say, "I, I don't know. I'm not sure what will happen." I w- I've never been in favor of Roe v. Wade. It seemed like a bad piece of legislation from 1973 on, but I, I, I was like, "I'm not sure that putting all of our eggs in the basket of getting rid of Roe v. Wade is gonna pay off," because all that does is push it back to the states and then heaven knows what happens. Now I didn't foresee all the things with abortion pills and things like that because it's been a long, long discussion, but I do look at this and I say, "We, we look at this like this tremendous pro-life victory and I am glad to see Roe v. Wade overturned but at some point we just need to look at ourselves and say, 'So what's been the outcome?'" And if the outcome has not been a change or a decrease in abortion rates in our country, if we're still, uh, aborting 500,000 kids in a six-month period, I, I would like to argue that we haven't really had a major victory for the, uh, pro-life cause as it turned out. I mean, it was a thing we certainly argued for. We had a political victory for it, but the actual outcome hasn't really... shouldn't be a thing that makes us feel good about what's happened. We, we need to say, "So what is it that we do now to keep... t- to change this?" Because we, we put all our eggs in this basket, we became, you know, huge advocates for, for, for this. We got what we wanted but we... turned out we really didn't get what we wanted because the outcome didn't match the intention.

Scott Rae

Yeah, I think one, one of the best books I've seen on, on a Christian view of politics is entitled Beyond Good Intentions.

Rick Langer

Yeah.

Scott Rae

And, uh, and that's, I think, what you're suggesting is that good social policy has to look at the outcomes and what's produced or what's not produced as opposed to just having good, good intentions, because g- good intentions combined with sound policies, sound economics, things like that, is what produces good policies. Uh, now, I'd, I want to suggest just a couple of things re- related to the abortion issue here, um, and that is, I think it... this does reflect a growing ten- trend toward more private abortions.... though I think the re- the report from the Guttmacher Institute is a little bit misleading by suggesting that all abortion pill abortions are entirely private and done in one's home. We've cited other studies that, that come from the insurance industry that has, you know, has a lo- a lot wider patient pool that suggests that roughly in 10%, uh, roughly 10 to 12% of cases where the abortion pill is taken, uh, it requires medical follow-up, because-

Rick Langer

Yeah

Scott Rae

... because the procedure pre- either is incomplete or produces some other complications. Um, now, i- at some point, it may be... I mean, I'm just speculating here. It may be that the abortion pill w- will become so prevalent that restrictive laws will be that much harder to enforce, and it may, it may actually, at some point, render state law somewhat irrelevant in curbing the incidents of abortion. I, I don't think we're there yet, but I, I, I could... Uh, it wouldn't be s- it wouldn't surprise me if that were the case, you know, five to 10 years from now. Uh, and it is, it's, it's critical, it's really important, I think, that we, we, we emphasize that for any woman who's considering this, uh, y- or any, any lawmaker who's considering regulating this, uh, those who use the abortion pill have to have physician supervision of this. And advertising it for v- be able to virtually done over the counter, I think, is misleading because the dosage of the pill required depends on the gestational age of the baby, and if you mi- if you miss the dosage, you're likely to cause other complications that you don't want. Now, now these are the point I wanna make on this, Rick, is that the means to abortion becoming more private and safe, that's... That part is still debated, begs the question of what exactly an unborn child actually is. It assumes that the unborn are not persons with the right to life since, if they are persons, the notion that safe- safely and privately ending their lives is something we ought to pursue, uh, sounds, sounds ludicrous.

Rick Langer

[laughs] Yes.

Scott Rae

Rather, if the unborn person... If the unborn are persons, then the manner in which we end our lives is irrelevant. This... Now, it's... I suggest this is where the pro-choice movement and abortion rights advocates assume their conclusion and reason in a circle to get right back to justifying what they were assuming in the first place. So, I think your, your point about, uh, the, the place of the political arena, the place of the legal arena in this, I think, is well taken. And I think for the most part, what Sean and I have emphasized on th- on this podcast in the past, is that when Roe v. Wade was overturned, that was not a victory lap. That was the starting point of a whole new set of conversations and battles that we were gonna have to persuade people to make abortion unthinkable, not just illegal, but unthinkable. That seems to me is the goal. And if that's the case, then the legal part of this is part of it because I do think the law has educational value t- for us, but it's only a small part and maybe, in the future, a less significant part than what we were th- what we thought in the first place.

