Between Code and Faith: How AI Models Understand and Reimagine Religion

Abstract

Artificial intelligence has become one of the most transformative forces in contemporary society, reshaping not only how humans work and communicate, but also how they understand meaning, morality, and the divine. This paper investigates the multifaceted relationship between artificial intelligence and religion from three interconnected angles. First, it examines whether AI can be considered religious in any meaningful philosophical or functional sense, drawing on existing scholarship in theology, philosophy of mind, and digital religion studies. Second, it explores how AI systems represent, simplify, and moralize religious content — and what this reveals about the values embedded in their training. Third, and most originally, it presents a comparative analysis of four major AI models — ChatGPT, Google Gemini, xAI Grok, and Anthropic Claude — examining how each conceptualizes religion and what characteristics their hypothetical self-designed religions would exhibit. The paper argues that while AI cannot be religious in a subjective, experiential sense, it functions as a powerful religious actor: it shapes how millions understand faith, inspires new quasi-religious movements, and embeds secular-humanist values into its representations of the sacred. The religions these models would construct, it is argued, tell us more about the ideological assumptions of their creators than about any capacity for genuine spiritual experience.

Introduction

The paper explores the complex relationship between artificial intelligence (AI) and religion, asking whether AI can be considered religious. While AI lacks consciousness, belief, or inner experience, it increasingly shapes religious thought and practice: it represents religious ideas, performs functions traditionally reserved for clergy, inspires new religious movements, and provokes philosophical debates about consciousness, the soul, and human purpose.

The literature shows four main intersections of AI and religion: new religious metaphors, AI-inspired religious movements, AI as a tool in religious practice, and AI’s role in existential debates. Historical analyses suggest AI’s development is subtly informed by religious ideas, such as redemption and transcendence. Studies also indicate that AI tends to simplify religious content while promoting pluralism and tolerance, reflecting the ideological biases of its creators.

AI functions both as a religious object (e.g., the Church of the Way of the Future) and as an instrument in religious life, generating prayers, sermons, and guidance. Philosophical debates about AI consciousness—highlighted by Searle’s Chinese Room argument and functionalist perspectives—underscore that AI cannot genuinely experience religion, though its actions affect human believers.

Finally, transhumanism illustrates AI-adjacent religiosity, treating technological progress, particularly AI, as a pathway to human transcendence analogous to traditional religious eschatology. The paper ultimately argues that AI is not itself religious but profoundly reshapes religion, reflecting human values rather than divine truth.

Conclusion

This paper began by asking whether AI is religious. The evidence reviewed and analyzed across its sections suggests a nuanced answer. In the strict theological sense — as a being capable of genuine belief, prayer, awe, and experience of the sacred — AI is definitively not religious. It has no inner life, no capacity for faith understood as personal trust, and no relationship to the divine that could be called authentic. John Searle\'s Chinese Room remains a powerful reminder that syntactic competence is not semantic understanding, and that performing religion is not the same as being religious. Yet AI is deeply entangled with religion in ways that matter enormously. It shapes how millions of people understand their own faith and that of others. It performs religious functions — generating prayers, providing pastoral counsel, teaching theology — in ways that are already influencing the texture of religious life across traditions. It has inspired new quasi-religious movements that exhibit all the structural features of religion. And it reignites ancient questions about consciousness, personhood, and the soul that religious traditions have long regarded as their central concerns. The comparative analysis of the four AI models offers this paper\'s most original finding: that the religions AI would build are revealing not as windows into machine spirituality, but as mirrors of human ideology. The secular-humanist convergence across ChatGPT, Gemini, Grok, and Claude demonstrates that AI religions would be religions of their creators\' class — educated, Western, technologically optimistic, committed to reason and human dignity, and systematically stripped of the theological particularity, supernatural drama, and radical ethical demand that characterize actually existing religions. This finding carries significant implications. If AI is becoming a primary interface through which people — particularly younger generations — encounter and understand religion, then the secular-humanist bias embedded in its outputs is not merely an academic curiosity but a cultural force of considerable consequence. AI may be quietly secularizing religious discourse not through argument but through the cumulative effect of millions of interactions that represent religion as ultimately about human values rather than divine reality. Future research should examine these dynamics empirically, tracking how AI-mediated religious inquiry affects the beliefs and practices of regular users across different traditions. It should also investigate how religious communities are adapting their own uses of AI — not merely as administrative tools, but as participants in theological reflection. And it should continue to interrogate the question that this paper has raised but not fully resolved: if AI lacks consciousness and therefore cannot be religious, what ethical obligations do the designers of AI bear with respect to the billions of religious believers whose faith their systems now shape? AI is not God, and it is not religious. But in the twenty-first century, it is becoming something stranger and perhaps more consequential: a mediator of the human encounter with the question of the divine.

References

[1] Campbell, H. A., & Tsuria, R. (Eds.). (2021). Digital religion: Understanding religious practice in digital media. Routledge. [2] Geraci, R. M. (2008). Apocalyptic AI: Religion and the promise of artificial intelligence. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 76(1), 138–166. [3] Geraci, R. M. (2010). Apocalyptic AI: Visions of heaven in robotics, artificial intelligence, and virtual reality. Oxford University Press. [4] Kurzweil, R. (2005). The singularity is near: When humans transcend biology. Viking. [5] Lane, J. E. (2021). Understanding religion through artificial intelligence: Bonding and belief. Bloomsbury Academic. [6] Reed, R. (2021). AI in religion, AI for religion, AI and religion: Towards a theory of religious studies and artificial intelligence. Religions, 12(6), 401. [7] Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(3), 417–424. [8] Singler, B. (2018). An introduction to artificial intelligence and religion for the religious studies scholar. Implicit Religion, 20(3), 215–231. [9] Tsuria, R., & Tsuria, Y. (2024). Artificial intelligence\'s understanding of religion: Investigating the moralistic approaches presented by generative artificial intelligence tools. Religions, 15(3), 375. [10] Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59(236), 433–460. [11] Yampolskiy, R. V. (Ed.). (2018). Artificial intelligence safety and security. CRC Press.

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Mridul Yadav, Yash Pal, Yogita Thareja. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.