Towards a Socio-Theological Evaluation of Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

Artificial intelligence has revolutionized multiple aspects of human existence and raised substantive questions regarding the ultimate purpose of the human person. Spiritual knowledge advances through scientific discovery, as understanding the universe contributes to knowledge of God. Theology, as a discipline that is both theocentric and anthropocentric, considers AI a product of human scientific ingenuity. Despite extensive debate over the decades concerning AI’s impact on the human person, few studies have resolved the complex theological and epistemological issues involved. This article contends that AI represents a significant development in creation, rapidly redefining established paradigms. How does AI as imago hominis reshape Christian anthropology, and what are the socio-theological implications? This core question guides our exploration. We will examine the human person as an individual endowed with intellect, sensibility, volition, as well as imago Dei. In contrast, AI is governed by code and programmers, and is characterized as imago hominis, subject to inherent limitations. By examining the relationship between AI as imago hominis and the human person as imago Dei, this paper succinctly addresses some key ethical and anthropological concerns.

1. Introduction

At the Second Vatican Council, Cardinal Leon-Joseph Suenens of Belgium drew the attention of the Council Fathers to the fact that the Church must be considered both ad intra and ad extra. By implication, the Church should not only engage herself in spiritual matters but also transcend to interact with the modern world in all ramifications. In his speech on 4 December 1962, Cardinal Suenens invited the Church to focus on the human person, dignity, and rights from a socio-political perspective, in order to address social injustice, poverty, war, crime, and international relationships, as well as other factors that could affect the human person holistically. The Church in modern times has continued to encourage advancements in science and technology that promote the human person and their dignity.

Theology positions the human person as central to all human endeavors and inventions, some of which are explicitly designed to replicate human attributes. AI is designed to imitate human behavior and function in a manner that is intelligible, which is why it is designated as artificial intelligence. Vatican II recognizes that all entities on earth are oriented toward humanity as their center and apex (Abbott Vatican II’s Gaudium et Spes Abbott 1966, n. 12). Consequently, contemporary theological discourse affirms that AI is anthropocentric and exemplifies phenomena that highlight human potential and creativity. This anthropocentric perspective can be enriched by acknowledging a plural anthropological lens, including non-Western or inter-religious understandings of the human person. For instance, African communitarian philosophies emphasize interconnectedness and collective identity, while Buddhist perspectives focus on the impermanence and dependent origination of personal identity. These views can broaden the theological conversation and affirm that human creativity, grounded in the biblical mandate to multiply and exercise dominion over other creatures as articulated in Genesis 1:28, is informed by diverse cultural and spiritual understandings. Because humans share in the creative nature of God, they employ their ingenuity to innovate and construct.

Theology views AI as part of human ingenuity, collaborating with God in perfecting the visible creation. That is why Francis (2024b) views the AI revolution as an “epochal change” that requires a renewed wisdom of the heart. Amidst all the positive results being amassed from AI, there are some ethical and epistemological challenges, as it is an imago hominis and fashioned to imitate its maker. Caution must be taken to ensure that they do not hinder but rather enhance the human person and dignity. Taking all these into consideration, this paper presents AI as imago hominis, made in the image and likeness, or better still, in imitation of the human person. It explores both the patristic and scholastic arguments to present the idea that AI is not composed of body and soul, and therefore lacks volition and rationality. But since its operations are limited to natural and not supernatural realities, it cannot transcend or arrive at the same metaphysical level as man—Imago Dei. It has a programmer and a program that can generate new things; it has been programmed to perform, but cannot advance into the metaphysical realm or comprehend soteriological realities. Therefore, if viewed as a tool, AI can aid the human person in appreciating God, through whom all things exist. With these and other facts, we will examine the ethical and socio-theological challenges of AI and recommend that when AI is used appropriately, it does not endanger the human person, especially if boundaries are maintained, since it does nothing on its own.

2. Artificial Intelligence

It cannot be disputed that AI is an extension of human invention, built upon ideas derived from human learning. AI in all its forms is a novel technique that interacts with human persons and the environment. There is no broadly accepted definition of Artificial Intelligence (AI) yet, but the simplest way to understand AI is to view it as the various techniques by which computers replicate human intelligence to perform human functions. It can also be viewed as a thought pattern and belief in the power of certain chips and programs to process, record, and effectively make information available whenever and wherever it is needed. Hence, Artificial Intelligence is a field that involves computers imitating people, or computers that are like human brains, only smarter (Fowler 2025, p. 32).

Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) also known as Strong AI or General AI is the software that allows machines to reason, learn, and make decisions, mimicking human cognitive functions. They are often combined with ‘robotic systems,’ ‘neural networks,’ ‘pattern recognition,’ and ‘generative machines’ to analyze data, understand new situations, and respond dynamically. They come in different forms, ranging from chatbots, which are typically automated computer programs capable of simulating human conversation, to super-robots. These tools are not unfamiliar to us, as they are present in our daily lives every time, especially when we interact with chatbots, Amazon’s Alexa, Apple’s Face ID, and others. AI can be categorized into different subfields within current taxonomies, such as symbolic AI, which focuses on the manipulation of symbols; deep learning, which involves neural networks that model high-level abstractions; and reinforcement learning, where systems learn to make decisions through trial and error. Programmers of AI often focus on cognitive skills, which include algorithms. The algorithms acquire data and create rules that transform the information into an actionable formula. They examine reasoning by selecting the appropriate algorithm and are always ready to update the algorithms by activating the self-correction mode. Using neural networks and rule-based statistical methods, the goal is often to generate new things and ideas. In most cases, they are programmed to interface with or respond to a wide range of simple or complex problems.

Some AIs, known as “narrow,” “weak,” or “specific AI,” are designed to handle specific and sophisticated functions. Rather than general intelligence, this form of AI excels in its designated area by leveraging machine learning and other advanced techniques. In practical terms, they are capable of “translating languages, predicting the trajectory of storms, classifying images, answering questions, or generating visual content at the user’s request” (DDF and DCE 2025, n. 8). With this form of specialization and pattern identification, AI can act intelligently in delivering information or performing activities in a manner similar to humans, even more efficiently. Consequently, some tasks that were previously managed by humans are now entrusted to machines. There is also another form of AI, known as Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), which is designed to operate in multiple tasks. By implication, AGI refers to AI systems that match human cognitive abilities across multiple domains. It has the capability to learn, reason, and apply knowledge to diverse situations in a manner similar to humans.

This form of AGI is presumably capable of outsmarting human intelligence and can contribute to humans’ super-longevity through advances in biotechnology. Some computer scientists believe that the best results will be achieved when the human brain is finally merged with machine intelligence. With his theory of singularity, Ray Kurzweil championed the merger of human and machine intelligence to create a greater and more profound phenomenon, and believes that human beings are a species that has undergone both cultural and technological evolution. “It’s the nature of evolution that it accelerates, and that its powers grow exponentially,… The next stage of this will be to amplify our own intellectual powers with the results of our technology” (Kurzweil 2025). However, despite these ambitious visions, several present-day limitations temper such futuristic propositions. The substantial computational costs and challenges in achieving seamless multimodal alignment present path-dependent technical bottlenecks. These hurdles still make AGI timelines a subject of debate, reminding us that while the idea of singularity is captivating, our current technological capacities remain restrained. Thus, at the level we find ourselves, it remains a subject of debate if AI can supersede or even replicate human cognition since it is not self-conscious.

3. Artificial vs. Human Intelligence

AI systems operate by processing large volumes of labeled training data. Through analysis of this data for correlations and patterns, these systems generate predictions about future outcomes. AI is not a supernatural entity and does not acquire intelligence instantaneously. Its core functionality relies on exposure to extensive datasets. For example, when provided with images of airports, ships, planes, or orange trees, AI systems analyze and categorize these inputs accordingly. By recognizing patterns within data, AI systems perform complex functions. Their performance improves as they are exposed to more data relevant to specific tasks.

The implicit assumption that AI is as intelligible as its creator can undermine a thorough understanding of the nature of the human person. While human intelligence is shaped by embodied experiences, including sensory input, emotional responses, social interactions, and personal history, machine intelligence is not. On the contrary, it operates within a logical and mathematical framework, processing data and performing tasks based on algorithms and patterns. Equating the artificial with human intelligence can lead to an assumption that might obscure the distinctiveness or uniqueness of the human person in the hierarchy of creation. Therefore, such an assumption can undermine both the epistemic and spiritual aspects of human intelligence, which is one of the profound debates surrounding AI today.