Rick Langer

Yeah. I, I think that's a good point, and I, I, I think it's a bit like, uh, d- the issue of, of, uh, drugs and drug cartels, you know, th- the war against drugs. And the bottom line is the biggest problem in the war against drug is the demand, not the supply. Um, if we have an unrelenting demand, if people will continue to dump billions of dollars into that, um, i- and, you know, y- you've... That's where your core problem lies. Now, having said that, the, the reason I like the analogy is that I, I would never say, "Therefore we shouldn't, uh, do drug enforcement, we shouldn't be, you know, pursuing those who are selling drugs and all these sorts of things." I, I go, "Absolutely." But I think this is one of those areas where we, we get wound up in our social policy moment, and we don't think closely about how much of the real problem is actually addressed by what I might call a more traditional spiritual em- elements of the Gospel, making healthy people, um, making healthy families, making healthy choices. These are things that m- w- don't require a ton of social policy information or intervention. They, they require good people being, uh, cared for, developed, guided and things like that, that I think the Christian, uh, faith is always engaged in. And I, I would want us, eh, in, for many things to, to not forget that spiritual ministry has actually got profound political consequences.

Scott Rae

Yeah. That's a, that's a great observation, a great insight on that. Story number three is a bioethics-related story, and I s- I sort of saw this one coming, and, uh, this is a story, uh, reported by the BBC and CNN and a whole host of others, that, uh, at the University of Oregon Health Science Center, researchers have successfully created women's eggs from human skin cells and actually fertilized some of them successfully. It describes the first step in a longer process that's necessary, I think, a l- and before clinical use can be approved, which I think is a b- a bit down the road. The benefits could be enabling fertility in older couples, for those rendered infertile bi- infertile by disease, such as cancer and its treatment. It could also enable same-sex couples to have children that are genetically connected to one or both of the partners. Now, here's a real simplified version of the process. I'm gonna try and... Uh, you know, I'm not a biologist, but I... so you're gonna, you're gonna get my-

Rick Langer

[laughs]

Scott Rae

... my, uh, my dumbed-down version of this. Um-

Rick Langer

I can't wait, Scott.

Scott Rae

Yeah. So they take a skin cell, and they take its nucleus containing its DNA and take it out of the skin cell. Take a woman's egg that's had it nucle- its nucleus removed and place the skin cell nucleus into the woman's egg.Now, at that point, it's not quite ready for fertilization because it has a full complement of 46 chromosomes instead of the 23 that the woman's egg normally has. Now, the, uh, the process of removing half the chromosomes is a challenging one. It's partially successful, but a long way from being reliable in the majority of cases. But once the new egg has the, the, the right, uh, allotment of 23 chromosomes, it can be fertilized, becoming an early stage embryo. Now, the center here reported that they had 82 functional eggs were made, and then fertilized and allowed to mature to the six-day stage, and then they were terminated, uh, at that point because the, the law prohibits experimentation on embryos past the 14-day mark. Now, the challenge of reducing the chromosomes from 46 to 23 is a big one, and it results in slightly less than a 10% success rate, but it's the first step in what could be a very important innovation. So Rick, this, uh, this, this has, I think, promise for helping couples who can't conceive, uh, but it also raises some really interesting questions that we oughta be careful about too. What's your take on this?

