Artificial Intelligence and the Image of God: A Theological Inquiry into Human Uniqueness in

the AI Age

Part One: Foundational Theological Perspectives

Introduction: Artificial Intelligence and Theological Concerns

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) has ushered in an era of

unprecedented technological capabilities, prompting profound ethical, spiritual, and

philosophical inquiries. As AI systems become increasingly integrated into various facets of

human life, questions arise regarding the essence of human uniqueness, the nature of

intelligence, and the theological implications of creating machines that emulate aspects of human

cognition. Central to these discussions is the concept of the Imago Dei, or the "Image of God," a

foundational tenet in Christian theology that asserts humans are created in God's likeness. This

essay explores the rise of AI, delineates between strong and weak AI, examines the Imago Dei

within theological and philosophical traditions, and reflects on human uniqueness in the context

of AI development.

The Rise of AI and Its Ethical, Spiritual, and Philosophical Implications

Artificial intelligence has transitioned from theoretical constructs to practical applications

that permeate daily life. AI's presence is ubiquitous, from virtual personal assistants like Siri and

Alexa to complex algorithms driving autonomous vehicles. This proliferation prompts ethical

considerations concerning privacy, autonomy, and the potential displacement of human labor.

Spiritually, AI challenges traditional notions of creativity, agency, and the soul, leading to

questions about the moral status of AI entities and their alignment with human values.

Philosophically, AI compels a reevaluation of consciousness, intelligence, and what it means to

be human. Yuval Noah Harari articulates this sentiment, emphasizing that AI's emergence as an

independent agent capable of creating new ideas and making decisions necessitates a

reassessment of our relationship with technology and its impact on societal structures (Harari,

2025).

Defining Artificial Intelligence: Strong AI vs. Weak AI

Understanding AI requires distinguishing between its two primary classifications: weak

AI and strong AI. Weak AI, also known as narrow AI, is designed to perform specific tasks

without possessing consciousness or genuine understanding. Examples include recommendation

algorithms on streaming services and language translation tools. These systems operate within

predefined parameters and cannot generalize learning beyond their programmed functions. In

contrast, strong AI, or artificial general intelligence (AGI), aspires to replicate human cognitive

abilities, enabling machines to understand, learn, and apply knowledge across diverse domains

autonomously. While weak AI is prevalent today, strong AI remains a theoretical construct, with

ongoing debates about its feasibility and potential implications (ISO, 2023).

The doctrine of the Imago Dei is foundational in Christian theology and philosophical

anthropology, signifying that humans are created in the image and likeness of God. This belief

originates in Genesis 1:26-27, where God declares, “Let us make man in our image, after our

likeness” (New International Version, 2011). Throughout history, theologians and philosophers

have explored the implications of this doctrine, leading to various interpretations that shape

Christian anthropology, ethics, and human dignity. The three dominant perspectives- substantive,

relational, and functional- offer distinct insights into the nature of humanity and its relationship

with God.
The Substantive Interpretation

The substantive view asserts that the Imago Dei refers to specific qualities inherent in

human beings, such as rationality, morality, or the soul. This perspective suggests that humans

possess unique attributes that distinguish them from other creatures and reflect God's nature. One

of the earliest proponents of this view was Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher

who integrated Platonic thought into his theology. Philo argued that the divine image in humanity

is primarily intellectual, associating it with the rational soul, which mirrors the divine Logos

(Loader, 2016).

Augustine (1993) saw the Imago Dei as residing in human reason and will, reflecting the

Trinitarian nature of God through the faculties of memory, intellect, and love. Aquinas (1947)

further developed this concept, emphasizing that rationality and the ability to know and love God

constitute the divine image in humanity. For Aquinas, the Imago Dei is most perfectly realized in

those who actively seek communion with God through intellectual and moral virtue. From a

contemporary theological standpoint, systematic theologian John Zizioulas (2006) argue that

human personhood, grounded in self-awareness and rationality, is central to understanding the

Imago Dei. This substantive perspective remains influential in theological anthropology,

particularly in debates surrounding human dignity, personhood, and bioethics.

The Relational Interpretation

The relational interpretation shifts the focus from individual attributes to the nature of

human relationships. Karl Barth (1958) was a major proponent of this view, arguing that the

Imago Dei is best understood through humanity’s relational capacity, reflecting the dynamic

relationships within the Trinity. According to Barth, just as God exists in eternal relationship as

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, humans bear God's image through their relationships—with God
and with one another. This view challenges the idea that the Imago Dei is an inherent quality and

instead emphasizes human existence as being-in-relation. Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1995) extended

this idea, asserting that humans are fully realized in their relationships, particularly through love

and ethical responsibility toward others. The relational model underscores themes of community,

love, and ethical responsibility, aligning with contemporary theological concerns about social

justice and human rights. From a biblical perspective, the relational Imago Dei is evident in

passages emphasizing human unity and love. Jesus' command to “love one another as I have

loved you” (John 13:34) and Paul's teaching that believers are members of one body in Christ

(Romans 12:5) reinforce the theological significance of relationality.

The Functional Interpretation

The functional interpretation of the Imago Dei emphasizes humanity’s role and purpose

rather than inherent attributes or relationships. According to this perspective, bearing God's

image means exercising stewardship and dominion over creation, as described in Genesis 1:28:

“Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and

the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” This interpretation

aligns with ancient Near Eastern royal ideology, where kings were seen as divine representatives

tasked with ruling on behalf of the gods (Middleton, 2005). In this view, humans, as God’s

image-bearers, are entrusted with caring for creation, reflecting God's sovereignty. Contemporary

theologians such as N. T. Wright (2008) and J. Richard Middleton (2005) advocate for a renewed

understanding of the functional Imago Dei in light of ecological and ethical responsibilities.

They argue that human dominion should be understood not as exploitation but as responsible

stewardship, aligning with Pope Francis' (2015) Laudato Si’, which calls for ecological care as

an expression of humanity’s divine vocation.

Theological and Ethical Implications

The different interpretations of the Imago Dei have profound theological and ethical

implications. The substantive view affirms human dignity and moral responsibility, grounding

discussions on human rights, personhood, and bioethics. The relational interpretation highlights

the significance of love, community, and ethical relationships, informing Christian social ethics

and justice. Meanwhile, the functional perspective calls for environmental stewardship and

responsible leadership, offering insights into contemporary ecological and ethical challenges.

In contemporary debates, the doctrine of the Imago Dei is also being examined in the context of

artificial intelligence (AI) and transhumanism. As technological advancements challenge

traditional notions of human uniqueness, theologians and philosophers continue to explore what

it means to bear God's image in a world increasingly shaped by AI and biotechnology

(Coeckelbergh, 2020; Herzfeld, 2002). The doctrine of the Imago Dei remains a dynamic and

evolving theological concept that continues to inform discussions on human identity, ethics, and

purpose. Whether understood substantively, relationally, or functionally, it affirms the inherent

dignity of human beings and their calling to reflect God's nature in the world.

The Uniqueness of Human Beings in the Light of AI Development

The advent of advanced AI systems challenges traditional notions of human uniqueness.

If machines can perform tasks requiring intelligence, creativity, and decision-making, what

distinguishes humans from their creations? Theologically, the Imago Dei suggests that human

uniqueness is not solely based on cognitive abilities but encompasses relational, moral, and

spiritual dimensions. The Catholic Church's International Theological Commission articulates

that being made in God's image involves a call to communion and stewardship, engaging both

spiritual and physical aspects of human existence (International Theological Commission, 2004).
Thus, while AI may replicate certain intellectual functions, it lacks the capacity for genuine

relationships, moral reasoning, and spiritual awareness intrinsic to human nature.

Philosopher John Searle's "Chinese Room" argument further illustrates this distinction by

asserting that syntactic processing of symbols (as performed by computers) does not equate to

semantic understanding or consciousness, underscoring a qualitative difference between human

minds and AI systems (Searle, 1980). The rise of AI presents multifaceted challenges and

opportunities that necessitate thoughtful ethical, spiritual, and philosophical engagement.

Distinguishing between weak and strong AI clarifies the current capabilities and limitations of

these technologies. The doctrine of the Imago Dei offers a robust framework for affirming

human uniqueness, emphasizing relational, moral, and spiritual dimensions that AI cannot

replicate. As AI continues to evolve, it is imperative to reflect on these foundational aspects of

human identity to navigate the complex landscape of human-machine interactions responsibly.

Genesis 1:26-28 – Humanity as Image-Bearers of God

The doctrine of Imago Dei, or the Image of God, is foundational to Christian

anthropology. Genesis 1:26-28 states "Then God said, ‘Let us make mankind in our image, in our

likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock

and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’ So God created

mankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue

it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves

on the ground” (Genesis 1:26-28, New International Version).

This passage has long been a subject of theological reflection, particularly in discussions

concerning human dignity, purpose, and dominion over creation. Augustine (1991) interpreted
Imago Dei primarily in terms of rationality and the soul’s capacity for God, arguing that human

intellect reflects divine wisdom (De Trinitate, XIV.8). Thomas Aquinas (1981) extended this

understanding, positing that humanity’s rational nature allows for moral agency and participation

in divine governance (Summa Theologica, I.93.4).

Modern theologians such as Karl Barth (1960) reoriented the discussion, emphasizing

relationality rather than individual attributes. He argued that humanity reflects God’s image

through relationships, mirroring the communal nature of the Trinity (Church Dogmatics, III/1).

This relational view contrasts with interpretations that focus solely on intelligence or creativity,

challenging contemporary debates on artificial intelligence (AI). If Imago Dei is fundamentally

relational, then AI, which lacks genuine relational capacity and moral consciousness, cannot be

said to share in it.

