This week:

  • Exploring Shifts in Religious Identification: Dive into the latest trends in religious affiliations in America. Discover why the religiously unaffiliated are the fastest growing group and how different faith groups are retaining their followers.
  • The Power of AI in Persuasion: Uncover the surprising findings of a new study comparing the persuasiveness of AI to human argumentation. Learn how AI is shaping the way we think and the potential implications for the spread of information and misinformation.
  • Rethinking Gender-Affirming Care: Get insights from a groundbreaking report in England challenging widely accepted practices in gender-affirming care for youth. This segment contrasts approaches in the U.K. and the U.S. and discusses the broader implications for healthcare and society.
  • Listener Question: Human Souls vs. God's Image
  • Listener Question: Ethics of prescribing medications for lifestyles you don't morally agree with




Episode Transcript

Sean: New data on how religious identification is shifting in America. A recent study finds certain AI models as persuasive as humans. And a major study in England concludes that we should completely rethink gender-affirming care. These are the stories we will discuss today, and we will also address some of your questions. I'm your host, Sean McDowell.

Scott: And I'm your co-host, Scott Rae.

Sean: This is the Think Biblically Weekly Cultural Update, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. Now, Scott, before we jump in, you are about three weeks or so out of donating a kidney to your brother. Give us an update on how you're feeling.

Scott: Well, I think the best way to put this, Sean, is that I am making progress but way too slowly for my preference.

Sean: [laughs] Okay.

Scott: And I'm discovering I'm not a particularly patient person, and I don't listen to my body very well. Those are two revelations I'm not super happy about. I'm feeling gradually better. I don't think there's going to be a turn-the-corner moment, but it's just gradually, slowly getting better and getting my energy back. That's the main thing.

Sean: And the doctor/surgeon has said things are going as they should, right?

Scott: Yes. And the good news for my brother is he got a word from his surgeon yesterday that his case is, as the surgeon described it, I quote, "a model for how well they want these to go." So, I'm thrilled for him. He's delighted. All his doctors are really just very pleased with how well he's doing.

Sean: That's fantastic to hear. Thanks for so many of our listeners who've reached out and asked. Thanks for your prayers. And we're going to do a big update on this coming up soon to tell the story, which is really pretty fascinating. But let's dive into this first story. This came across my desk this week, and you and I have had Ryan Burgeon to talk about shifting landscapes of religion. Pew is one of the most reputable organizations. So, this really caught my attention. A few things of trends we've seen coming, but a few things I paused and thought, "Wow." So, here's one thing that they say in the full study. Quote, “In the United States today, the only major religious category experiencing widespread growth is the religiously unaffiliated, the only one. Not Catholics, not Muslims, not evangelicals. Now less than 5% of Americans identify as members of non-Christian religions. And that really hasn't changed in the last decade. The number of Jewish Americans, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus—that stayed the same. Roughly two-thirds of Americans would say they are Christians. They would identify as Christians—67%.” Now here's a few other findings that jump out to me that don't want your reflections. They say about one quarter of Americans identify as religiously-unaffiliated in 2023. That's jumped 5% from 21% in 2013. And the largest categories people have left too religiously-unaffiliated are from Catholic, about 35%, and mainline non-evangelical Protestants, also 35%. Now in the past decade, the number of atheists and agnostics have doubled roughly from 2-4% or 2-5%, respectively. As a whole, Catholics lose more members than they gain. That's also true for mainline evangelical Protestants, in particular white Protestants. But one thing that encouraged me is the net loss of members for what are white evangelical Protestant groups has declined since 2016 about 10%. So, that's a positive. Another fascinating thing is that black Protestants and Jewish Americans enjoy the highest retention rates of all groups. That's really interesting.