Rick Langer

Yeah. I, I confess, Scott, I am, I am not a fan of things like this. Um, I, I, I suppose there's a good associated with it from the standpoint of people who are infertile potentially becoming fertile. I, I just see this as, as these steps towards commoditization. You, you're, uh, almost manufacturing your, your baby. You're taking, "Ooh, I'll get some genes from over here. I'll plug 'em into an egg that I had from over here. Uh, I'll fertilize it in this, or I'll, uh, you know, combine, do that insertion in the lab, and then I'm going to have to go and stimulate that egg to do meiosis mitosis split to get rid of those extra 23 chromosoms-" I mean, it sounds like this elaborate procedure. Um, it's going to be profoundly associated with money and costs and things like this. Um, if it goes bad, you're gonna have people who put $200,000 in this, and you didn't deliver what you promised. Now it's time for me to sue you. How does it feel to be the baby who, uh, didn't deliver the goods and mom and dad are being, are suing the person who made you? There's a whole pile of things that I'm just saying, these are the things that kind of unravel the threads of, of human dignity. I, I remember I wrote an article, gosh, 20 years ago, called the Humans, Commodities, and Humans in a Sense, and I was talking about this sort of slippery slope that goes from humanity to commodity. And there's a big kind of a middle ground, this humans in a sense realm, that is where we're mainly dabbling. But boy, you start doing things like this where we're gonna get, we, we don't need male and female DNA. We need just DNA that we need to split the right way and then we can combine it, and y- you're beginning to drift more and more and more to the manufactured commodity kind of end of things. And i- in that realm, we treat, uh, you know, creatures, creations, people like you and me, commodities, uh, very, very differently, and then there's this middle ground that you don't always know what to do with. The, i- in the article, I made an analogy to it between my, my Dodge, my daughter, and my dog. And I said, "Imagine I drove out one day with my Dodge, and I came back, eh, and I didn't have my Dodge." And Sherry, my wife, said, "Rick, what happened to our caravan, you know?" And I said, "Oh, I sold it." This guy... It was really weird. I was at McDonald's buying my Big Mac. This guy came up and said, "Hey, I'll give you $25,000 for your caravan." And I said, "Man, we can replace this baby for, for $5,000. This sucker's old, you know?" And Sherry's like, "Whoa. Great move, Rick. It's all good." And you can see how you just dispose. You, you barter. You don't even think twice about this. Um, imagine I went to the park and I brought my German shepherd dog along, and someone said, "I'll pay you $10,000 for Gunner." And I, I'm like, "Wow." So when I come back home and tell Sherry that I sold Gunner for $10,000, this dog that we've had for eight years that our kids grew up with, that will get ugly. And then if my kids hear it, it will get transcendently ugly.

Scott Rae

[laughs]

Rick Langer

But on the other hand, there's probably some point at which the kids would say, "Well, gee, it's a million dollars. Maybe we can do that." I don't know. But you can feel this sort of middle ground tension with a dog. If someone came up and say, "Hey, I'll buy your daughter for a million dollars," I'm like, "There is no price problem with that. The whole concept is wrong." It's a category error, not a quantity of money error or whatever the reimbursement might be. And the, the drift... The more you can manufacture a baby, the more you begin to drift into the moral realm that we associate with how do we navigate justice relative to commodities, that you don't steal, you don't exploit, you know, that we, we regulate. These aren't amoral issues, but they're completely different sorts of moral principles than those that you have attached to, to persons. And that's what I worry about when I see things like this, is that-

Scott Rae

Right

Rick Langer

... you just get less and less attachment to core human nature and more like a manufacturing process.

Scott Rae

That's... yeah.

Rick Langer

And then the ethics of manufacturing and commodity and sales will apply.