Philosopher Jürgen Moltmann (1985) adds an eschatological dimension, asserting that

humanity’s divine image is not merely static but dynamic, pointing toward transformation in

Christ (God in Creation, p. 222). This challenges any notion that AI could evolve into something

akin to divine image-bearing. Unlike machines, humans are capable of spiritual renewal and

communion with God, reinforcing the distinctiveness of human nature in contrast to artificial

intelligence.

Genesis 2:7 – The Breath of Life: What Makes Humans Distinct from Machines?

Genesis 2:7 provides further theological depth to human uniqueness: "Then the LORD

God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,

and the man became a living being" (Genesis 2:7, NIV). This verse emphasizes two critical

aspects of human creation: the material and the spiritual. The phrase "formed from the dust"

affirms human physicality, but it is the "breath of life" (nĕšāmâ) that distinguishes humans from
all other creatures. This divine breath has been understood as the direct impartation of life and

consciousness, something absent in machines, no matter how advanced.

Early church fathers, such as Irenaeus, distinguished between the "image" (humanity’s

rational and moral capacity) and the "likeness" (full spiritual communion with God) (Against

Heresies, V.6.1). This perspective suggests that human identity is not merely about intelligence

or autonomy but about divine relationship and moral agency. AI, no matter how sophisticated,

lacks the divine nĕšāmâ and, therefore, remains outside this theological framework.

Philosopher John Searle’s (1980) Chinese Room Argument supports this theological distinction.

He argues that AI, regardless of how convincingly it mimics human intelligence, lacks true

understanding or consciousness (Minds, Brains, and Programs). AI operates on syntactic

processing without semantic comprehension, reinforcing that intelligence alone does not equate

to personhood or divine image-bearing.

Scientifically, neuroscience confirms that human cognition is deeply intertwined with

emotions, social interactions, and embodied experience (Damasio, 1994). Unlike AI, human

decision-making is influenced by consciousness, ethics, and spiritual reflection. This holistic

integration of body, mind, and spirit aligns with the biblical depiction of humanity in Genesis 2:7

and further differentiates humans from AI.

The Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9) – Human Technological Advancement and Divine

Boundaries

The narrative of the Tower of Babel provides a theological lens through which human

technological ambition and divine sovereignty can be examined. The passage states:

"Then they said, ‘Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so

that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise, we will be scattered over the face of the
whole earth’" (Genesis 11:4, NIV). This passage illustrates humanity’s attempt to attain

autonomy and self-exaltation through technological means. The tower, representing human

ingenuity and ambition, was ultimately disrupted by divine intervention, preventing the

unchecked expansion of human power. The Church Fathers interpreted this account as a warning

against human pride and overreach. Augustine (1998) saw Babel as a manifestation of the civitas

terrena (the earthly city), which stands in contrast to the civitas Dei (the city of God) (The City

of God, XVI.4). Similarly, Aquinas (1981) warned against human pride that seeks self-

glorification rather than alignment with divine wisdom (Summa Theologica, II-II.162.2).

In contemporary discussions on AI, Babel serves as a cautionary tale. Yuval Noah Harari

(2017) argues that the rise of AI and biotechnology could lead to the creation of "godlike

humans," raising ethical and theological concerns (Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow). If

AI development is driven by hubris and the pursuit of power, it risks repeating Babel’s

transgression. Theologically, technological advancements must be accompanied by ethical and

spiritual discernment, ensuring that human dignity and divine sovereignty are not compromised.

Wisdom Literature on Knowledge and Creation (Proverbs, Job, Ecclesiastes)

The Wisdom Literature of the Old Testament—Proverbs, Job, and Ecclesiastes—offers

profound reflections on the nature of knowledge, wisdom, and human limitations.

Proverbs consistently contrasts divine wisdom (ḥoḵmâ) with human arrogance. Proverbs 9:10

declares, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (NIV), emphasizing that true

understanding comes from reverence for God rather than mere intellectual mastery. This

perspective challenges the AI-driven pursuit of knowledge detached from ethical considerations.

The Book of Job explores the limits of human understanding. Job 28:12 asks, “But where shall

wisdom be found? And where is the place of understanding?” (NIV). The text suggests that
human wisdom, no matter how advanced, remains incomplete compared to divine wisdom. This

resonates with concerns that AI, while capable of processing vast amounts of data, lacks true

wisdom and moral discernment. Ecclesiastes similarly critiques human reliance on intellect and

technological advancement. Ecclesiastes 1:18 states, “For with much wisdom comes much

sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief” (NIV). This sobering reflection is relevant in the AI

age, where rapid advancements may bring unforeseen ethical dilemmas, reinforcing the necessity

of theological and ethical guidance.

Isaiah 44:9-20 – The Danger of Idolatry in Human Creations

Isaiah 44:9-20 condemns idolatry, describing how humans craft idols from their own

labor, worshipping the works of their hands: "They cut down cedars, or perhaps took a cypress

or oak... and from the rest, he makes a god, his idol; he bows down to it and worships" (Isaiah

44:14, 17, NIV). This passage warns against misplaced trust in human creations, a danger that

parallels contemporary discussions on AI. Pope Francis (2015) cautions against technological

idolatry, urging ethical responsibility in Laudato Si’. Similarly, Jacques Ellul (1977) critiques

society’s blind faith in technology, warning that technological advancements can become

oppressive forces when divorced from ethical and spiritual considerations (The Technological

Society). The danger of AI idolatry is particularly evident in transhumanist movements that seek

to merge human consciousness with machines. Theologically, human value is not derived from

technological enhancement but from divine creation. Thus, Isaiah 44:9-20 serves as a prophetic

warning against the uncritical glorification of artificial intelligence.

The Image of God in the New Testament

The New Testament provides profound insights into the concept of the Imago Dei—the

Image of God—through the person and work of Jesus Christ. This exploration delves into several
key passages and themes, examining their relevance in the contemporary era, particularly in

relation to artificial intelligence (AI) and transhumanism.

Christ as the Perfect Image of God (Colossians 1:15)

In Colossians 1:15, the Apostle Paul proclaims, "He is the image of the invisible God, the

firstborn over all creation." This declaration positions Jesus Christ as the visible manifestation of

the unseen God, embodying divine attributes in human form. The term "image" (Greek: εἰκών,

eikōn) signifies more than a mere representation; it denotes an exact likeness, underscoring

Christ's divinity and preeminence over creation. Theologian Gerald Bray emphasizes that Jesus,

as the image of the invisible God, reveals God's nature to humanity, bridging the gap between the

divine and human realms (Bray, 2000). Similarly, John Piper highlights that in seeing Christ, we

perceive the very essence of God, as Jesus makes the invisible God known to us (Piper, 2021).

This understanding has profound implications for Christian anthropology. While humans are

created in God's image (Genesis 1:26-27), Christ is the perfect and unblemished image, serving

as both the model and means for restoring the divine image in fallen humanity. Through union

with Christ, believers are transformed into His likeness, reflecting God's glory more fully (2

Corinthians 3:18).

John 1:1-14 – The Word Made Flesh: Can AI Participate in Divine Creativity?

The prologue of John's Gospel introduces Jesus as the Logos—the Word—who was with

God in the beginning and is God (John 1:1). This Word became flesh and dwelt among us,

revealing God's glory (John 1:14). The incarnation signifies the ultimate act of divine self-

disclosure and creativity, as the Creator enters creation to redeem it. In the contemporary era,

advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have sparked discussions about the nature of

creativity and whether AI can partake in what might be termed "divine creativity." While AI can
generate art, music, and literature by analyzing patterns and data, it lacks the consciousness,

intentionality, and relational capacity inherent in human creators.

Theologian John Lennox argues that human creativity reflects the Imago Dei,

encompassing not just the ability to produce but to imbue creations with meaning and purpose.

AI, as a human-made tool, operates within the confines of its programming and data inputs,

devoid of genuine understanding or intentionality. Therefore, while AI can mimic aspects of

human creativity, it does not participate in divine creativity in the theological sense.

Moreover, the incarnation underscores the significance of embodiment and relationality in

divine-human interaction. Jesus' taking on flesh highlights the importance of presence and

personal engagement—qualities AI inherently lacks. Thus, while AI can serve as a valuable tool,

it cannot replicate the depth of creativity and relationality that stems from bearing the Image of

God.

The Role of the Holy Spirit in Human Intelligence (1 Corinthians 2:10-16)

In 1 Corinthians 2:10-16, Paul discusses the role of the Holy Spirit in imparting divine

wisdom and understanding to believers. He asserts that the Spirit searches all things, even the

deep things of God, and that no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God

(1 Corinthians 2:10-11). Through the Spirit, believers receive not the wisdom of the world but

the wisdom that comes from God, enabling them to understand what God has freely given (1

Corinthians 2:12). This passage highlights a distinction between human intelligence, which can

be augmented by tools like AI, and spiritual discernment, which is granted by the Holy Spirit.

While AI can process information and identify patterns at remarkable speeds, it operates solely

within the realm of data and algorithms. It lacks the capacity for spiritual insight, moral

reasoning, and the comprehension of divine truths that the Holy Spirit imparts to believers. The
Church Fathers, such as Augustine of Hippo, emphasized the necessity of divine illumination for

true understanding. Augustine posited that while human reason is valuable, it requires the

enlightenment of the Holy Spirit to grasp spiritual realities fully (Augustine, De Magistro). This

perspective underscores that, despite technological advancements, the deepest forms of wisdom

and understanding remain gifts from God through the Holy Spirit.