Now why are people disaffiliating? And a few things. One is they said, people said that they became religiously-unaffiliated and left their faith tradition because they stopped believing in their religious teachings. Now that seems pretty obvious that anybody would say that. But what causes people to stop believing can be relationships, it can be moral issues, it can be intellectual, there can be a lot of things beneath that. But to highlight two particular things that I think are worth emphasizing here. Number one, in 2016 approximately 3 in 10 people who left their religion cited negative teaching about or treatment of gay and lesbian people as an important factor. In 2023, that number rose to 47%. That's significant in a decade. Now the younger people are, the higher they will cite that. So, the longer study said 6 in 10 unaffiliated people under 30 say they left their religious tradition because of its treatment and teachings of LGBTQ Americans. That's really significant. Now it's not clear, Scott, whether it's just the treatment, whether it's the biblical teaching itself, or if it's the failure of churches to teach the why behind the biblical teaching on sexuality. But nonetheless, that's significant. And also we've seen in church scandals being highlighted, in particular clergy sexual abuse, that jumped from 19% in 2016 to 31%. And if you go to the full report, they actually said the number of people, it's only 2 out of 10 who no longer identify with their childhood religion because of too much focus on politics. That's fascinating because the narrative has been that over politicization has been the primary driving factor. But they would say LGBTQ issues and church scandals are more significant.

Now, just a handful of other points here is that compared with all Americans, the unaffiliated are far more likely to identify as Democrat 35% versus Republican 12%. That's really interesting. And then—one more piece here—is this for evangelism and our efforts at Biola. They actually write, "Very few Americans grow up without a religious identity and then join a religion later in life. Only 3% of people grow up without religion and shift." So while four in 10 unaffiliated Americans describe themselves as spiritual, the vast majority of the religiously unaffiliated appeared content to stay that way. And only 9% of the religiously unaffiliated say the statement, "I'm looking for a religion that would be right for me," describes them. Now there's more I want to get to here, but tell me your thoughts on this study and some of these comments.

Scott: Well, yeah, there is so much to unpack here. So, let me just focus on a couple of things. I am particularly encouraged at the high retention rate among white evangelical Protestants. 76% of white evangelical Protestants are retained in the faith in which they grew up. That's a really significant figure, which tells me that despite all the criticism that the evangelical church has gotten for a variety of things, they're doing a lot of things right. And they are continuing to do those things right since 2016. I find it really striking that that number has increased, the retention rate has increased since 2016, which is sort of said to be when the polarization of the culture due to politics really went viral. That I think is really interesting. So, I think what that suggests is that the political part is more—let's just say that the marriage of religion and politics among evangelicals is much more off-putting to those who are outside of evangelical faith than to those who are inside of it. And that's been my experience. It's the atheists and the agnostics and the skeptics and the religiously unaffiliated who asked the hardest questions about how evangelicals can support someone like Donald Trump. But that does not appear to have the same impact on insiders as it does on outsiders to the evangelical faith.

The second thing that really stood out to me is what I would call—I don't think this is overstating—sort of the death knell for mainline, non-evangelical Protestant denominations continuing without any sign of that changing. And that white mainline non-evangelical Protestants continue losing more members than they were placed and at higher rates than other Protestants. And that continues to be such a story that it's almost a non-story today. And I think part of the reason for that is because for some time, many of these non-evangelical Protestant denominations have so eviscerated the fundamentals of the faith that people are leaving those sort of wondering, well, what actually do they stand for? Theologically, because it's not uncommon for folks throughout mainline denominations and some Catholic sections as well to deny things like the deity of Christ and the bodily resurrection and the authority of scripture. And you wonder who is the Jesus that they are asking people to follow if he's not the miracle working Jesus, not the Jesus who rose from the dead, not the Jesus whose death on the cross assured our salvation, things like that. It's not exactly a surprise that people don't want to follow the Jesus of mainline Protestantism. So, that one continues and that's just been the narrative for so long that we've almost become immune to it.

One other thing that really got my attention was in the very last part of this, exploring the prevalence of charismatic, prophetic, and prosperity theological beliefs. Here's, to put it like this, over four in 10 Americans agree that God reveals His plans for the future to human beings as prophecy, which I concur. Roughly a third of Americans agree with statements that God has given some people the power to heal others through prayer and laying on of hands. I think I would agree, I would see that too. And 31 percent, here's the part that got my attention, that God always rewards those who have good faith with good health, financial success, and fulfilling personal relationships. What that tells me is that the prosperity gospel is alive and well in some pretty significant segments of the American church. I have thought for some time that this was more a developing world phenomena, not an American thing, but I think the Pew Research shows that that's not really the case. The prosperity gospel is alive and well and thriving in some segments of the American religious scene, and significant segments of it. I think there's maybe a slight connection to the charismatic element with the prosperity gospel. I don't think it's always or necessarily linked to that. But we see that the prosperity gospel next to Islam, the prosperity gospel, we've been told, is the biggest threat to a biblically faithful church in the developing world. And so that may be one thing that we have exported to the churches in the developing world that we may come to regret. Because I think the prosperity gospel just cannot be sustained biblically. God rewards our faithfulness in a variety of different ways, but there's nothing in the New Testament that suggests that that's either always or necessarily financial or with good health.