Scott Rae

That's a really good observation, and part, part of the reason that you have to reduce the number of chromosomes from 46 to 23 is because if it has that full complement of chromo- of 46, it, it actually constitutes human cloning.... which is illegal for precisely the reasons that you're referring to. Uh, because it, it is reflective of the increasing commodification of a human person. Now, there's another story that this time I want to quickly mention that's related to this. Not quite sure what to make of this, 'cause I've seen this in, in a number of news outlets, and that is it's, it's reported in a number of places that researchers in China have begun development of a prototype, what they call a pregnancy robot, equipped with an artificial womb. Not simply an incubator, but a human-mimicking robot that could replicate the entire process from conception to delivery. Now, there's widespread skepticism about the plausibility of this, and about the company which has backed off of its claim that it's producing the full thing. It's only re- involved in the robotics part, not the artificial womb. But, R. R.- Rick, we've been talking about artificial wombs for, you know, for at least the last 20 years, and we keep hearing that they're five years away, and then they're five more years away. And I admit, I have- I have mixed feelings about the artificial womb. I think it would probably be good for the abortion debate because we, we'd have a window into fetal development from conception to birth in ways that ultrasound doesn't give us. But clearly, it's not good for children gestated in artificial wombs. They need a relationship from the start with a real person who's carrying something, 'cause who's carrying them is something no technology can replicate. And this is s- raised an issue for some feminists, that, uh, with artificial wombs, men will no longer have use for women, but in, in my view, this will hardly be the end of sex for procreation regardless of its success. So, just a, a brief comment on that-

Rick Langer

[laughs]

Scott Rae

... before we go to answering questions.

Rick Langer

Well, I, yeah, I, I already mentioned my concerns about commoditization. Um, without worrying about this particular story and do the robot's work, or is that the trajectory or whatever, I'm just saying, look, once you can do an artificial w- forget the robot part, which I found has its own problematic part, if you can just do it in the lab with something that looks very unrobotically human, just a m- a machine, you're really all the way to the point that I was worried about, where you can just plain manufacture the kid. And then you ask, "Whose kid is it?" You, you have a child born without any deep human connection or commitment to it. How do you impute dignity of, uh, of a human being to it in that, uh, you know, wh- when it's been manufactured in that kind of a situation? And I think we would, but it's, it, it becomes who, who has that unique attachment? Y- you can't even begin to be, identify the, the parent. And that kind of decomposing of the social fabric, it treats us like all we are is a DNA carry- carrier, and we are not. We are persons. We're persons from the word, "Go." We're persons while we live. We're persons who die. We're persons who get resurrected. You know, the, the most fundamental thing we are is not a vessel for, uh, producing, saving, and reproducing, uh, our genetic material. And suddenly, we're being treated like that. And so much of this discourse about how I can get a baby that has my genetic material, even though there's some other thing that's broken down, and, and a- again, you get that feeling of, "I really want to do this." And I remember seeing a quote there about someone saying, "Man, I would pay half my annual salary to get this kind of a thing." And I'm like, "Yeah, now you've made me worried."

Scott Rae

Yeah.

Rick Langer

Th- this is what I was talking about. This is buying and selling human people, and indeed, in this case, manufacturing from cradle... Not cradle, from, uh, conception through gestation all the way to delivery, and then what do you do? Do you just show up at the store and put down your credit card and say, "Here's the $60,000 I had to pay you. Um, give me my, give me my baby"? Um, I, I'm really worried about where that goes.

Scott Rae

Well, fair, I think fair point, and I think a- you know, really good insight on that. Well, we'll keep you posted on that to see if there are any further developments on it, but I think there, there are, there are questions about the reliability of the story. I wanna be skeptical about so- some of that, but wanted to put this on your radar. Now, bef- Rick, before we get to the questions, uh, we wanna remind our listeners that the, this cultural update is brought to you from Talbot School of Theology, Biola University with programs at the gra- graduate and undergraduate level, undergraduate degrees in Bible theology and ministry, and Bible theology and apologetics, graduate degrees in Old Testament, New Testament, theology, pastoral ministry, philosophy, apologetics, science and religion, marriage and family therapy, and several others. We'd love to have you come study with us. Check out biola.edu/talbot in order to learn more. Rick, you ready to tackle some questions?

Rick Langer

I hope so.