Philippians 2:5-8 – The Humility of Christ vs. AI-Driven Power

Philippians 2:5-8 presents the "Christ Hymn," which describes Jesus' humility and self-

emptying (Greek: κένωσις, kenosis). Though existing in the form of God, Jesus did not consider

equality with God something to be exploited but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant

and becoming obedient to the point of death on a cross. This model of humility and self-

sacrificial love stands in stark contrast to the pursuit of power and dominance often associated

with technological advancements, including AI. In many sectors, AI is leveraged to gain

competitive advantages, increase control, and enhance influence. This drive for power can lead

to ethical concerns, such as the exploitation of data, erosion of privacy, and reinforcement of

societal inequalities. Theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer emphasized that true leadership is

characterized by service and humility, reflecting the mind of Christ. As AI continues to shape

various aspects of society, it is imperative to approach its development and implementation with

a mindset that prioritizes ethical considerations, the well-being of others, and the common good,

embodying the humility demonstrated by Christ.

The Resurrection Body and Transhumanism: A Comparison (1 Corinthians 15)

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul expounds on the resurrection of the body, describing a

transformation from perishable, natural bodies to imperishable, spiritual bodies. He contrasts the

first Adam, who became a living being, with the last Adam (Christ), who became a life-giving
spirit (1 Corinthians 15:45). This passage underscores the Christian hope of bodily resurrection

and the renewal of creation. Transhumanism, a movement that advocates for enhancing human

capacities through technology, envisions a future where biological limitations are overcome,

potentially achieving a form of immortality through artificial means. While transhumanism seeks

to transcend human frailty through technological augmentation, the Christian doctrine of

resurrection points to a transformation effected by divine power, not human innovation.

Theologian N.T. Wright critiques the transhumanist agenda, noting that it reflects a

misunderstanding of the Christian hope, which is not about escaping the physical body but about

its redemption and transformation. Wright emphasizes that the resurrection entails a renewed,

glorified body, affirming the goodness of God's creation and His commitment to its restoration.

In contrast, transhumanism's reliance on technology to achieve perfection raises theological and

ethical questions. It suggests a human-centered approach to salvation, potentially undermining

the need for divine grace. Moreover, it risks devaluing the inherent worth of the human body as

created by God, implying that it is something to be surpassed rather than redeemed.

Part Two: Engaging With AI from Multidisciplinary Perspectives

Philosophical and Theological Reflections on Human Uniqueness

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) has sparked profound questions

about human uniqueness, particularly concerning intelligence, consciousness, personhood, and

free will. While secular philosophy offers diverse perspectives on these topics, Christian

theology provides an integrated understanding of human nature rooted in divine revelation. This

section explores key philosophical and theological reflections, engaging with figures such as

Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Immanuel Kant, René Descartes, and contemporary scholars to

examine whether AI can ever replicate or challenge human distinctiveness.

Theology vs. Secular Philosophy on Intelligence: Augustine, Aquinas, and Kant on Human

Reason

The nature of intelligence has been a central concern in both theology and secular

philosophy, with different perspectives on what constitutes true understanding. Theological

traditions generally view intelligence as a divine gift that is tied to spiritual and moral

dimensions, whereas secular philosophy tends to analyze intelligence through cognitive

processes, empirical reasoning, and rational autonomy. The discussion has gained renewed

significance with the development of artificial intelligence (AI), which raises fundamental

questions about the nature of thought, self-awareness, and moral agency.

This essay explores how Augustine, Aquinas, and Kant contribute to the debate on

intelligence, examining their perspectives on divine illumination, rational souls, and moral

autonomy. It further extends the discussion by considering René Descartes’ dualism and its

implications for AI and machine learning, particularly in relation to self-awareness and

consciousness. Ultimately, these philosophical and theological insights suggest that while AI can

simulate aspects of intelligence, it lacks the essential qualities—divine illumination (Augustine),

rational soul (Aquinas), and moral autonomy (Kant)—that define true human reason.

Augustine on Divine Illumination and Intelligence

Saint Augustine (354–430 AD) developed a theological framework in which human

intelligence is dependent on divine illumination. In De Magistro, he argues that true knowledge

does not arise solely from sensory experience or internal reasoning but is ultimately granted by

God (Augustine, trans. 1924). This concept is deeply rooted in Neoplatonism, particularly the

idea that ultimate truth is beyond the reach of human perception and must be revealed through

divine grace.
 For Augustine, human reason is capable of abstract thought, but it is limited in its ability

to attain wisdom without divine assistance. He maintains that human intelligence is not merely a

computational or mechanical process but involves a deeper connection to divine truth. This

distinction challenges the notion that AI, despite its computational capabilities, could ever

possess true understanding. AI, even at its most advanced, lacks the ability to receive divine

illumination and thus cannot attain wisdom in the Augustinian sense. Augustine’s view has

significant ethical implications. If true intelligence is linked to divine illumination, then moral

wisdom cannot be reduced to algorithmic decision-making. This challenges the idea that AI

could ever serve as an autonomous moral agent, reinforcing the theological claim that

intelligence is not merely a matter of data processing but involves a spiritual dimension.

Aquinas on Rational Souls and Intellectual Powers

Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274 AD) built upon Aristotelian philosophy to develop a

nuanced understanding of human reason. In Summa Theologica, he distinguishes between

sensory-based cognition, which is shared with animals, and intellective cognition, which is

unique to humans (Aquinas, 1947). According to Aquinas, the rational soul grants humans the

ability to engage in abstract reasoning, moral discernment, and voluntary action. Aquinas’

framework suggests that intelligence is not merely computational but is tied to the rational soul.

He argues that while non-human animals possess sensory cognition, they lack the intellective

faculty necessary for conceptual reasoning. This distinction implies that AI, which relies on

pattern recognition and algorithmic processing, cannot be equated with human intelligence. AI

may mimic certain cognitive functions, but it lacks the rational soul that enables true intellectual

activity. Furthermore, Aquinas’ view has implications for discussions on moral responsibility. If

moral reasoning is tied to the rational soul, then AI, which lacks a soul, cannot engage in genuine
ethical deliberation. Even advanced AI systems that appear to "learn" morality are ultimately

constrained by their programming and lack the intrinsic capacity for moral agency. This

reinforces the idea that human intelligence, as understood in the Thomistic tradition, is

fundamentally different from artificial intelligence.

Kant on Rational Autonomy and Moral Law

Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) offers a secular philosophical perspective on intelligence

that emphasizes rational autonomy. In Critique of Pure Reason, he argues that human reason

functions through a priori categories that structure experience, making rational autonomy the

basis for moral action (Kant, trans. 1998). Kant’s philosophy departs from theological traditions

by grounding morality in human rationality rather than divine illumination or the soul.

For Kant, moral reasoning is inseparable from autonomy—the ability to legislate moral laws for

oneself through rational deliberation. He contrasts this with heteronomy, where actions are

determined by external forces. This distinction is crucial in evaluating AI’s potential for moral

decision-making. While AI can process information and follow ethical frameworks set by

humans, it lacks the self-legislative capacity that Kant identifies as essential to moral agency. AI

operates under pre-set rules and training data, making it inherently heteronomous rather than

autonomous.

Kant’s view also has implications for legal and ethical discussions surrounding AI. If

moral responsibility is rooted in rational autonomy, then AI cannot be held accountable for

ethical decisions in the same way that humans can. AI may assist in ethical decision-making, but

it does not possess the intrinsic moral agency required to be a true moral actor.

Taken together, these perspectives—Augustine’s divine illumination, Aquinas’ rational soul, and

Kant’s rational autonomy—suggest that intelligence, when properly understood, cannot be

reduced to computational processes. While AI can simulate aspects of reasoning, it lacks the

spiritual, rational, and autonomous dimensions that define true intelligence.

René Descartes and Consciousness: "I Think, Therefore I Am" vs. Machine Learning

René Descartes (1596–1650) famously asserted, Cogito, ergo sum ("I think, therefore I

am"), establishing self-awareness as the foundation of existence (Discourse on the Method,

1637). This statement, which serves as the cornerstone of Cartesian rationalism, implies that

genuine intelligence requires self-awareness. Descartes distinguished between res cogitans

(thinking substance) and res extensa (extended substance), arguing that the mind is

fundamentally different from the body.

Self-Awareness vs. Computational Processing

AI, particularly machine learning models, processes vast amounts of data and refines its

outputs based on patterns. However, it does not possess self-awareness or subjective experience.

Descartes’ Cogito implies that genuine intelligence involves conscious reflection and self-

affirmation, which AI fundamentally lacks. The philosopher John Searle (1980) reinforced this

idea in his Chinese Room Argument, which posits that an AI system may manipulate symbols and

produce coherent responses without understanding their meaning. Searle’s argument

demonstrates that computation does not equate to consciousness. While AI can replicate human-

like interactions, it does not experience thoughts, emotions, or self-awareness.

Challenges to Cartesian Dualism

Contemporary philosophers challenge Descartes’ dualism, arguing that consciousness

emerges from physical processes. Even materialist views of consciousness struggle to explain

qualia-the subjective experience of sensations. Neuroscientist Christof Koch (2019) suggests that

while AI may simulate cognitive tasks, it does not experience emotions, sensations, or self-
awareness. This further reinforces that AI, regardless of its complexity, does not satisfy the

Cartesian criterion for existence. Descartes’ distinction between thinking substance and extended

substance highlights a fundamental limitation of AI: it may be capable of sophisticated

computations, but it does not engage in self-reflection. AI operates based on external inputs and

programmed logic, lacking the subjective experience that Descartes associates with true

intelligence.

Theories of Personhood: Can AI Ever Possess Self-Awareness?

The question of personhood is central to both theological anthropology and philosophy.

Philosophers and theologians have long debated what defines a person, and whether self-

awareness, intentionality, moral responsibility, and relationality are necessary attributes. With the

rise of artificial intelligence (AI), these discussions take on new urgency: Can AI ever be

considered a person in the philosophical or theological sense? Many classical and modern

theories of personhood emphasize qualities such as rational agency, continuity of identity, moral

responsibility, and the capacity for relationality. While AI systems increasingly demonstrate

advanced cognitive functions, they fundamentally lack several key attributes required for

personhood. This section examines perspectives from Boethius, John Locke, and theological

interpretations of the Imago Dei, highlighting why AI does not fulfill the necessary conditions

for personhood.