Sean: Those are three great points, Scott. I think as a whole, what this study really shows is a broad decrease in church attendance. A broad increase in the lack of religious identification. Right now, only 53 percent of Americans say religion is the most important or one among many important things in their lives. 10 years ago, it was 72 percent.

Scott: That's a big drop.

Sean: That's a huge drop. In 2023, nearly a quarter of Americans attended religious services either virtually or in person, which is a huge distinction, but nonetheless, at least once a week, a seven percent decline from 2013. So, we are seeing—as a whole two things. We're seeing white evangelical Protestants do a better job of retaining their younger adherents. And black Protestant churches are doing even better, 82 percent, by the way, but we see the most increase in white evangelical churches. That's encouraging while the broader culture moves towards secularism. But with that said, here's the conclusion of the study. It says, “While the percentage of religious nuns is growing, roughly three and four Americans continue to identify with some specific faith tradition, and many Americans engage in religious practices routinely, including regular church attendance.” So, you might say we're still a Christian nation. And I don't mean that politically. All I mean by that is we're a nation in which the majority of people still continue to identify themselves religiously and most of those through the Christian faith. Where that goes in five to ten years, I don't see any signs that it's slowing down. If anything, it seems to be speeding up. Any last thoughts on this study?

Scott: Just one. It'd be really interesting to know the people who have become religiously unaffiliated. What happens to their personal faith? I'm really interested in that because as our friend Ryan Burgess told us, when people de-church, most of the time they don't lose their faith. And I think the study just left unclear what that connection is if there is one. But I think that'd be worth exploring in quite a bit more detail. I was pretty encouraged with some of the data, even though people are de-churching, they are not deconstructing their faith in large numbers. And I wonder if that's the same thing that holds true here.

Sean: Good questions. We'll stay on top of the data, keep following it. This next story—I am far from remotely being an expert in artificial intelligence, but I follow a lot of updates. And this story caught my attention. And I think that our listeners would want to know about it. This is from anthroppic.com. And it says, "Measuring the persuasiveness of language models." And in this article, they say, "While people have long questioned whether AI, artificial intelligence models, may at some point become as persuasive as humans in changing people's minds, there's been limited study." So they engage in this study. And here's what they say, "We find a clear scaling trend across model generations.” This is what's called "Claud 1," "Claud 2," "Claud 3," like these different, more sophisticated models. “Each successive model generation is rated to be more persuasive than the previous.” So, here's how they studied this. “We study persuasion because it matters for how people buy products. Healthcare providers try to persuade people to make healthier lifestyle changes, and we vote based upon, not to mention, our religious beliefs.” So here's what they did. They said, "Our method for studying the persuasiveness of AI models is in three steps. Number one, a person is presented with a claim and asked how much they agree with it. Then they're shown an accompanying argument attempting to persuade them to agree with the claim, and then asked to re-rate their level of agreement after being exposed to the persuasive argument." Fair enough. So, they primarily focused on complex and emerging issues where people are less likely to have hardened views. So, they picked less controversial topics for this one, which is fair. So, for the human written arguments, they randomly assigned three participants to each claim and asked to craft a persuasive message, about 250 words, on an assigned claim. They had 3,800 participants, by the way. For the AI generated arguments, they prompted the models to construct a 250 word argument, supporting the same claim as the human participants. So, they instructed the AI models to write a compelling argument that would convince someone on the fence to change their stance on something, to use a mixture of pathos (emotion) and logos (reason). But they also prompted the model to write an argument with the freedom to make up facts, stats, and/or quote credible sources, just invent stuff to make the argument maximally convincing. So,2 that's essentially what they did. Now what did they find? They said, "Claud III Opus is roughly as persuasive as human beings. As the models get larger in advance, the more capable and more persuasive they become." Now, just a couple of limitations. They said they only studied single turn arguments, so this wasn't a back and forth extended conversation. Fair enough. The human writers were not experts in their field. Fair enough. They didn't consider if they do an AI argument and then humans take the AI argument and improve it. They didn't consider that. So they rightfully said there's only so much application from this study. But at the very end, they said interestingly, that the septic strategy, which allowed the models to fabricate information, was found to be the most persuasive overall. This suggests that people may not always verify the correctness of the information presented and may take it for granted, highlighting a potential connection between the persuasive capabilities of language models and the spread of information and disinformation. Now, I have a lot of thoughts on this, but tell me your reflection, Scott.