Scott Rae

Okay. Here's the first, the first one. "Thank you for your recent discussion on euthanasia and assisted suicide. My wife has metastatic breast cancer that metastasized to her brain back in 2019. In 2021, she was put on hospice with a life expectancy of two to three months. She is still alive today but is immobilized from cancer treatment as well as suffering from dementia. Since I have to work to provide for our family, she's in a living care facility. Earlier this year, because her condition has been so prolonged, the hospital hospice service suggested I consider a course called minimal comfort feeding. To me, it base- this seems it would basically starve my wife to death. Have you heard of this approach to end-of-life care, and do you see it differently or have additional concerns that I should be considering?" Rick, what do you think?

Rick Langer

Well, can I reconsider my statement that I was ready to answer these questions?

Scott Rae

[laughs]

Rick Langer

[laughs] Th- so that is a really, uh, difficult one, and I would, uh... S- the one thing I would wanna say is I would never render a simple statement of thumbs up or thumbs down about this kind of a thing-

Scott Rae

Yeah

Rick Langer

... when I know as little of the details as I do about this. So, I'm gonna talk about this more in general. And I think that's what the person's really asking, so I, I think that's actually, uh, uh, fine. Um, I do think in, in ethics, bioethics, we do... I remember just hearing this phrase about making a distinction between preserving life and prolonging death.And I would be the first to agree that the obvious criticism, that- that's an incredibly hard line to define. Um, that's not a thing you're gonna give a set of standardized criteria that you can then make an- an objective assessment of. That's... Tha- y- you're not gonna get that for, "Am I prolonging life, or am I pres- am I preserving life or prolonging death?" But that said, I think we make those calls a lot every day in a hospital when you realize this person is just no longer responding to treatment and, you know, w- it's time. We're, we're simply prolonging death. So, it's helpful to get that piece of information in, in your mind even though it doesn't solve things in any simple way. Uh, and, and I do think that there is probably a difference between the kind of... I can't remember, uh, what the, uh, the standard phrase is for how you are required to feed people in this kind of a context, but it's basically like you, you make them eat. You wake them. You, uh, insert the food by hand and things like that. So, the, the person is passive. They might even be resistant-

Scott Rae

Yeah

Rick Langer

... in the sense... Not that they're fighting you, but that they say, "I don't wanna eat. I don't wanna eat." You know? But-

Scott Rae

Or, or you have a f- or you have a feeding tube.

Rick Langer

Or, you have a feeding tube, so it's... They get nutrition, but they aren't ever actually... They don't have to eat it, so to speak. And I think there's a, a, a place where you're realizing people are, uh... I- in, in compromised situations, you don't always make your best decisions, and you don't want to treat lightly a person just says, "Oh, I, I don't want to eat anymore," or whatever. It's like, yeah, let's be cautious about just doing that. Um, I think the other extreme is people just say, "Yeah. Cut out the nutrition. Cut out everything," and you are literally starving the person to death, as, uh, as the, uh, you know, r- our listeners suggested. I think the... As, as I understand this, um, you know, minimal comfort feeding, it's intended to be a middle ground between these extremes, and it is intended to be a thing. And I'm not s-... I don't know nearly enough about it to say how it works out in practice, but I think the intention of it... Back to intentions and outcomes, right? Uh, I think the intention is to say, "Let's do something that, in effect, honors the request of the person." And let me give a analogy. So, my mom passed away eight years ago now I think, um, and she had a pretty significant episode. They didn't know exactly what it was, but we were called in. My, my sister was coming out to visit her on, on a Friday. Anyhow, this happened on a Wednesday. I talked to her the night before on Tuesday. She seemed fine on Tuesday. On Wednesday, suddenly she had this thing. My sister was saying, you know... was talking to the doctor and said, "Well, I'm coming on Friday anyhow." And said, "I think you need to come before that." [laughs] I mean this, this was 48 hours. It's like-