In fact, the hypothesis that the term ‘intelligence’ can be used in the same manner to refer to both human and artificial intelligence has been faulted in some quarters, and caution is raised regarding some ethical boundaries. The Vatican Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Dicastery for Culture and Education, in a document released in 2025, caution against any functionalistic approach that reduces human intelligence to mere functions or assumes that its functions can be entirely quantified in physical or mathematical terms. This Vatican Dicastery established the difference between human and artificial intelligence. It states that “in the case of humans, intelligence is a faculty that pertains to the person in his or her entirety, whereas AI, intelligence is understood functionally, often with the presumption that the activities characteristic of the human mind can be broken down into digitized steps that machines can replicate” (DDF and DCE 2025, n. 10).

To further explore this distinction, let us consider the concept of ‘relational intelligence’ in machines. What constitutes relational intelligence in machines, and does it capture the relational nature of human intellect? For instance, elder-care robots, designed to provide companionship and assistance, raise questions about the ethical boundaries in replicating human relationships. Can such machines ever truly understand and participate in human experiences in the same way that people do? These questions underscore the Vatican’s caution against a purely functionalist view, which often overlooks the profound relational aspect inherent in human intelligence.

The very fact that computers can function in a manner similar to humans does not in any way serve as a yardstick for comparing human intelligence with that of machines. Some machine behavior could be intelligible, as exemplified by the Turing Test, which mimics or imitates human conversational behavior, making it difficult to distinguish between the actual person and the machine. Since the act of successfully mimicking a behavior does not necessarily equate to genuine understanding, consciousness, or true intelligence, there is no grounds to think that there is any moral or ethical sensibility in any action of AI. This is precisely because AI lacks cognitive abilities and other aspects that humans possess, but can only perform tasks for which it is coded. Human intelligence is a faculty that forms an integral part of how the human person engages with reality, and not just any selected function. “Authentic engagement requires embracing the full scope of one’s being: spiritual, cognitive, embodied, and relational” (DDF and DCE 2025, n. 26).

Human intelligence differs from artificial intelligence in that it is not fundamentally about discharging a specific function, but rather about understanding, engaging with, and assessing various realities from multiple perspectives. Human intelligence, unlike artificial intelligence, interacts dynamically. It can think outside the box with novel ideas, just like the body responds to certain stimuli in complex situations. It instinctively generates emotional nuances, such as empathy and sarcasm, and adapts communication processes based on the individual and the situation. People have argued that the term “artificial intelligence” should be changed, as there is a danger of equating it with human intelligence. “The use of the word ‘intelligence’ in connection with AI can prove misleading and risks overlooking what is most precious in the human person. In light of this, AI should not be seen as an artificial form of human intelligence but as a product of it” (Francis 2024a).

Theology will opine without equivocation that human intelligence is shaped in divine love (Rom 5:5), since it possesses some vestige of truth. This theological assertion is Pauline which is aptly linked to vestige of the Trinity (vestigium Trinitatis), a doctrine most thoroughly developed by Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas that will help us to understand the relationship between human reason, the nature of God, and the effects of divine love in creation. Thus, the notion that human intelligence possesses a vestige of truth suggests our minds are inherently oriented towards recognizing and apprehending reality in a way that reflects its ultimate source in God. In essence, human intelligence is not simply about acquiring facts but also about grappling with the ultimate questions of life and having an orientation toward the True and the Good. As a reflection of the image of God—imago Dei human intelligence encompasses the ability to savor what is true, good, and beautiful. By implication, human intelligence can strive to apprehend the truth and distinguish between what is true and what is false.

By the same token, it has the ability, unlike artificial intelligence, to pursue both the temporal and ultimate good. For instance, consider the scenario of an artist painting a sunset. While an AI might replicate colors and shapes with precision, the human artist infuses the work with personal emotion and intention, capturing not just the visual image, but its spiritual resonance as well. This capability to engage with the divine and translate abstract beauty into a tangible form of worship is a distinct feature of human intellect. Therefore, human intelligence is transcendental in the theological sense, as it can contemplate the fundamental nature of the divine being that models humanity in its nature and likeness. “A proper understanding of the human intelligence, therefore, cannot be reduced to the mere acquisition of facts or the ability to perform specific tasks. Instead, it involves the person’s openness to the ultimate questions of life and reflects an orientation towards the Truth and the Good” (DDF and DCE 2025, n. 29; Abbott Vatican II’s Gaudium et Spes Abbott 1966, n. 7).