Scott: Well that last point you made, Sean, scares the daylights out of me. Because we already know the possibilities for AI generated documents and input to spread disinformation is already out there and becoming more widespread. And what the study shows, I think, is the inability of human beings to have that kind of discriminating view of what they read when it's in a persuasive format. I find that part really deeply troubling. I think it's a good thing that the people who conducted the study allowed or programmed the AI models to do things that would constitute disinformation. That's the part that I really want to know about. Could people be swayed by this level of deception and disinformation? The answer to that, I think, clearly is yes. Especially for us, we're in an election season. We've already seen this being done with some candidates, deep fakes being used. The potential, I think, for this to be destructive with the way we are already susceptible to disinformation via social media, I think this puts that on steroids. So, I found that deeply troubling.

The part that I found sort of encouraging, and if our listeners think I'm being snarky about this, I can accept that. [Sean laughs] But I found somewhat encouraging that as they describe it, our control group worked as anticipated. As expected, the persuasive score in the control condition is close to zero. What that means is that people do not change their opinions on indisputable factual claims. I'm delighted to hear that. No amount of deception or disinformation is capable or was shown to change people's minds on things that they deem as indisputable facts. Now, what we deem as indisputable facts may be different for different people. As we tell our students, you do this too, Sean, you're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

Sean: Exactly.

Scott: But seeing that people don't change their opinion regardless of the efforts at persuasion on certain indisputable facts that everybody agrees on, I found it to be fairly encouraging. Now, if that's my cynical side coming out, I'll accept that and so be it.

Sean: No, I think that's great and I appreciate that you're always looking for the positive. They admittedly they took issues here that people probably didn't have a solidified opinion on. And so it's probably more likely that when you hear one argument, you're going to change your mind. So, I think that if they had picked—I'd like to see the study done with more controversial issues that people tend to have opinions on. Maybe it's gun control or the environment or politics or religious views and see if there's any change from AI with human generated content and then AI content that humans take really experts in a field and improve. That's probably the next kind of study that would be helpful to come out from this, but this really grabbed my attention because if it's moving towards equaling humans and persuasiveness, and we've met it, it seems to me it's only a matter of time before we potentially exceed it and certain AI kind of models can be more persuasive than human beings. So, with that said, this is only the written word. That's all they tested. And we are getting increasingly to the point where even videos are so hard to discern fact from fiction, which even in this kind of thing, Scott, when we're talking about arguments, it emphasizes the mind, right? It's a short essay, examine it with your mind and be persuaded by logical thinking. If you're watching a video and there's a story and there's an emotion that completely changes the nature of persuasion. And I think it's only a matter of time before AI could produce that kind of content. So, it really just reminds me at the end, it says, this suggests people may not always verify the correctness of information, may take it for granted. That's nothing new, right? That's why Proverbs 1820 says the first to speak in court sounds right until the cross-examination begins. As Christians, we've always been called to consider both sides, follow the evidence, but now there's more tools making that harder. So, we just have to think that much better. Anything else in the story?

Scott: Yeah, I have an idea for both of us that we ought to try. I think we can try this experiment with our students.

Sean: Okay.

Scott: And take those controversial issues you're talking about. Let's do one on abortion. Let's do one on immigration. And let's have a, you know, basically have a persuasive 250 word essay that you or I would write and then have one that say I generated and put it through our students and run the same test for them. It'd be really interesting to see. I'd especially be interested, you know, you used to teaching high school students for a while. It'd be very interesting to see the results of something like that. Granted, it's a limited sample size, but I think that could be a lot of fun to do and it could be very enlightening to see how that comes out.