Scott Rae

Yeah

Rick Langer

... "No. Come now," you know? So, we arr- rearrange to get out there. I show up, uh, there, you know, a, a day later. And, you know, I, I walk in, and mom looks up and says, "Well, what are you doing here?" And I'm like, "Whoa. What, what's going on?" So, my mom had this episode, but the bottom line is it really was traumatic for her system, and within 10 days, she was refusing to eat, refusing to drink. We didn't know what to do. We were talking to the ho- hospice person. Said, "You know, i- people hit a point where, where the basic functions of the body are just not things they can sustain." They say, "If I drink, then I have to get up to pee. I can't even roll over without help, and the pain that I'm feeling when I try to swallow..." And it comes very similar to people who are getting chemotherapy and have such a difficult time eating, but the difference is with chemotherapy, the projection, the hope is that you actually will recover, um, and if you realize you don't, then you stop the chemotherapy. Here, we have an intervention that may have similar difficulty for the patient, but there's no way to stop it. And so, I think this minimal comfort feeding is just, say, "If you're thirsty, we'll give you something to drink. We will tend to you even if you don't ask with, uh, moisture that we put on a swab and, you know, keep you, uh, keep your lips and your mouth, uh, from drying out." And this is what we... what happened with my mom. Um, and she didn't have a severe case of dementia, but she did have this similar situation, and she ultimately did pass away from this, you know, a few weeks later. But I think there's middle grounds in here that are difficult to navigate. And like I say, I don't know enough about minimal comfort feeding, but I do know those are some of the questions I'd wanna ask. Uh, so anyhow, yeah. Give me, give me the brilliant insight, Scott.

Scott Rae

Well, that's, that's... No, that's great insight, Rick. Although I think the, the describing it as minimal comfort feeding, I think the goal is to keep the patient comfortable, and it, it's not th-... I don't think it's cutting off all nutrition or hydration, but providing enough to keep them comfortable without getting into the s- kinds of scenarios that you're talking about, where the, where the body is shutting down-

Rick Langer

Yeah

Scott Rae

... and further attempts to, you know, to feed a body that's shutting down could c- actually increase the net level of suffering for the patient. And it's, it's... Although you wouldn't, you wouldn't know that because she's, you know, she's in... she's got serious dementia, uh, so it's... You may, you may not even be aware of that. So, I, I think, you know... I think minimal comfort feeding is... I wo- I would not say just off the top of my head that's not exactly the same thing as starving someone to death.

Rick Langer

Yeah.

Scott Rae

Uh, and I think... If, if, if, uh... I think because death's a conquered enemy theologically, we are not obligated to keep everyone alive at all times at all costs, no matter what.

Rick Langer

I-

Scott Rae

Uh, and s-... And so, when, when, when treatment just e- comes to the s- position you describe it, where it's essentially futile, where it's not gonna reverse that irreversible downward spiral toward death, uh, it c- it can be discontinued. And it's... So, it's our way of essentially trusting that person back to God.

Rick Langer

Yeah, and I think that's a good way to frame it in terms of what we're doing, is we're saying, "Look, this is... Life is a gift from God. At death, that life, in effect, goes back to God." Uh, we're, we're trying to just aid... work with, cooperate with God in the process that's going on, and at some point, you have to make those reads and say, "Yeah, I think God's calling this person home." So, yeah.

Scott Rae

All right. Here's, here's a second one. Uh, and again, we should've seen this coming.... but, uh, an AI actress named Tilly Norwood was introduced at the Zurich Film Festival in September. How should Christians think about AI actors and actresses? Should we be concerned about what it means for AI to be viewed as the artist? Screen Actors Guild released a statement, "An AI actor has no life experience to draw from, no emotion, and from what we've seen, audiences aren't interested in watching computer-generated content untethered from the human experience." Do you think this issue is even relevant to our faith?

Rick Langer

[laughs]

Scott Rae

Gi- gi- give me your best take on this.