4. The Imago Dei

The concept of imago Dei remains a fundamental Christian anthropological principle in understanding the human person and their prime position in creation. Similarly, it manifests the sacredness of the human person, who can only communicate directly with God in spiritual and rational realms. Theologically, the idea of personhood distinguishes humanity from other creatures, precisely because humans alone were created in the image of God—imago Dei. In effect, we might assume that the concept of imago Dei is associated with rationality since humans are the only rational beings. In his exegesis of Genesis 1:26, Augustine of Hippo teaches that the image and likeness idealistically represent every human person’s character summed up in being, knowing, and loving (Augustine 2012b, De Trinitate 9:4.4).

The patristic traditions uphold from the New Testament that Christology is the basis of understanding human personhood. Thus, following St. Paul, who asserts that Christ is the visible image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15), they established a Christological approach for a proper Christian understanding of the imago Dei. Irenaeus made a strong connection between Christology and anthropology. He sees Christ as the true image of God and Word—Logos through whom all was created. “He made all things, through and to whom also He speaks, saying, ‘Let us make man after Our image and likeness Genesis 1:26 (Irenaeus 2012, Adversus haereses 4.20.1). Irenaeus believes that without the person of Christ at the incarnation, the idea of creating man in the image of God (Gen 1:26) would remain elusive to us. It was when the Word became flesh that the invisible nature of God was concealed in the Son.

Augustine of Hippo explains that the concepts of “image” and “likeness” are both found in Christ. He espouses that whether what is said is in image and likeness, or after the image and likeness, we must understand the same thing, since the Son, Jesus Christ, who is in human form, is the revelation of the true image of the Father (Augustine 2012b, De Trinitate 7.6.7). Therefore, the human creature as imago Dei must be theologically understood in and through the person of Jesus Christ, who said whoever sees me, sees the Father (Jn 14: 9). But this form of seeing Christ does not project a photo image of God but a mode of revelation. That is why Joseph Ratzinger teaches that the idea of image and likeness must not be interpreted in the sense of a photo image. Christ must not be seen as the photo of God. “Christ is the prototype of man. We cannot see in him the image of God in his eternal infinity, but we can see the image in which he chose to portray himself… The image of Christ is, of course, not just a photo of God” (Ratzinger 2002, p. 24). In the humanity of Christ Jesus, God became visible in a manner he considers best.

The Second Vatican Council, in Gaudium et Spes, reemphasizes Christology as the basic exegetical tool for understanding the human person. “The key, the center and the purpose of the whole human history is to be found in its Lord and Master” (Abbott Vatican II’s Gaudium et Spes Abbott 1966, n. 10). Consequently, theology continues to acknowledge that as imago Dei, “man alone is called to share by knowledge and love in God’s own life. This is the fundamental reason for the dignity of the human person. Being made in the image of God, the individual possesses the dignity of a person who is not just something but someone” (CCC 356). The human person fits into the dogma of creation because he is the perfect reflection of the Trinity, as described in Genesis 1:26–27.

Christ is the second Adam whose coming in human nature was necessitated by the fall of Adam. It is almost impossible to construct a Christological exegesis without mentioning Adam. So, while theological anthropology continues to link the human person to the fall of Adam, it also accepts that the primary reason Christ came in human nature is to restore what was lost in Adam. Vatican II insists that it is “only in the mystery of incarnation or the incarnate Word does the mystery of the human person take on light. For Adam, the first man was a figure of him who was to come” (Abbott Vatican II’ Gaudium et Spes Abbott 1966, n. 22). In sum, the full humanity of Christ, his centrality in the salvation of human persons, and his status as the true imago Dei are the fundamental principles for understanding the human person and their destiny.

5. Composite of Body and Soul

The human person is a mystery because he is in two realms. He stands in the middle of creation because he belongs to the realm of the spiritual with his soul and the physical with his body. By partaking in both realms, man stands as a bridge between God and other created things.