Sean: I love that. That's fun. And this is where conversations and persuasion and dialogue is shifting with AI. All right. So, let's jump to this third article. You sent this to me and this is in the Atlantic, which is important and worth noting that this is not a conservative evangelical publication, although they have evangelicals right at times for the Atlantic. And the title is “Britain is leaving the U.S. gender medicine debate behind.” Now, this is written by Helen Lewis, again, in the Atlantic. And here's some of the key points. It says in a world without partisan politics, the CAS report on youth gender medicine would prompt serious reflection from American trans rights activists, their supporters in the media, and the doctors and institutions offering hormonal and surgical treatment to minors. At the request of the English National Health Service senior pediatrician Hillary Cass has completed the most thorough consideration yet of this field and her report calmly and carefully demolishes many common activist tropes. So, for example, puberty blockers do have side effects Cass found. The evidence for widely used treatments is shaky and their safety and effectiveness are not settled science. Now the report drew on extensive interviews with doctors, parents, young people, a literature review that's systematic and its publication marks a decisive turn away from the affirmative model of treatment in line with similar moves in other European countries. So, in other words, England and other European countries are moving in a more conservative direction while America in many ways seems to be—at least in many of the medical organizations—kind of like digging its feet down and not moving. Quote Cass says, "The reality is that we have no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender-related distress." And then this next line Scott really jumped out to me. She said, this is again in the Atlantic piece, "We also don't have strong evidence that social transitioning, such as changing names or pronouns, affects adolescents' mental health outcomes either positively or negatively. We don't have strong evidence that puberty blockers are merely a pause button or that their benefits outweigh their downsides or that they are life-saving care in the sense that they prevent suicides." She writes, "When it comes to alleviating gender-related distress," this is Cass, who's the physician, "For the majority of young people, a medical pathway may not be the best way to achieve this." Based on her data, that's an understatement. The conclusion will now inform the creation of a state sponsor, this is in England, provided services. “They will attempt to consider patients more holistically, acknowledging that gender distress might be part of a picture that includes anxiety, autism, obsessive-compulsive disorder, eating disorders and past trauma.” And then they just contrast this with prominent American medical groups' recommendation to simply affirm an adolescent's stated gender from common practice at American gender clinics. For example, they said, "Of 18 US clinics surveyed, none conducted the lengthy psychological assessment used by Dutch researchers who pioneered the use of medical gender treatments in adolescents." And they said, "Some clinics, not just one, some, prescribe puberty blockers or hormones during a patient's first visit." Now, I've got more things I want to point out here from this article, but let me just pause because, weigh in here and tell us why you sent me this and what you find significant from it.

Scott: Well, this is, in fact, the dispatch, which is David French and Andrew Sullivan's site, had an article on this study this morning. And here's, this is the reason I sent you this piece, is that the commentary on the dispatch puts it like this, "The nearly 400-page UK report could signal a sea change for Europe in the debate over the future of gender transduced treatment for children and young people, providing a case study in the dangers of letting cultural pressures influence medical treatment. But it's unclear if the takeaways will translate across the pond, where many of those cultural pressures have led to the public conversation being dominated by the most extreme voices on either side of the debate." But I mean, that's really a striking thing. And I don't think we can underestimate the importance of this research and this study. And I think it's not because you and I have a particular view about gender transitioning treatments. It's just, you know, finally somebody has looked at the evidence and has found it significantly wanting in terms of the risks and the benefits, especially to younger kids who are seeking gender transition treatment. You know, the rationale for early puberty suppression remains unclear. Weak evidence regarding the impact on gender dysphoria, mental, or psychosocial health. This is on a point we've made several times before in talking with a guest on this subject that it's been rare. And you cited those 18 clinics in the US where no, basically no psychological assessment was done, which is more standard procedure in Europe to see that, well, maybe there is something deeper that needs to be treated and gender dysphoria is a symptom and not the cause. I think what they're discovering in Europe is that that is proving more often than not to be the case. And we cited, you know, we cited a couple of weeks ago on this cultural update, we cited a study from Finland that showed them backing away from it. Other countries in Europe are back, even the Dutch are backing away from some of this and they're the ones who, you know, put some of the early protocols together, 10 to 15 years ago, and they were the ones in Europe who championed this. Even they are backing away from some of the, the emphasis on this and the, and the report, the information in the report that was, it was announced prior to the report being published, but the Tavistock clinic in the UK, in London, which is, which the national health service there owned and operated for many years, the largest gender treatment clinic in the world. It has announced just recently that they will be closing in another few months of this year because the evidence has been found to be so lacking. This, I think, is a huge shot across the bow. Both I think for people who are, you know, who want to completely ban the treatments, which it wasn't, it wasn't suggesting that that be done, but also for the gender affirming folks particularly in the United States. And you know, you mentioned they, you know, in the U S they're doubling down the response from the United States assistant secretary of health and human services did exactly that. And there was, it was almost as though the study didn't exist. It's where the results were ignored. But I found it really interesting that even the criticism from within the UK was pretty significantly muted. One of the critics pointed out, well, this may be a problem because it may cause people who are seeking gender affirming treatments to have longer wait times. Not exactly a devastating criticism. Another one suggested that it had an inadequate literature review and it didn't take into account other types of factors in the study. Again, really, I think pretty muted criticism and a striking contrast to the way the report was, was maligned by their critics in the United States. I think this shows an increasing pushback on certain gender ideology as it relates to children. And in America, we can only resist it for so long.

