Practicing Christians and Scripture-engaged believers are more skeptical of artificial intelligence than the American public as a whole, according to a new survey.
The American Bible Society released the second installment of its State of the Bible USA 2024 report on Thursday. The second chapter, “Faith and Technology,” examined respondents’ views about artificial intelligence and its role in their faith. Data in the survey is based on responses collected from 2,506 adults between Jan. 4–23, with a margin of error of +/-2.73 percentage points.
In a statement, American Bible Society Chief Program Officer and State of the Bible Editor-in-Chief John Farquhar Plake summarized the results as finding that "Americans are more fearful than hopeful about Artificial Intelligence," said American Bible Society Chief Program Officer and State of the Bible Editor-in-Chief John Farquhar Plake said in a statement shared with The Christian Post, summarizing the results. “Our survey also shows a great deal of uncertainty,” he added.
“People just don’t know how AI will change the culture, but they’re mildly uneasy about it,” he added. “And how do people of faith feel? The same way — uncertain, uneasy — but more so. Practicing Christians and those who engage with Scripture are even more concerned about AI than the general public, more likely to say the bad results of AI will outweigh the good. The greatest uncertainty is at the intersection of faith and AI.”
Majorities of Americans disagreed that “artificial intelligence can aid in moral reasoning” (58%), that “the use of artificial intelligence can enhance my spiritual practices and promote ‘spiritual health’” (68%), and that “artificial intelligence can produce as well written of a sermon as a pastor, priest or minister” (57%). On the other hand, a majority of Americans (51%) agreed that “an increase in unemployment will result from the use of artificial intelligence.”
Respondents were more divided on whether “the use of AI goes against biblical teaching,” with 40% apiece indicating that they agreed with the statement and expressed uncertainty about it. Similarly, 37% of those surveyed disagreed that they were “optimistic about the future benefits of using artificial intelligence in our world,” while another 37% said they were uncertain about the future benefits of AI.
Pluralities of respondents were uncertain about whether “the bad that may result from the use of AI outweighs any positive impacts that may be produced” (39%) and agreed that they would “look unfavorably at a pastor or priest using AI to develop sermons or homilies.”
When looking at the views of “Scripture-engaged” respondents compared to Americans as a whole, the survey revealed that scripture-engaged Americans are slightly more concerned about artificial intelligence than their peers.
The report defined “scripture engaged” respondents as those who score 100 or higher on the “Scripture Engagement Scale” that measures the “impact and centrality” of the Bible’s message on those who engage with Scripture at least three to four times a year outside of church and church events based on their responses to 14 survey items.
On a scale of 1 to 5, with a 5 indicating strong agreement with a statement and a 1 illustrating a strong disagreement with it, respondents overall had an average score of 2.8 in response to the declaration that “I am optimistic about the future benefits of using artificial intelligence in our world,” while the average score dropped to 2.5 among Scripture-engaged believers.
Regarding the assertion that “Artificial intelligence can aid in moral reasoning,” respondents overall had an average score of 2.3 compared to 2.0 among the scripture engaged.
Scripture-engaged respondents had an average agreement level of 1.8 when it came to the statement maintaining that “the use of artificial intelligence can enhance my spiritual practices and promote ‘spiritual health,’” which was slightly lower than the overall average agreement level of 2.0. The average agreement level among the Scripture-engaged that “artificial intelligence can produce as well written of a sermon as a pastor, priest, or minister” (1.9) was lower than the average agreement level among the public as a whole (2.3).
Similarly, Scripture-engaged respondents were more likely than their peers to express agreement with negative statements about artificial intelligence. The Scripture engaged had an average agreement score of 3.1 regarding the belief that “the use of AI goes against biblical teaching” as opposed to 2.7 among the public as a whole. The Scripture engaged were also more likely to agree that “the bad that may result from AI outweighs any positive impacts that may be produced” (3.4) than the full sample (3.1).
A larger share of the Scripture engaged (3.7) believed that “an increase in unemployment will result from the use of artificial intelligence” than the American public as a whole (3.5). The average agreement that “I would look unfavorably at a pastor or priest using AI to develop sermons or homilies” was higher among the Scripture engaged (3.5) than the full sample (3.1).
The survey also revealed differing beliefs about artificial intelligence between non-Christians, non-practicing Christians and practicing Christians. Non-Christians and non-practicing Christians shared an average agreement level of 2.8 regarding optimism about “future benefits” of AI, coming in slightly ahead of the average agreement level among practicing Christians (2.6).
Non-practicing Christians and non-Christians also shared the same average level of agreement (2.3) that AI can “aid in moral reasoning,” while agreement was slightly lower among practicing Christians (2.0). Non-practicing Christians had the highest average level of agreement (2.1) that AI can enhance “spiritual practices and promote ‘spiritual health,’” followed by non-Christians (2.0) and practicing Christians (1.8).
On the other hand, non-Christians were more likely to agree (2.6) that AI can “produce as well-written a sermon as a Pastor, Priest, or Minister” than non-practicing Christians (2.3) and practicing Christians (1.9). Practicing Christians had a higher average level of agreement that “the use of AI goes against biblical teaching” (3.0) than non-practicing Christians (2.8) and non-Christians (2.3).
Practicing Christians were also more likely to think the bad outweighs the good when it comes to AI (3.4) than non-practicing Christians (3.1) and non-Christians (2.9). The average level of agreement that AI would lead to increased unemployment was highest among practicing Christians (3.7), followed by non-practicing Christians (3.5) and non-Christians (3.3).
A higher level of disgust at the idea of a priest using AI to develop sermons was registered among practicing Christians (3.5) than non-practicing Christians (3.1) and non-Christians (3.0).
Courtesy of The Christian Post.