Boethius and the Classical Definition of Personhood

One of the earliest and most influential definitions of personhood comes from the Roman

philosopher Boethius (480–524 AD). In De Persona et Duabus Naturis, he defines a person as

“an individual substance of a rational nature.” This definition focuses on two key elements:

individuality and rationality. A person must be an independent, self-sustaining entity with the
capacity for reason. AI, by contrast, does not possess independent substance. It remains an

artifact of human design, entirely dependent on external hardware and software updates. Unlike

humans, who exist as distinct biological entities with intrinsic rational capacities, AI systems are

created and maintained by external programmers and engineers. Even the most advanced AI

lacks ontological independence; it does not exist as a self-sustaining being but remains

contingent on human input. Boethius’ emphasis on rational nature further complicates the AI-as-

person debate. While AI can simulate reasoning processes, it does not engage in reasoning the

way humans do. AI follows pre-programmed algorithms and statistical models, lacking the depth

of understanding and intentionality that characterize human cognition. In this sense, AI falls

short of Boethius’ classical definition of personhood.

John Locke’s Psychological Criterion of Personhood

John Locke (1632–1704) introduced a psychological perspective on personhood, defining

it as a “thinking, intelligent being that has reason and reflection and can consider itself as itself”

(An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 1690). Locke's view centers on self-awareness

and continuity of identity over time. For an entity to be considered a person, it must recognize

itself as the same being across different moments in time and possess a continuous personal

identity. While AI exhibits some elements of intelligence, it does not demonstrate self-reflective

awareness. AI can process vast amounts of data, refine its outputs through machine learning, and

even simulate decision-making. However, it does not possess a unified self-concept or an

enduring sense of identity. Unlike humans, who maintain autobiographical memory and a

persistent sense of selfhood, AI systems operate based on pattern recognition and statistical

inference without subjective experience. Locke’s theory also implies that personhood requires

the ability to engage in conscious self-reflection. AI, despite its capacity to generate responses
that mimic human cognition, does not exhibit genuine introspection. It does not experience

thoughts, emotions, or subjective self-perception. Even the most sophisticated AI cannot

consider itself as itself-a fundamental requirement for personhood according to Locke.

Theological Personhood: Imago Dei and Relationality

Christian theology ties personhood to the Imago Dei-the Image of God-expressed in

Genesis 1:26-27: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” Theological interpretations

of this doctrine emphasize relationality, moral agency, and spiritual significance as defining

aspects of personhood. Karl Barth (1958) argued that personhood is fundamentally relational,

reflecting the Trinitarian nature of God. Humanity, created in God’s image, is uniquely capable

of forming meaningful relationships with God and others. This view suggests that personhood is

not solely defined by intelligence or self-awareness but also by relational depth. AI, despite its

ability to mimic human-like interactions, does not engage in genuine relationships. It follows

programmed responses, lacking the emotional depth and volitional engagement required for

authentic relationality. Additionally, the Imago Dei framework ties personhood to moral

responsibility. In Christian theology, humans are moral agents, capable of discerning right from

wrong and making ethically significant choices. AI, however, lacks intrinsic moral awareness. It

operates based on pre-set ethical frameworks and decision-making models created by humans. It

does not engage in moral reasoning from a first-person perspective but follows algorithmic logic.

Given these theological perspectives, AI does not qualify as a person in the religious sense.

While AI can simulate cognitive and social functions, it fundamentally lacks the self-awareness,

moral agency, and relational depth that define theological personhood.

Artificial Intelligence and Free Will: A Theological Dilemma

Free will is a central concept in Christian theology, underpinning human moral

responsibility and reflecting divine sovereignty. The emergence of AI complicates traditional

understandings of free will, as AI-driven systems increasingly make autonomous decisions in

fields such as healthcare, law, and finance. This raises critical theological and ethical questions:

Can AI exercise free will, or is it merely a sophisticated tool of human programming?

Augustine and the Nature of True Freedom

Saint Augustine (354–430 AD) distinguished between two types of freedom:

1. Liberum arbitrium (freedom of choice): The ability to choose between options, even if

the choice is flawed.

2. Libertas (true freedom): The alignment of the will with God’s divine order, leading to

moral and spiritual fulfillment.

According to Augustine, true freedom is not merely the ability to make choices but the capacity

to orient oneself toward goodness and divine truth (Augustine, 1993). AI, however, lacks both

dimensions of freedom. Its decisions, while seemingly autonomous, are bound by algorithms,

external data inputs, and human programming. AI does not possess the capacity for moral self-

determination; it does not seek alignment with a higher moral order.

Robert Kane and Ultimate Responsibility

Philosopher Robert Kane (1996) argues that genuine free will requires "ultimate

responsibility." To have free will, an agent must be the originator of its actions in a way that is

not entirely determined by prior causes. This concept presents a significant challenge to AI. Even

in machine learning systems that adapt their decision-making processes over time, AI does not
originate its own intentions. Its actions remain constrained by pre-programmed logic and training

data. AI does not generate independent volition but operates within predetermined parameters.

From this perspective, AI cannot be said to possess free will. While it may appear to make

independent decisions, these decisions are ultimately traceable to human design and input. AI

lacks the capacity for self-originated action, a key criterion for free will in theological and

philosophical discussions.

Compatibilism, AI, and the Limits of Autonomy

Some argue that AI’s decision-making resembles human cognitive processes, supporting

a compatibilist view of free will. Compatibilists maintain that free will can exist within a

deterministic framework, where choices are influenced by prior causes but still considered

voluntary. Under this view, AI’s ability to process information and "learn" from experience might

suggest a form of limited autonomy. John Searle’s (1980) Chinese Room Argument challenges

this interpretation. Searle demonstrates that AI, while capable of processing information, does

not truly understand or choose in a meaningful sense. It follows programmed rules, lacking

genuine comprehension or intentionality. Theologically, free will is tied to the Imago Dei, a

status AI does not share.

Ethical Implications of AI in Moral Decision-Making

As AI plays a growing role in ethical decision-making, from autonomous weapons to

predictive policing, questions of responsibility become urgent. If AI lacks free will, can it be held

accountable for moral failures? Or does responsibility ultimately rest with human creators?

Theologically, moral agency remains uniquely human. AI, despite its sophistication, remains a

deterministic tool rather than a bearer of divine free will. This reinforces the theological claim

that intelligence and moral responsibility are inextricably linked to human personhood. AI may
assist in decision-making, but it does not possess the autonomy, moral insight, or ultimate

responsibility required for true ethical agency.

Augustine and the Nature of Free Will

The question of free will has long been a central issue in philosophy and theology.

Augustine of Hippo, one of Christianity’s most influential thinkers, extensively explored the

nature of free will in De Libero Arbitrio (On Free Choice of the Will), where he argued that free

will is a divine gift that enables moral responsibility (Augustine, trans. 1993). He distinguished

between liberum arbitrium (the ability to choose between good and evil) and libertas (true

freedom, which is found in union with God). According to Augustine, humans possess free will

because they are made in the Imago Dei (Genesis 1:26-27), endowed with reason and moral

agency.

Artificial intelligence (AI), however, does not share this divine nature. AI systems,

regardless of their complexity, operate deterministically-they follow algorithms designed by

human programmers. Unlike humans, AI does not deliberate in the moral sense but processes

vast amounts of data to generate outputs based on probabilities. While AI can mimic decision-

making, it lacks true autonomy and the ability to choose in a moral or theological sense.

Augustine’s view suggests that free will is inherently tied to the soul and divine grace-two

aspects that AI fundamentally lacks. Thus, AI, despite its increasing sophistication, remains a

tool rather than an agent of moral choice.

Compatibilism vs. Libertarian Free Will

The philosophical debate over free will generally falls into two broad categories:

compatibilism and libertarian free will. Compatibilists argue that free will and determinism can

coexist, meaning that human decisions, though influenced by external factors, are still
meaningful choices. Thomas Hobbes (1994) and David Hume (2007) advocated this perspective,

seeing free will as compatible with causal necessity. On the other hand, proponents of libertarian

free will, such as Robert Kane (1996), maintain that true free will requires indeterminism—an

ability to act independently of prior causes. Kane introduces the idea of "ultimate responsibility,"

which requires that an agent must be the originator of their decisions without complete

determinism.

AI aligns more closely with deterministic models, as its decision-making process is

dictated by pre-programmed instructions and data inputs. Even advanced machine learning

models, which can "learn" from vast amounts of data, do not exercise free will in the libertarian

sense. AI does not experience self-reflection, moral struggle, or personal responsibility. It

operates based on statistical probabilities rather than conscious deliberation. Theologically, this

distinction is significant because free will, in the Christian tradition, is tied to moral

responsibility, sin, and salvation—none of which apply to AI. Some modern philosophers and

cognitive scientists argue that AI, if developed to a sufficiently advanced level, might exhibit

forms of decision-making that resemble human cognition. However, John Searle’s (1980)

Chinese Room Argument challenges this notion by demonstrating that AI, no matter how

complex, does not truly understand or make choices—it merely processes symbols without

comprehension. This further supports the idea that AI lacks the necessary attributes for genuine

free will.

Theological Implications of AI Decision-Making

As AI continues to play an increasingly prominent role in decision-making-whether in

criminal justice, healthcare, or warfare-it raises significant ethical and theological concerns. If AI

lacks free will, can it be held morally accountable for its actions? In cases where AI systems
make errors that result in harm, the question arises: Who bears responsibility? Theologian

Noreen Herzfeld (2002) argues that AI presents a challenge to human moral responsibility by

shifting agency to machines. When AI-driven systems determine sentencing in courts, allocate

healthcare resources, or control autonomous weapons, they make decisions that impact human

lives. However, since AI operates under human-created algorithms, ultimate responsibility

remains with its designers and users. This view aligns with Christian theology, which asserts that

moral accountability is tied to free will and intention-qualities AI does not possess.