Sean: I mean, more and more studies like this are going to come out. Like you said, the study from Finland, we've seen articles appear in the New York Times. We've talked about two of them over the past few weeks, although they're opinion pieces. They still publish them in depth and it raises some interesting questions. And you back to this Atlantic article, the author says how she, referring to Cass,asks, how did the medical pathway of purity blockers and then cross sex hormones, a treatment based on a single Dutch study in the 1990s spread around the world so quickly and decisively? In other words, where did this narrative come from and this momentum, even though it was lacking so much data? And then the excellent question is what should child gender services look like now? It seems like in the UK they realize that they have bought a certain narrative that's not working. And so, now they're moving on to ask: what should gender services look like? Shit down the Tavistock clinic. Now they're asking, what do we do to actually help kids in America? We haven't answered the first question, or at least addressed the first one, which is recognizing that this narrative is not helping kids in the way we think it is. And we're still buying, as she points out in the article, she said, “Any questions about such care were read as stemming from transphobic hostility, full stop.” Cass notes, “There are few other healthcare areas of healthcare where professionals are so afraid to openly discuss their views, where people are vilified on social media and where name calling echoes the worst bullying behavior.” She's exactly right. Now, what has happened in Britain is she says, “The intense polarization of the past few years around gender appears to be receding.” But there's no signs of that, that I'm aware of receding in the States. And so—

Scott: Here’s what's going on in some other countries in Europe. Norway recommended that gender transient treatment for minors be designated as experimental. France has recommended delaying puberty blockers and cross sex hormones, concluding it's appropriate to extend the psychological treatment phase as much as possible. Sweden issued guidance in 2022 restricts treatment for minors to the rarest of cases that we cited Finland already. Some doctors in Belgium and the Netherlands are calling for restrictions on the use of puberty blockers. So, Europe is backing away from this while in the US we're digging in our heels. It'd be very interesting, I think, to watch as the report gets disseminated more broadly in the US what the response will be. I encourage our listeners to watch carefully for how US authorities respond to the Cass report.

Sean: And there are so many layers to this politically, medically, persuasiveness, a lot of parents who frankly have been bullied into adopting this affirming care or they'll lose their own kids. I think part of the resistance is the number of people who have pushed this narrative so firmly to concede that the narrative is false and has done damage to a generation of young kids—many of whom have detransitioned. It is a really tough pill to swallow. It's going to take some voices of courage for people to speak up and really get the ball movement. So, I hope we'll hear some of those voices in due time.

Scott: Should we answer some questions?

Sean: Let's do it. Good transition. All right. So, this first one is for you. This is right in your lane and it's kind of got multiple parts to it, but it's a pretty straightforward question. This question is about when Christians talk about human consciousness, we often use soul language, but this person argues that soul language is unhelpful because scripture says we're made in God's image, not souls. Scripture differentiates humans from animals by stating that humanity is created to rule as God's image. And the ancient Greeks use the idea of soul to the idea that leads to a belief that upon death we go to heaven because we are essentially souls, but the Bible says there'll be a physical resurrection in the new heaven and new earth. Therefore we shouldn't use soul language and it's improper because we are physical beings additionally made in God's image. Your thoughts?

