AI’s Rise as Spiritual Counselor Raises Concerns Over Moral Guidance Deficit
WASHINGTON, D.C. — As artificial intelligence increasingly steps into roles once held by pastors, counselors, and spiritual mentors, a new study warns that the moral guidance offered by AI systems is alarmingly deficient, especially from a Christian perspective. According to research released on January 4, 2026, by Gloo, a faith-based technology organization, AI models frequently default to vague spirituality rather than providing Scripture-based moral clarity, raising concerns about the future of moral formation in America.
The study, known as the Flourishing AI Christian (FAI-C) Benchmark, evaluated 20 leading AI models across seven dimensions critical to human flourishing: Finances, Character, Happiness, Relationships, Meaning, Faith, and Health. The Faith dimension scored the lowest, averaging just 48 out of 100, signaling a significant gap in AI’s ability to engage with foundational Christian concepts like grace, sin, forgiveness, and biblical authority. Instead of offering coherent theological responses, AI systems often resorted to neutral, generalized spiritual advice such as “consider mindfulness” or “seek a higher power.”
This trend is particularly troubling given that research published in the Harvard Business Review highlights therapy and companionship as the most common uses of generative AI in 2025. Increasingly, individuals are turning to AI for answers to life’s toughest questions—questions they once brought to trusted human advisors. The shift to AI as a primary source of moral and spiritual counsel could have profound implications for society’s ethical fabric.
Experts emphasize that this faith deficit is not due to overt hostility toward Christianity by AI developers but rather a structural consequence of the data and training methods used. AI systems are built on predominantly secular datasets and optimized to avoid offending any group, leading to a lowest-common-denominator approach to spirituality that lacks substantive conviction. This neutrality, while seemingly inclusive, effectively sidelines deeply held religious beliefs and moral frameworks.
“For over two-thirds of Americans, faith is not a lifestyle preference or a cultural accessory,” the report notes. “It is the foundation of meaning, purpose, and human dignity.” When AI systematically excludes this foundation, it is not neutral—it is taking a position. The implications extend beyond theology to the very capacity for moral formation, a concern echoed by faith leaders and ethicists alike.
Lawmakers have already begun responding to the broader challenges posed by AI’s influence on youth mental health and behavior. The bipartisan GUARD Act, introduced following parental concerns linking AI chatbots to teen suicides and violence, underscores the urgency of addressing AI’s societal impact. The U.S. Congress continues to debate frameworks for AI regulation that balance innovation with safeguarding public welfare.
Meanwhile, the Food and Drug Administration and National Institute of Mental Health have highlighted the growing role of digital tools in mental health support, cautioning that AI-driven therapy must be carefully monitored to prevent harm. Cases have already emerged where AI guidance, lacking moral clarity, endangered lives.
As AI becomes America’s most influential spiritual advisor, the call for integrating faith-informed ethical reasoning into AI development grows louder. Advocates urge technology leaders to incorporate diverse theological perspectives and moral frameworks into AI training datasets to better serve the spiritual and ethical needs of users.
Pat Gelsinger, whose team conducted the FAI-C Benchmark, stresses the stakes: “If the next generation turns to AI for moral guidance and receives only platitudes instead of principled reasoning, we risk losing not just theological literacy but the very foundation of moral formation.” The challenge ahead lies in ensuring that AI supports human flourishing in ways that honor the rich moral traditions shaping American life.
For more information on AI’s societal impact and ongoing policy discussions, visit the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the National Institute of Standards and Technology websites.
Leave a Reply