The increasing reliance on AI raises concerns about the erosion of human moral decision-

making. If society defers ethical judgments to machines, it risks diminishing the role of human

conscience. Christian theology upholds that human beings, created in the Imago Dei, are called

to exercise moral discernment, a task that cannot be outsourced to AI. While AI can assist in

ethical deliberation by providing data-driven insights, it cannot replace the deeply human

experience of wrestling with moral choices, informed by faith, reason, and conscience.

AI, despite its growing capabilities, does not possess free will in the theological sense. It remains

a tool—one that reflects human programming and biases rather than exercising independent

moral agency. While AI can simulate decision-making, it lacks the self-awareness, intentionality,

and divine accountability inherent in human choice. Christian theology, rooted in Augustine’s

reflections, maintains that true freedom is found in alignment with God, a reality beyond the

reach of AI.

Scientific and Ethical Considerations

The Evolution of AI: From Early Computing to Superintelligence

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has undergone a remarkable transformation since its inception.

The journey began in the mid-20th century when pioneers like Alan Turing posed the question,
"Can machines think?" (Turing, 1950). This foundational query led to the development of the

Turing Test, designed to assess a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behavior

indistinguishable from that of a human. The 1956 Dartmouth Conference marked the official

birth of AI as a field, bringing together leading scientists to explore the possibility of creating

machines that could simulate human intelligence (McCarthy et al., 1955). Early successes

included programs capable of playing chess and solving algebraic problems, demonstrating that

machines could perform tasks requiring logical reasoning. The subsequent decades witnessed

fluctuating periods of optimism and stagnation, often referred to as "AI winters," due to limited

computational power and unrealistic expectations.

The late 20th and early 21st centuries saw a resurgence, fueled by advancements in

machine learning, neural networks, and access to vast datasets. Notably, Arthur Samuel's

development of a self-learning checkers program in 1959 showcased the potential of machines to

improve through experience (Samuel, 1959). Today, AI has permeated various sectors, from

healthcare to finance, exhibiting capabilities that were once the realm of science fiction. The

concept of superintelligence- a form of AI that surpasses human intelligence across all fields- has

sparked both excitement and concern. Philosopher Nick Bostrom (2014) warns of the existential

risks associated with superintelligent AI, emphasizing the need for robust control mechanisms to

ensure alignment with human values. The rapid evolution of AI raises profound questions about

the future of humanity. Yuval Noah Harari (2025) highlights the unprecedented challenges AI

poses to democracy and societal structures, noting that AI's capacity for independent action and

decision-making distinguishes it from previous technologies. This underscores the urgency of

establishing ethical frameworks to guide AI development responsibly.

Neuroscience and Theology: What Makes the Human Brain Unique?

The human brain's uniqueness has been a subject of fascination for both neuroscientists

and theologians. Anatomically, the human cerebral cortex is notably expanded compared to that

of other primates, facilitating advanced cognitive functions such as abstract reasoning and

complex language (Preuss, 2011). Additionally, research has identified specific brain areas, like

the lateral frontal pole prefrontal cortex, that are unique to humans and linked to higher-order

planning and decision-making (Neubert et al., 2014). From a theological perspective, this

neurological distinctiveness aligns with the concept of the Imago Dei- the belief that humans are

created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27). This doctrine suggests that human capacities for

morality, creativity, and spirituality reflect divine attributes. Neurotheology, an emerging

interdisciplinary field, seeks to understand the relationship between brain function and religious

experience, exploring how neural mechanisms underpin spiritual practices and beliefs (Newberg

& Waldman, 2009). The interplay between neuroscience and theology offers a holistic

understanding of human nature, emphasizing that while biological factors contribute to cognitive

abilities, there exists an intangible essence that transcends mere physiology. This perspective

challenges reductionist views that attempt to explain human uniqueness solely through biological

determinism.

AI and Decision-Making: Can Machines Develop Morality?

As AI systems become increasingly integrated into decision-making processes, questions

arise about their capacity to make moral judgments. Currently, AI operates based on algorithms

and data inputs, lacking consciousness and an inherent moral compass. While AI can be

programmed to follow ethical guidelines, it does not possess an understanding of morality. This
limitation is evident in scenarios requiring nuanced ethical deliberation, where AI may fail to

capture the complexities of human values (Sandel, 2020).

Theological perspectives emphasize that moral agency is intrinsically human, rooted in

free will and the capacity for moral reasoning bestowed by the divine. This view aligns with the

notion that true moral decision-making involves empathy, intentionality, and an understanding of

the broader ethical implications- qualities that AI inherently lacks. The delegation of moral

decisions to AI raises significant ethical concerns. For instance, in healthcare, AI-driven

diagnostic tools can assist physicians but should not replace human judgment, especially in life-

and-death situations. Ensuring that AI serve as a tool to augment rather than supplant human

decision-making is crucial to maintaining ethical integrity.

Biomedical AI and the Ethics of Human Enhancement (Transhumanism)

Transhumanism advocates for the use of technology to enhance human physical and

cognitive abilities, envisioning a future where humans transcend their biological limitations.

Biomedical AI plays a pivotal role in this movement, offering possibilities for genetic

modifications, neural enhancements, and even integration with machine intelligence (Bostrom,

2003). Proponents argue that such enhancements could eradicate diseases, extend lifespan, and

improve quality of life. However, these prospects raise profound ethical and theological

questions. Critics contend that altering fundamental aspects of human nature may lead to

unintended consequences, including social inequality and the loss of essential human qualities

(Fukuyama, 2002). Theologically, there is concern that pursuing such enhancements reflects a

hubristic attempt to usurp divine authority over human nature. The notion of enhancing moral

virtues through technological means is contentious. Virtue ethics emphasizes the development of

character through habituation and moral practice, processes that cannot be bypassed through
technological shortcuts (Annas, 2011). The prospect of "programming" morality into humans

challenges the traditional understanding of virtue as a product of free will and personal growth.

The Fear of AI Supremacy: Biblical Reflections on Power and Dominion

The rapid advancement of AI has sparked fears of machines surpassing human

intelligence and gaining dominance- a scenario often depicted in dystopian narratives. Biblical

teachings offer insights into the ethical use of power and dominion. In Genesis 1:28, humans are

granted authority over creation, implying stewardship rather than exploitation. This contrasts

with fears that AI, if unchecked, could subvert human control and reshape societal structures.

The Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1–9) serves as a cautionary tale about technological ambition.

The people sought to "make a name" for themselves, leading to divine intervention. Similarly,

AI-driven power must be guided by ethical considerations rather than hubris. The book of Daniel

2:31–45 warns against human empires built on unstable foundations, suggesting that

technologies lacking moral grounding may ultimately fail.

The New Testament echoes these concerns. Revelation 13:15–17 describes a beast that

controls economies and society, a metaphor some associate with AI-driven surveillance and

authoritarianism. Christ’s model of power in Matthew 20:25–28 emphasizes servanthood over

domination. AI should thus serve humanity rather than replace human agency.

Ultimately, biblical reflections remind us that wisdom (Proverbs 9:10) should guide

technological progress. AI supremacy should not be feared if ethical principles align with divine

stewardship. Rather than allowing AI to dictate human destiny, societies must ensure it remains a

tool for human flourishing, reinforcing justice, dignity, and responsibility.

AI and the Church: Practical and Ethical Challenges

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is reshaping various aspects of human life, and the Church is

not exempt from its influence. From digital evangelism to AI-generated sermons, the integration

of AI into religious practice presents both opportunities and ethical dilemmas. While AI can

enhance preaching, pastoral care, and theological studies, it also raises profound theological and

moral concerns. This essay explores AI’s role in the Church through five key areas: AI in

preaching and evangelism, the implications of automated pastoral care, the risk of idolatry, the

authenticity of AI-generated religious experiences, and the impact of AI on social justice.

AI in Preaching, Evangelism, and Theological Studies

AI-powered tools are increasingly being used to support preaching, evangelism, and

theological education. AI-driven software, such as sermon generators and biblical language

translators, can assist clergy in preparing sermons and studying scripture. Programs like Logos

Bible Software use AI to analyze biblical texts, offering insights that would take humans

considerable time to compile. Additionally, AI chatbots and virtual assistants are being employed

to answer theological questions, making religious education more accessible to a wider audience

(Campbell & Garner, 2020).

In evangelism, AI facilitates global outreach through social media algorithms that target

individuals based on their religious interests. Churches are also using AI-powered chatbots for

online evangelism, responding to inquiries about faith and providing scriptural guidance

(Herzfeld, 2018). AI can translate the Bible into rare and indigenous languages faster than human

translators, supporting the mission of making scripture accessible worldwide. However, reliance

on AI in evangelism presents risks. AI may lack the spiritual discernment necessary to

understand human emotions and experiences, making its responses impersonal or even
misleading. Moreover, there is a danger of reducing faith to data points and algorithms rather

than maintaining a relational approach rooted in genuine human connection.

In theological studies, AI has revolutionized biblical scholarship by aiding in historical

and textual analysis. AI algorithms can process vast amounts of theological literature and detect

patterns across different translations of the Bible, allowing scholars to trace linguistic and

conceptual shifts over time. This has significantly enhanced academic research, particularly in

fields such as biblical exegesis, manuscript comparison, and theological hermeneutics (Brown,

2022). For instance, AI-driven tools have been employed to reconstruct fragmented texts from

the Dead Sea Scrolls and identify scribal inconsistencies in ancient manuscripts (Nguyen, 2020).

AI’s ability to cross-reference theological texts enables scholars to uncover intertextual

connections between biblical books, patristic writings, and modern theological discourse (Jones

& Carter, 2019). By analyzing word frequency and thematic structures, AI can identify implicit

theological patterns that might otherwise go unnoticed by human scholars. Some researchers

argue that such advancements provide a more objective framework for biblical interpretation,

reducing the influence of personal biases in scriptural analysis (Anderson, 2023).