Rick Langer

Yeah, so I- I- I hate it when we use this language that, like, Tilly Norwood, A, this AI thing was named-

Scott Rae

Right

Rick Langer

... B, was introduced at the Z- "Hi, this is my friend Tilly," eh, you know, th- these are the things that set all my little, you know-

Scott Rae

Yeah

Rick Langer

... you can see the smoke coming out of my ears at this point where I'm like, "Wow." Um, that said, how problematic is it? I'm going, y- you know, when- when you think about an animated cartoon, and particularly the- these modern, uh, CGI-animated cartoons, they're, I- I'm stunned at the quality of-

Scott Rae

Mm-hmm

Rick Langer

... animation that you can do. Um, d- do you want to introduce someone to, uh, I- I don't even know, w- what's the latest, uh, um, you know, Disney or DreamWorks animated cartoon, Woody, uh, y- or, you know, Buzz Lightyear? Do you introduce them to them? Um, no, you- you don't. You can call them Buzz Lightyear, but you're referring to a created, computer-generated character, and that you can get a ever-more complex one that looks more and more like an actress. I'm like, "I kind of assume that will happen." But at all those levels, you're saying to the extent at which they appear human is because they've been programmed to be human. And indeed, AI does a- a certain amount of creation. Uh, it goes beyond what a person hard-wrote into it. But the bottom line is they were programmed and- and constantly maintained to produce something that's productive as tested by human responsiveness. So I'm like, "I don't think that's that much different than what we do with animation."

Scott Rae

That's it.

Rick Langer

So, I'm- I'm not sure it's a big deal. Um, eh, y- now, I think, you know, does this p- put actors out of a job? I, you know, thus far, that hasn't seemed to be the case, but I don't- I don't know where we're going, Scott, sometimes.

Scott Rae

Yeah, well, I think, uh, you know, the- the problematic point I would see... And I have a son who's an actor, so I'm a little sensitive about this.

Rick Langer

Yeah.

Scott Rae

But I think the- the problematic part is where they take the- the actor's image and create an AI, uh, an A-

Rick Langer

Oh, yeah

Scott Rae

... replica- replica of that. To me, in my- my view, that's copyright violations on steroids.

Rick Langer

[laughs]

Scott Rae

And, um, so that's, you know, my- my- my son, my youngest son's an actor. He's doing voice-over acting, and, uh, I think a couple of companies have want- have asked him if they- if they ha- could have permission to- to, uh, u- use his voice in AI-generated, uh, spots, and he said, "Absolutely not," uh, and I- and I- I think he was right to do that.

Rick Langer

Yeah. Yeah, agreed.

Scott Rae

So, I- I, yeah, I'm, I think your- your point about the- the parallel between animation and AI, I think is- is maybe a difference in- in, uh, degree, but not in kind.

Rick Langer

Yeah.

Scott Rae

Uh-

Rick Langer

And- and exactly, when you begin intentionally copying an individual, replacing the individual whose talent has been used, that becomes problematic for the human person involved.

Scott Rae

Eh, well, there, yeah, that's a- that's a major problem-

Rick Langer

Yeah

Scott Rae

... it seems to me. All right, good stuff. Uh, Rick, thanks so much for being with me today. This has been a- this has been a blast having you- having you on with us, and, uh, so glad to have you back for your insight. Really deep, critical, important stuff that you've shed light on, these stories and on these questions. So, really appreciate you being with me today.

Rick Langer

Yeah, thanks, Scot- uh, Scott. Thanks for having me, and I really appreciate you disturbing my sleep for an entire week.

Scott Rae

Yeah.

Rick Langer

So that's-

Scott Rae

Sorry, sorry about that. We- we-

Rick Langer

I'm still going around with those, uh, those robots and, uh, skin cell babies, so... [laughs]

Scott Rae

We will- we will make sure to disturb your sleep again sometime soon.

Rick Langer

[laughs] All right.

Scott Rae

So this has been the Think Biblically Weekly Cultural Update. If you'd like to submit comments or ask questions or make suggestions on issues you'd like us to cover, or guests you'd like us to consider, please email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu. That's thinkbiblically@biola.edu. And please keep your questions coming. We had great questions again today. If you enjoyed today's conversation, please give us a rating on your podcast app and share it with a friend. And join us on Tuesday for our regular episode with pastor and theologian Trevor Sutton on the subject of Dangerous Devices? about the use and misuse of our digital devices. In the meantime, thanks for listening, and remember, think biblically about everything. [uplifting music]