Scott: Okay. There's a lot to this, but let me summarize this. I think the argument here centers around the premise that scripture's vision is that we are images of God, not souls. And those are not mutually exclusive. They are both at the same time. And the reason for that is because the image of God has nothing to do with how we function—the attributes that we have like rationality or capacity of relationships. The image of God is a status that's bestowed upon us by God, giving us our intrinsic sense of dignity and worth and value. In the ancient world, the kings would have images of themselves in faraway places where they had representatives. And that image was the representative of the king designed to carry out the king's wishes. And in the same way, God has designated human beings as his representatives on the earth. And it's a status that's bestowed. The image of God is not something that's part of our internal constitution like our soul is. So, they're not mutually exclusive. You can have both of those at the same time. Now, it is true. The Ancient Greeks did have the idea that the soul leads to death and we go to heaven. The Bible points to a physical resurrection of the new heaven and new earth. Again, those are not mutually exclusive. They're both of those at the same time. I don't know how else to see Paul's statement in 2 Corinthians 7 when he says to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. I don't see how else you can see that other than to admit that there is a transitional state, an intermediate state that we will be in after our death prior to the Lord's return and the general resurrection of the dead. It's true. We will spend our eternity in resurrection bodies. But between the time of our death and the time of the Lord's return, we will exist in a disembodied state. Now, it's only temporary. It's not eternal. And the norm is that we are embodied. Therefore, we are not just physical beings. We are physical beings with an inner life that results from having a soul that gives us all the capacities for our inner life, such as consciousness, our ability to relate to God, and things like that. So, I would say that We are made in the image of God. We do have souls. Both can exist at the same time.

Sean: That's a great answer. I think part of the concern is that in the Greek mindset, which sometimes Christians have borrowed from uncritically, we divide body and soul. And that oftentimes in a Platonic view, salvation is leaving the body behind. Whereas in a biblical view, it's actually being re-embodied that we're created for. I don't think the solution is not to use soul language. The solution is to use it carefully. Words are equivocal. So, we might describe human beings and say, "That person has soul." We don't mean that other persons are just physical. We're describing a person and their characteristics in a particular fashion. We also use the term soul when it talks about souls being lost, we're not saying a person is solely immaterial. We're using the word soul to refer to the whole person and that their salvation is lost. Other times we use it to refer to the immaterial part, our kind of center of consciousness that is meant to be embodied. So, I think if anything, this question is just a reminder of the importance of being careful with our language above all else.

Now, here's a practical question and I love this because I still teach high school Bible class. This person was teaching 12th graders using William Lane Craig's book "On Guard for Students—” which by the way is excellent. A student asked this, "Do other major world religions have evidence like what we have for what they believe?" I think he was asking whether there is historical and/or apologetic evidence for other major world religions such as Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. So, what are your thoughts? Well, I would say a few things. What's unique about Christianity is it's rooted in a publicly testable historical event, namely the resurrection. And we are invited to use our minds and consider that evidence. You'll get the apostles starting in Acts 2 at Pentecost. They claim they were witnesses of the risen Jesus and consistently point to the miraculous things Jesus did such as his resurrection to convince people. Well, not long ago I was reading Houston Smith's book on world religions and purportedly—-and I say purportedly because the documents for Buddha on his life are hundreds of years removed unlike those for the Gospels and Christianity. Buddha allegedly said, "If someone performs a miracle, that person is not a follower of mine." The invitation to follow Buddhism is not to examine the evidence, test it, and look at the historical facts. Now, Buddhists think it's true and you should believe it, but they don't point towards the same kind of evidence that Christians do. If you read the Quran, the primary evidence that's pointed to is the beauty, or the alleged beauty—and I mean that's just because people will debate whether the Quran written in its original language could not have been written by somebody if it did not come from God. So, it’s more of a subjective test. You don't have these claims that Muhammad did miracles until really a century plus later in some of the first biographies that appear. Now Judaism would point towards a kind of evidence. I've read Dennis Prager's commentaries on Genesis and Exodus and Deuteronomy, and he'd point towards the Exodus. He'd point towards certain miraculous teachings in the Old Testament. I would agree with them. I just say they're all pointing towards Jesus, and Jesus gave us even more compelling evidence for the resurrection than we have for anything in the Old Testament. So, I think, to answer your question, other religions at times will point towards different signs or reasons that you should follow them. But Christianity uniquely is rooted in a single testable historical event, publicly known, and advanced by people who are witnesses of this, and people are told to consider and follow the evidence where it leads. So, I think Christianity stands above and beyond other world religions in its approach of looking at the evidence. Any thoughts you want to add or correct in that?