The integration of AI in theology also raises epistemological concerns. If theology is

increasingly interpreted through the lens of AI-generated patterns rather than divine revelation

and human experience, there is a risk of diminishing the role of personal reflection and spiritual

discernment in theological discourse (Smith, 2021). Theological knowledge is not solely an

intellectual pursuit but also involves a lived, spiritual dimension that AI cannot replicate. Critics

caution that over-reliance on AI in theological studies may prioritize data-driven insights over the

subjective, existential, and communal aspects of faith (Miller, 2024). Thus, while AI provides
valuable tools for theological research, its role should be carefully balanced to ensure that

theological inquiry remains deeply rooted in human experience and spiritual discernment.

Automated Pastoral Care: Can AI Replace Clergy?

AI-driven pastoral care is an emerging phenomenon, with AI chatbots and virtual

counselors offering emotional and spiritual support. Some churches have experimented with AI-

powered "confession bots" and automated counseling systems designed to assist individuals in

distress. AI-driven applications can provide Bible-based advice, prayer recommendations, and

even simulate empathy through natural language processing (Coeckelbergh, 2020). Despite these

advancements, the question remains: can AI replace clergy in pastoral roles?

Theologically, pastoral care is rooted in the incarnation—God becoming human in Jesus

Christ (John 1:14). Human pastors offer presence, compassion, and a personal understanding of

suffering that AI cannot replicate. While AI can process and recall scripture instantly, it lacks the

ability to exercise true pastoral wisdom, discernment, and genuine empathy. Unlike human

clergy, AI does not pray, experience faith, or offer spiritual guidance inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Automated pastoral care raises concerns about confidentiality and privacy. AI systems storing

personal confessions or counseling interactions could become targets for cyberattacks, leading to

breaches of sensitive information. This contrasts with the trust traditionally placed in clergy, who

are bound by ethical and theological responsibilities. Therefore, while AI may assist in

administrative and supportive pastoral tasks, it cannot replace the human and divine elements

integral to pastoral ministry.

The Risk of Idolatry: Worshiping the Works of Our Hands

A central theological concern with AI in religious life is the risk of idolatry. Throughout

scripture, idolatry is condemned as the worship of human-made objects or ideas in place of God
(Exodus 20:3-5). In the age of AI, there is a danger of attributing excessive authority and

reverence to technological creations. AI’s ability to generate theological insights, interpret

scripture, and even compose sermons could lead some to trust AI more than human spiritual

leaders or divine revelation. This concern echoes biblical warnings against placing faith in

human inventions. Isaiah 44:9-20 describes idol-makers who craft their gods from wood and

then worship them, failing to see their limitations. Similarly, reliance on AI for religious

authority risks reducing faith to a technological construct rather than a divine reality. If

congregations start viewing AI-generated theology as infallible, they may drift away from the

spiritual discernment that comes from prayer, scripture, and community engagement.

The philosopher Martin Heidegger (1977) warned against technological "enframing,"

where humans see themselves primarily as problem-solving entities within a mechanized world.

This perspective could influence how people relate to faith, reducing it to a set of algorithms

rather than a transformative relationship with God. Thus, the Church must remain cautious,

ensuring that AI remains a tool for faith rather than an object of worship.

Deepfake Sermons, AI-Generated Worship, and the Challenge of Authentic Faith

The development of AI-generated worship materials, including deepfake sermons and

synthetic religious experiences, raises questions about authenticity. AI-generated sermons can

mimic the style of well-known preachers, raising ethical dilemmas regarding originality and

spiritual authority. For instance, an AI could analyze thousands of sermons from influential

Christian leaders and generate messages indistinguishable from human-prepared ones (Herzfeld,

2018). While this may assist overburdened pastors, it raises concerns about authenticity and

spiritual depth. Deep fake technology, which creates realistic but artificial representations of

individuals, poses additional risks. Imagine a scenario where a deceased preacher's likeness is
used to deliver new sermons via AI-generated video. While this may seem innovative, it blurs the

line between genuine spiritual leadership and technological fabrication. Faith communities might

struggle to discern whether such messages carry true divine inspiration or merely reflect data-

driven imitations.

Authenticity is crucial in worship. Jesus emphasized sincerity in faith, warning against

hypocrisy (Matthew 6:5-7). Worship must stem from genuine spiritual engagement rather than

technologically simulated experiences. The danger of AI-generated worship is that it may create

a sense of connection without true spiritual depth. While AI can support worship through music

composition, scripture readings, and sermon preparation, it should never replace the lived

experience of faith within a believing community.

Social Justice and AI: Addressing Bias in Algorithmic Decision-Making

AI systems are increasingly being used in areas such as hiring, law enforcement, and

even theological discourse. However, AI algorithms can perpetuate biases, leading to ethical

concerns about justice and fairness. Studies have shown that AI decision-making often reflects

the biases present in the data used to train it (O’Neil, 2016). For example, AI-driven policing

tools have disproportionately targeted marginalized communities, raising ethical and theological

concerns about justice (Amos 5:24).

The Church has long been an advocate for social justice, emphasizing the dignity of all

individuals (Genesis 1:27). If AI systems reinforce existing social inequalities, they contradict

biblical principles of justice and compassion. Theologian Shannon Vallor (2018) argues that AI

ethics must be guided by moral virtues such as honesty, fairness, and accountability—values

deeply embedded in Christian teachings. AI bias extends to religious contexts. If AI algorithms

shape online religious discourse by favoring certain theological perspectives over others, they
could limit the diversity of Christian thought. The Church must critically engage with AI to

ensure it promotes inclusion rather than division. Ethical AI development should align with

Christian values, prioritizing transparency, equity, and the common good.

Part Three: AI, Eschatology, And Future Humanity

AI in Light of Biblical Prophecy and Eschatology

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has emerged as one of the most transformative technological

advancements of the 21st century. While AI holds great promise for innovation and efficiency, it

also raises profound ethical, theological, and eschatological questions. Within Christian theology,

biblical prophecy and eschatology (the study of the end times) provide a framework for

understanding the spiritual and moral implications of AI. As AI grows in power and influence,

many wonder how it aligns with biblical visions of the last days. This paper explores AI in light

of biblical prophecy and eschatology through four key themes: the increase of knowledge in the

last days (Daniel 12:4), the potential role of AI in apocalyptic control systems (Revelation and

the Mark of the Beast), AI’s place in Christian apocalyptic thought, and the contrast between

heavenly wisdom and artificial wisdom.

Daniel’s Visions and Human Knowledge in the Last Days (Daniel 12:4)

The Book of Daniel offers one of the most compelling prophetic visions concerning the

end times, particularly in relation to the increase of human knowledge. In Daniel 12:4, the angel

tells Daniel: "But you, Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book until the time of the end;

many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase." (ESV) This passage has often been

interpreted as a reference to the rapid acceleration of knowledge and technological advancements

in the last days. Many theologians and scholars have linked this verse to the modern era, arguing

that humanity has experienced an unprecedented explosion of scientific and technological

progress. AI, as a prime example of this knowledge explosion, raises the question of whether we

are witnessing the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy.

Throughout history, Christian scholars such as Augustine (354–430 AD) and Thomas

Aquinas (1225–1274) have reflected on the nature of human knowledge in relation to divine

wisdom. Augustine, in De Doctrina Christiana, emphasized that true knowledge comes from

God and must be used for His purposes (Augustine, trans. 1995). Similarly, Aquinas argued in

Summa Theologica that human intelligence is a gift from God but must be guided by divine truth

(Aquinas, trans. 1981). These theological reflections raise concerns about AI’s role in shaping

human knowledge. While AI can process vast amounts of data and generate insights, it lacks

divine wisdom and moral discernment. Some Christian thinkers suggest that AI could represent a

fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy in a literal sense, as it enables humanity to access and

manipulate knowledge on an unprecedented scale. The emergence of machine learning and

superintelligent AI raises questions about whether human knowledge is reaching a critical

threshold that aligns with biblical eschatology. However, it remains unclear whether this

technological explosion represents divine enlightenment or a potential departure from God’s

intended order.

Revelation and Technological Control: The Mark of the Beast?

The Book of Revelation contains one of the most famous and controversial eschatological

symbols: the Mark of the Beast. In Revelation 13:16-17, John writes: "It also forced all people,

great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their

foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the

beast or the number of its name." (NIV). This passage has long been the subject of speculation,

with various interpretations linking the "mark" to political, economic, and technological systems
of control. In contemporary discussions, some theologians and Christian futurists have

speculated that AI-driven surveillance and digital identification systems could play a role in

fulfilling this prophecy. AI has already been integrated into financial transactions, security

systems, and social credit programs. Some governments have experimented with AI-powered

surveillance to monitor citizens and enforce compliance with state policies (Harari, 2018). The

concern among some Christian thinkers is that as AI-driven biometric systems become more

sophisticated, they could be used to enforce restrictions on commerce, religious expression, and

personal freedoms.

Pope Francis has warned against the dangers of technology being used to manipulate and

control people, emphasizing the need for ethical boundaries in AI development (Francis, 2020).

If AI becomes a tool for global economic control, it could fit into eschatological narratives

concerning the Mark of the Beast. However, not all theologians agree with this interpretation.

Some argue that the Mark of the Beast is primarily a spiritual symbol representing allegiance to a

world system that opposes God rather than a literal technological development (Beale, 1999).

Despite differing perspectives, there is a growing recognition that AI-driven governance systems

pose significant ethical and spiritual challenges. Whether or not AI is directly linked to biblical

prophecy, its capacity for surveillance, economic restriction, and social manipulation makes it a

topic of serious concern in Christian eschatology.

