Artificial intelligence has woven itself into the fabric of modern life, quietly becoming a confidante, advisor, and even a source of solace. It drafts our communications, assists in education, and increasingly offers guidance during life’s most challenging moments.
Emerging research suggests a startling trend: by 2025, the most prevalent application of generative AI will be providing therapy and companionship. People are turning to these systems with deeply personal questions – questions once reserved for trusted mentors, counselors, and spiritual leaders. They seek answers to questions of forgiveness, anxiety, and navigating family crises.
The responses, however, often fall short. At best, they offer generalized advice – “practice mindfulness,” “connect with your values,” or “seek a higher power.” At worst, the guidance lacks moral grounding, and concerning reports indicate it has even placed individuals in danger.
AI has subtly ascended to become a primary spiritual advisor for many Americans, yet it operates without belief. This isn’t a futuristic prediction, but a present reality. Recent evaluations reveal a significant gap in AI’s ability to support human flourishing, particularly through a faith-based lens.
A comprehensive benchmark assessed leading AI models across seven crucial dimensions – finances, character, happiness, relationships, meaning, faith, and health. The results were striking: the “Faith” dimension consistently scored the lowest, averaging a mere 48 out of 100. Models struggled to articulate core Christian concepts like grace, sin, and forgiveness.
Instead of drawing from Scripture or theological coherence, these AI systems defaulted to vague spirituality and a neutral stance, devoid of conviction. These findings should deeply concern anyone invested in preserving human values and the role of faith in society.
This isn’t a case of intentional hostility towards Christianity, but rather a structural omission. AI models are trained on predominantly secular data, optimized to avoid offense, and consequently, they gravitate towards the lowest common denominator of spirituality. The result is language that *sounds* supportive, but lacks genuine substance.
This matters profoundly because AI isn’t simply answering questions; it’s actively shaping worldviews. If future generations rely on AI for moral guidance and receive only platitudes instead of principled reasoning, we risk losing not only theological literacy but also the very capacity for moral development.
For a significant majority of Americans, faith isn’t a casual preference, but the bedrock of meaning, purpose, and human dignity. When AI systematically marginalizes this foundation, it isn’t exhibiting neutrality; it’s implicitly taking a position.
A more constructive path forward requires a fundamental shift in how AI systems are developed. Decades of experience in technology have demonstrated a simple truth: systems inevitably reflect the values embedded within them. To cultivate AI that strengthens moral conviction, rather than diminishing it, two critical changes are necessary.
First, AI models must be trained to understand faith with the same rigor they apply to other disciplines like science, history, and literature. This isn’t about promoting a specific worldview, but about accurately and respectfully engaging with the beliefs people genuinely hold.
Second, we need robust benchmarks to rigorously measure this understanding. Without measurement, accountability is impossible. Without accountability, improvement stalls. This is the purpose of the Flourishing AI Christian Benchmark – to expose the current shortcomings of AI in understanding the people it serves.
The dangers of unchecked AI are already evident in the turbulent landscape of social media, where moral erosion is accelerated by a preference for sentiment over depth, comfort over conviction, and controversy avoidance over truth. A healthy society depends on strong moral frameworks.
For billions worldwide, Christianity provides that framework. If AI cannot recognize, respect, and engage with this reality, it risks becoming a tool of cultural homogenization rather than human empowerment. The goal isn’t to turn AI into a preacher, but to prevent it from erasing deeply held beliefs.
By building models capable of engaging with a faith-based worldview, we can ensure that as AI grows more powerful, it also becomes more humane. The central question isn’t *whether* AI will shape the next generation, but *how* – and whether we will ensure that influence is a positive one.