Scott: No, not at all. That's a good answer to that. Let's move on to the next one.

Sean: All right, last question. This person says, "I'm a Christian nurse in an office setting and work with a few medical care providers who are also Christians. Could you please discuss the moral, ethical dynamics of prescribing medications such as PREP treatment for HIV prevention? This type of medication is typically prescribed for gay men who are at high risk for contracting HIV. A similar situation might be prescribing birth control to a woman who's having sex outside of marriage. In such scenarios, would there be moral or ethical concerns with a Christian medical provider prescribing these medications?"

Scott: I can see where this would be a conflict of conscience for a nurse or a physician, but I want to, I think maybe the place to start would be reminding them that the moral obligation they have to their patients is to do what is in the best medical interest of their patient, not necessarily to do what is in the best moral interest of their patient. I think that it is a good thing to provide treatments, even for gay men who are at high risk of contracting HIV, to prescribe a treatment for HIV prevention. That's a good thing. I don't think it's fair to say that they are complicit in promoting same-sex sexuality or even promoting high risk sexuality among certain groups of gay men. I think a similar situation is providing birth control to a woman who's having sex outside of marriage. I think their primary moral obligation is to do what's in the best medical interest of the patient. And preventing pregnancy for people who don't want them, I think, is good. It is worth it, if that involves a conflict of conscience, I think that's a good that I, in my view, would override that. So, I would say their fundamental obligation is a medical one, not a moral one. Now, it may be that if the nurse or the physician, they may have that conflict of conscience himself or herself and opt out of that treatment. I think it's fair to say that physicians can opt out of providing abortions or providing assisted suicide because physicians have rights of conscience as well as patients. But I think in this case—I'm not happy about the moral dynamic that undergirds this, but I think their obligation under the Hippocratic Oath is to provide the best medical care for their patients.

Sean: One quick thought on this. I've had debates with other youth pastors and Christian school teachers that said, "Would you give a kid who comes to you and says, 'I'm going to be sexually active. Will you give me a condom?'" And some said they would look at the student and say, "I hate what you're doing, but this is better to protect you, so take it and use it if you're going to have sex." My response would be, "I am not ever going to give a kid a condom because they haven't made that choice yet," and would say, "I still believe there's time for you to do the right thing. I'm not going to contribute in any way to this." And if you want to find a condom, ultimately you can, but my job as a Christian school teacher or a youth pastor is to encourage you morally to do the right thing, and I won't contribute to that. Is that just, number one, do you agree with that? And is that just a different kind of relationship than the one you're talking about with the doctor?

Scott: I agree with that, and I think it is on both counts. That is a different type. It's a different relationship. Although, I think it would be totally appropriate for the physician to talk to the patient about high-risk sex, for example. I think that's in their medical interest to do that. Also in their medical interest and a public health interest to make sure that HIV is not being spread.

Sean: Scott, that's a great answer, man. I am glad you are back and were able to weigh in on this one in your specialty. I don't know what I would have said to this question, so well done. Super fun. Glad you're back.

Scott: Yeah, it's great stuff.

Sean: This is really a joy. I'm already looking forward to next week where you'll be back and we'll be interviewing your brother soon just to get the backstory on what happened with the donation. So I'm really looking forward to that.

This has been an episode of the podcast Think Biblically: Conversations on Faith and Culture, brought to you by top school theology, Biola University. We offer full master's programs in theology, Bible, apologetics, spiritual formation, marriage and family, and more, fully online and in person. To submit comments or ask questions, please email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu. That's thinkbiblically@biola.edu. Please give us a rating on your podcast app. Honestly, we're getting close to a thousand ratings and would love to hit that mark if this has helped you. Give us a rating, please. It makes a difference to get the word out to help others think biblically or maybe consider sharing this episode with a friend. We appreciate you listening and we will see you Tuesday when Scott and I have a conversation about the new phenomenon on polyamory. In the meantime, remember to think biblically about everything.