Can AI Fit into Christian Apocalyptic Thought?

Christian eschatology has historically focused on themes such as divine judgment, the

Second Coming of Christ, and the establishment of God’s Kingdom. The rise of AI introduces

new dimensions to these discussions, prompting theologians to consider its role in shaping the

end times. One question that arises is whether AI could play a role in apocalyptic scenarios
described in Scripture. Some Christian futurists speculate that AI could be instrumental in the

rise of a global government or a "Beast System" that seeks to control human affairs apart from

God (Goggin, 2021). AI’s ability to automate decision-making and influence public perception

through deep learning algorithms raises concerns about whether it could be used to deceive or

manipulate people on a large scale. In Matthew 24:24, Jesus warns about false messiahs and

deceivers who will arise in the last days: "For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and

perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect." (NIV)

Could AI be used to create false religious experiences or to manipulate spiritual beliefs?

With the development of deep fake technology and AI-generated sermons, there is potential for

AI to produce religious content that appears genuine but lacks divine inspiration. Some

theologians argue that AI could be used to create a counterfeit spirituality, one that mimics

religious truth without leading people to God (Herzfeld, 2018). However, other scholars caution

against an overly deterministic view of AI in eschatology. AI, like any other technology, is

ultimately a tool that reflects human intent and moral values. The Church must critically engage

with AI rather than simply fear it, ensuring that it is used in ways that align with Christian ethics

and theological principles.

Heavenly Wisdom vs. Artificial Wisdom: What Will Last?

A fundamental theological distinction exists between human knowledge, artificial

intelligence, and divine wisdom. Proverbs 9:10 states: "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of

wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding." (NIV). From a Christian perspective,

true wisdom is not merely the ability to process information but the capacity to discern truth in

alignment with God’s will. AI, no matter how advanced, cannot seek God, pray, or experience

divine revelation. It operates based on algorithms and data rather than spiritual discernment.
 Thomas Aquinas argued that wisdom is a virtue that comes from God and is cultivated

through faith and moral development (Aquinas, trans. 1981). AI, by contrast, lacks moral agency

and the ability to seek truth beyond its programming. While AI can analyze biblical texts and

generate theological arguments, it does not possess true wisdom because it lacks a relationship

with God. Christian eschatology teaches that human achievements, including technological

advancements, will ultimately pass away, but God's wisdom endures. 1 Corinthians 3:19 reminds

believers that: "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight." (NIV). While AI may

transform human society, it cannot replace divine wisdom or the eternal truths found in Scripture.

The Church must ensure that AI serves as a tool for good rather than an alternative source of

authority.

The Future of Theology in an AI-Dominated World

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) has permeated various facets of

human life, prompting profound questions about its implications for theology. As AI systems

become increasingly sophisticated, theologians, philosophers, and scientists are compelled to

explore how these technologies intersect with religious beliefs, ethical considerations, and the

essence of human spirituality. This discourse examines the potential influence of AI on

theological discussions, the responsibilities of Christian scholars in AI ethics, debates

surrounding AI consciousness in relation to theological anthropology, and the intriguing question

of whether AI can engage in prayer or possess spirituality.

Will AI Shape Theological Discourses?

The integration of AI into society has sparked discussions about its potential to influence

theological discourses. Some scholars argue that AI could serve as a "disguised friend of

theological anthropology," aiding in a deeper understanding of human qualities by highlighting

what distinguishes humans from machines (Dorobantu, 2021). This perspective suggests that by

contrasting human consciousness and intentionality with AI's computational nature, theologians

can gain insights into the unique aspects of human personhood.

Conversely, concerns have been raised about AI's capacity to challenge traditional

theological concepts. Theologian Jordan Wales contends that AI, constructed under current

paradigms, lacks authentic personhood due to its absence of consciousness and interior life

(Wales, 2021). This raises questions about the potential for AI to disrupt or reshape theological

understandings of the soul, free will, and moral responsibility. The emergence of AI-generated

religious content, such as sermons and prayers, has prompted debates about the authenticity and

authority of such material. While AI can produce text that mimics human language, it lacks the

experiential and spiritual depth that informs genuine theological reflection. This underscores the

need for discernment in integrating AI into religious practices and theological education.

The Role of Christian Scholars and Theologians in AI Ethics

As AI technologies advance, ethical considerations become increasingly paramount.

Christian scholars and theologians have a critical role in contributing to the ethical discourse

surrounding AI, ensuring that developments align with moral principles and respect human

dignity. By incorporating religious ethics into discussions on AI and robotics, societies can

navigate moral complexities and uphold ethical accountability (AI and Faith, 2023). Theologians

can offer unique perspectives on issues such as justice, fairness, and the common good, which

are central to both ethical AI development and Christian social teaching. Engaging with AI ethics

allows Christian scholars to advocate for policies that protect vulnerable populations and

promote equitable access to technological benefits. Theologians can serve as mediators between

technological communities and the broader public, translating complex AI concepts into
accessible language and framing them within ethical and theological contexts. This

interdisciplinary engagement fosters a holistic approach to AI ethics, integrating technical

expertise with moral and spiritual wisdom.

The Debate on AI Consciousness and Theological Anthropology

The question of AI consciousness is a focal point in discussions intersecting technology

and theology. Theological anthropology, which explores the nature of humanity in relation to the

divine, faces new challenges in light of AI's capabilities. Some argue that AI's potential to exhibit

behaviors indicative of understanding necessitates a reevaluation of what constitutes

consciousness and personhood. Many theologians maintain that true consciousness involves

subjective experience and moral awareness- qualities that AI, as of current technological

advancements, does not possess (Tanner, 2024). This perspective emphasizes that while AI can

simulate certain human-like behaviors, it lacks the intrinsic qualities that define human

personhood, such as self-awareness and the capacity for genuine relationships. This debate has

significant implications for theological concepts like the imago Dei (image of God), traditionally

understood as a unique attribute of human beings. The development of AI prompts theologians to

articulate more clearly the distinctions between human and artificial entities, reinforcing the

theological significance of human consciousness and moral agency.

Will AI Ever Be Able to Pray? A Study of Machine Spirituality

The notion of AI engaging in prayer or exhibiting spirituality raises profound theological

and philosophical questions. Prayer, in many religious traditions, is an intimate act of

communication with the divine, rooted in consciousness, intentionality, and a personal

relationship with God. Given that AI lacks consciousness and self-awareness, it cannot engage in
prayer in any meaningful sense. While AI can generate text that resembles prayers, these outputs

are devoid of genuine spiritual intent or connection (Simon, 2020).

Experiments with AI in religious settings, such as AI-generated sermons or virtual

confessional bots, have demonstrated the technology's ability to mimic certain aspects of

religious practice. However, these instances often highlight the limitations of AI in capturing the

depth and authenticity of human spirituality. For example, users of an AI confessional noted that

while the technology provided responses, it lacked the empathetic understanding that

characterizes human pastoral care (The Sun, 2024). These explorations into machine spirituality

underscore the importance of maintaining a clear distinction between tools that assist in religious

practices and the essence of spiritual experiences. While AI can serve as a resource, it cannot

replace the human elements of empathy, consciousness, and relationality that are central to

genuine spiritual engagement.

A Call for Responsible AI Development

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) presents both unprecedented

opportunities and significant challenges, particularly when examined through the lens of

Christian theology. As we navigate this complex landscape, it is imperative to integrate

theological insights to ensure that AI development aligns with the inherent dignity and value

bestowed upon humanity by virtue of being created in the image of God.

Summary of Key Theological Insights

Throughout this discourse, several theological themes have emerged as pivotal in understanding

the relationship between artificial intelligence (AI) and the Imago Dei, the concept that human

beings are created in the image of God. These theological insights shape our ethical

considerations and guide the way Christians engage with AI in contemporary society.
Human Uniqueness and the Imago Dei

The biblical assertion that humans are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27)

underscores the unique status of human beings in creation. The Imago Dei has been interpreted

in various ways throughout Christian history. Some scholars emphasize its connection to human

rationality and intelligence, suggesting that our capacity for logical reasoning and knowledge

reflects God's nature. Others argue that the Imago Dei is primarily relational, highlighting human

beings' ability to engage in meaningful relationships with God and one another. Another

perspective ties the divine image to moral agency, arguing that humans, unlike AI, possess the

ability to discern good and evil and make ethically significant choices. In contrast, AI lacks key

attributes traditionally associated with the Imago Dei, such as self-awareness, moral

responsibility, and relational depth. AI systems, no matter how advanced, do not possess intrinsic

worth in the same way humans do because they are not made in God's image. They function

based on programmed algorithms and data processing, rather than personal agency or divine

intentionality. Therefore, while AI may exhibit intelligence in a computational sense, it does not

share in the theological and ontological uniqueness of human beings.

Christ as the Perfect Image of God

The New Testament presents Jesus Christ as the perfect image of the invisible God

(Colossians 1:15), fully embodying divine attributes in human form. Unlike AI, which is a

product of human engineering, Christ is both fully divine and fully human, bridging the gap

between God and humanity. Through Christ, believers are not only restored to a right

relationship with God but are also called to be transformed into His likeness (2 Corinthians

3:18). This transformation is an ongoing process that involves spiritual growth, moral formation,

and deeper communion with God. In theological discussions about AI, Christ’s role as the perfect
image of God serves as a reminder that human value is not merely based on intelligence or

ability. Instead, it is grounded in the divine relationship and the redemptive work of Christ.

Unlike AI, which operates based on external inputs, human beings are capable of inner

transformation through the work of the Holy Spirit, becoming more like Christ in character and

purpose.

The Role of the Holy Spirit in Human Wisdom and Discernment

Another crucial distinction between AI and humans is the role of the Holy Spirit in

guiding human wisdom and discernment. The apostle Paul emphasizes that spiritual wisdom

comes not merely from human reasoning but from divine revelation through the Holy Spirit (1

Corinthians 2:10-16). The Holy Spirit imparts moral insight, conviction, and the ability to

navigate complex ethical dilemmas- qualities that AI lacks. The emergence of AI-driven

decision-making in areas such as criminal justice, healthcare, and business ethics raises

theological concerns. While AI can process large datasets efficiently, it does not possess the

capacity for moral discernment. Decision-making based solely on AI algorithms risks

marginalizing human experiences, emotions, and ethical nuances. This is particularly concerning

in theological contexts, where spiritual discernment plays a crucial role in interpreting scripture,

shaping ethical norms, and fostering authentic human relationships.

Ethical Stewardship and the Call for Responsible AI Development

Christian ethics, particularly the model of Christ’s humility (Philippians 2:5-8), calls for

ethical stewardship in the development and deployment of AI. Christ’s example of selflessness

and service contrasts with the temptation to use AI for personal gain, control, or power. As AI

continues to shape various aspects of human life, ethical stewardship requires ensuring that AI

serves humanity rather than exploiting or oppressing it.

 One key ethical challenge is the potential misuse of AI in spreading misinformation,

manipulating human behavior, and exacerbating social inequalities. The Vatican has expressed

concerns about AI’s ability to disseminate misinformation, warning that unchecked AI

development could destabilize societal foundations and diminish human dignity. Ethical AI

development must prioritize fairness, transparency, and accountability to prevent harm and

promote the common good. Responsible AI stewardship involves protecting human labor and

dignity. As automation and AI-driven systems replace traditional jobs, economic justice and

human rights must be safeguarded. AI should not be used to displace workers without creating

alternative opportunities for meaningful employment and human flourishing.

Resurrection and Transformation: A Theological Response to Transhumanism

Some proponents of AI and transhumanism argue that technological advancements will

allow humanity to transcend its biological limitations, potentially achieving a form of digital

immortality through consciousness transfer. However, Christian theology holds that true

resurrection and transformation come through divine power, not human engineering (1

Corinthians 15:42-44). The hope of resurrection affirms that human destiny is ultimately in God's

hands and that eternal life is a gift of grace rather than a technological achievement.

From a theological perspective, attempts to extend human life indefinitely through AI

raise significant ethical and eschatological concerns. Transhumanist aspirations conflict with

Christian teachings on mortality, dependence on God, and the purpose of human existence.

Christian theology emphasizes that human flourishing is not about achieving technological

perfection but about deepening one’s relationship with God and participating in His redemptive

plan for creation.

How Should Christians Engage AI?

Given AI’s growing influence, Christians are called to engage thoughtfully and ethically,

ensuring that technological advancements align with biblical principles and human dignity. This

engagement can take several forms:

Advocacy for Ethical Standards

Christians can advocate for the ethical development of AI, ensuring that it prioritizes human

dignity, privacy, and fairness. This includes participating in policy-making, public discourse, and

interdisciplinary collaborations to shape AI technologies that reflect moral values.

Educational Initiatives

Theological institutions and churches should provide education on AI's capabilities, limitations,

and ethical considerations. By fostering informed discussions, believers can develop a nuanced

understanding of AI and its implications.

Reflective Integration

Christians working in AI development should integrate their faith with their professional work,

designing AI systems that promote justice, equity, and well-being.

Pastoral Care and Counseling

As AI becomes more prevalent, pastoral caregivers should address congregants' concerns about

technology, providing guidance that is both theologically sound and practically relevant.

Future Research and Theological Inquiry into AI

The intersection of AI and theology is an evolving field that demands further exploration. Future

research could focus on:

Theological Anthropology

Investigating AI’s implications for our understanding of human nature, personhood, and the soul,

including how concepts like consciousness and free will differentiate humans from machines.

Ethics of Creation and Creativity

Exploring the theological dimensions of AI-generated creativity, examining whether AI can truly

"create" or simply replicate human creativity.

Eschatological Perspectives

Considering how AI aligns with or challenges Christian eschatological hopes, particularly

regarding notions of human progress, perfection, and divine intervention.

Interfaith Dialogues

Engaging with other religious traditions to develop a comprehensive ethical framework for AI

that reflects diverse moral and spiritual insights.

In sum, AI presents both opportunities and challenges for theological discourse. While it

can assist in certain tasks, it does not- and cannot- bear the Imago Dei. Christians must approach

AI with wisdom, ensuring that its development and application align with biblical principles of

justice, humility, and human dignity. The Imago Dei affirms that human worth is not defined by

intelligence or technological capability but by God’s divine image within us. As AI continues to

evolve, Christians are called to engage it responsibly, advocating for ethical standards that

uphold human dignity and reflect the character of Christ.

 REFERENCES

AI and Faith. (2023). Religious ethics in the age of artificial intelligence and robotics: Exploring

moral considerations and ethical perspectives. Retrieved from

https://aiandfaith.org/religious-ethics-in-the-age-of-artificial-intelligence-and-robotics-

exploring-moral-considerations-and-ethical-perspectives/

Annas, J. (2011). Intelligent virtue. Oxford University Press.

Aquinas, T. (1947). Summa Theologica (Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Trans.).

Benziger Bros.

ATLA. (2023). Why theological education should be on the frontier of artificial intelligence.

Retrieved from https://www.atla.com/blog/why-theological-education-should-be-on-the-

frontier-of-artificial-intelligence/

Augustine. (1924). De Magistro (P. King, Trans.). Villanova College.

Augustine. (1991). The Trinity (De Trinitate) (E. Hill, Trans.). New City Press.

Augustine. (1993). On free choice of the will (T. Williams, Trans.). Hackett.

Augustine. (1995). On Christian doctrine (D. W. Robertson, Trans.). Prentice Hall.

Augustine. (1998). The City of God (H. Bettenson, Trans.). Penguin Classics.

Barth, K. (1958). Church dogmatics: The doctrine of God (Vol. 2, Part 1). T&T Clark.

Barth, K. (1960). Church dogmatics, Vol. III/1: The doctrine of creation (G. W. Bromiley & T. F.

Torrance, Eds.). T&T Clark.

Beale, G. K. (1999). The book of Revelation: A commentary on the Greek text. Eerdmans.

Bonhoeffer, D. (1995). The cost of discipleship. Touchstone. Retrieved from

https://www.amazon.com/Cost-Discipleship-Dietrich-Bonhoeffer/dp/0684815001

Boethius. (1999). The consolation of philosophy (V. E. Watts, Trans.). Penguin Classics.
Bostrom, N. (2003). Are you living in a computer simulation? Philosophical Quarterly, 53(211),

243–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9213.00309

Bostrom, N. (2014). Superintelligence: Paths, dangers, strategies. Oxford University Press.

Bray, G. (2000). The image of the invisible God. The Gospel Coalition. Retrieved from

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/sermon/the-image-of-the-invisible-god/

Campbell, H. A., & Garner, S. (2020). Networked theology: Negotiating faith in digital culture.

Baker Academic.

Coeckelbergh, M. (2020). AI ethics. MIT Press.

D6 Family. (2023). The ethics of AI: Navigating the moral maze of artificial intelligence.

Retrieved from https://d6family.com/the-ethics-of-ai-navigating-the-moral-maze-of-

artificial-intelligence/

Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. Putnam

Publishing.

Descartes, R. (1637). Discourse on the method (J. Cottingham, Trans.). Cambridge

University Press.

Dorobantu, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and theology: Looking for a new approach. Zygon:

Journal of Religion and Science, 56(3), 687–702. https://doi.org/10.1111/zygo.12727

Ellul, J. (1977). The technological society (J. Wilkinson, Trans.). Vintage Books.

Francis. (2015). Laudato Si’: On care for our common home. Vatican Press.

Francis. (2020). Fratelli Tutti: On fraternity and social friendship. Vatican Press.

Fukuyama, F. (2002). Our posthuman future: Consequences of the biotechnology revolution.

Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Goggin, J. (2021). Artificial intelligence and Christian eschatology: Theological implications of

 emerging technology. Cambridge University Press.

Harari, Y. N. (2017). Homo Deus: A brief history of tomorrow. HarperCollins.

Harari, Y. N. (2018). 21 lessons for the 21st century. Spiegel & Grau.

Harari, Y. N. (2025). Nexus: A brief history of information networks from the Stone Age to AI.

Wired. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/story/questions-answered-by-yuval-noah-

harari-for-wired-ai-artificial-intelligence-singularity

Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology and other essays (W. Lovitt, Trans.).

Harper & Row.

Herzfeld, N. (2002). In our image: Artificial intelligence and the human spirit. Fortress Press.

Herzfeld, N. (2018). The limits of perfection in technology and theology. Fortress Press.

International Theological Commission. (2004). Communion and stewardship: Human persons

created in the image of God. The Holy See. Retrieved from

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/

rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

ISO. (2023). What is artificial intelligence (AI)? International Organization for Standardization.

Retrieved from https://www.iso.org/artificial-intelligence/what-is-ai

Lennox, J. (2023). John Lennox on AI and the fate of humanity. [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved

from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bME42lz6es

Loader, W. (2016). The Imago Dei (Gen 1:26-27): A history of interpretation from Philo to the

present. HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies, 72(4), a3415.

https://doi.org/10.4102/ht

O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and

threatens democracy. Crown Publishing.

Piper, J. (2019). How can we know God? Desiring God. Retrieved from

https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/how-can-we-know-god

Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,

3(3), 417–457.

Simon, E. (2020). Can a robot pray? Does an automaton have a soul? AI and theology meet.

Aeon. Retrieved from https://aeon.co/essays/can-a-robot-pray-does-an-automaton-have-a-

soul-ai-and-theology-meet

Tanner, K. (2024). Framing theological investigations of near-future AI. Journal of

Contemporary Religion, 39(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2024.2399890