Through man, the material world is lifted up into the spiritual realm, and through their contribution in man we see that the two are compatible, each with the other…. The unity of creation is demonstrated at the point where the two are united in man. That gives him a quite special function; that is to say, sharing the responsibility for the unity of creation, incarnating spirit in himself and, conversely, lifting material being up to God.

(Ratzinger 2002, p. 89)

The human person is a special creature that has to contribute to the symphony with creation (Gen 1. 28). For this reason, Joseph Ratzinger insists that man is indeed a kind of bridge. He is the point at which the material world and the spiritual world meet and mingle, and thus humanity occupies a special place in the matrix of the created order.

The patristic tradition employs the Latin neuter homo to expand on the human person as described in Sacred Scripture, as a composite of body and soul. This Latin word is in the neuter gender and has no proper English equivalent. With that, the Church Fathers argue that it is not just the body of the human person that reflects the image and likeness of God, but also his soul. Thus, the human soul is that sharp element that distinguishes the human person from the lower animals. “Inasmuch as there are three things of which man consists—namely, spirit, soul, and body—which again are spoken of as two, because frequently the soul is named along with the spirit; for a certain rational position of the same, which beasts are devoid, is called spirit; the principal part in us is the spirit” (Augustine 2012a, De fide et symbolo 10.23). Augustine of Hippo concludes that the human soul is godlike in three categories: immateriality, intellectuality, and immortality.

The immortal and intellectual nature of the soul is not just a Christian phenomenon, but it is acceptable even among the three famous ancient philosophers. While Socrates holds that the soul is the rational faculty that exhibits a godlike nature in humans, Plato maintains that the soul is a person’s true self, existing beyond immortality, which continues to think even after death. For Aristotle, it is the full actualization of human nature. “The soul is not in itself immortal, O Greeks, but mortal. Yet it is possible for it not to die. If indeed it knows not the truth, it dies, and is dissolved with the body, but rises again at last at the end of the world with the body receiving death by punishment in immortality. But again, if it acquires the knowledge of God, it dies not although for a time it be dissolved” (Tatian 2012, Lógos pros Hellēnas 13). Consequently, the human soul is immaterial, intellectual, and immortal because it reflects the nature of God.

The massive contributions of Doctor Angelicus Thomas Aquinas provide us with a clearer analysis of how the human person is a composite of body and soul. These two attributes distinguish the human person as rational from other beings, including Artificial intelligence creatures. Aquinas holds that only a person can engage in the activities proper to a rational nature, that is, activities of intellect and will. The human person is superior to other creatures because he has a rational soul with a substantial form. He can engage in and be engaged with various actions, such as thinking, judging, reasoning, evaluating, and deliberating. Such actions are not native to lower animals or robotic machines. Where AI functions by executing pre-programmed tasks designed for algorithmic optimization, the human person, as Aquinas suggests, acts as the true originator of actions, driven by metaphysical agency. Thus, humans are humans precisely because of these natural capacities that are lacking in other lower creatures or man-made objects, the imago hominis.

Following Boethius, Aquinas teaches that a person is an individual substance of a rational nature. His rational nature is composed of intellect and will, which distinguishes him from other material substances. “The form and species of a natural thing are known through their proper operations. Now, the proper operation of a human being is understanding and reasoning. So, the principle of this operation, which is the intellect, must be that by which a human being is categorized by species” (Aquinas 1921, Summa Theologiae 1 q. 29 a. 5). Aquinas insists that a person is a being that exists independently with a specific nature, shared with other beings of its kind, irrespective of culture, race, generation, or time.

A human person cannot be defined solely by their soul or informed material body. Like the Fathers of the Church, Aquinas says that it must be from both soul and body, just as from two things, a third is constituted that is neither of the two; for a human being is neither soul nor body (Aquinas 1921, Summa Theologiae 1. q. 75). He holds that man is composed of a spiritual and a corporeal substance. So, the union of the body and soul makes up the essential qualities of the human person that has the capacity to embark on certain operations which are beyond terrestrial conception. The capacities of a human person to function must be holistic, and never in parts. For whereas the human soul is the source of his capacities, the body is the material support for such capacities.

The human person performs his existential operations when a union of matter and form, body and soul, is in operation. Aquinas sees this as a “hypostasis” or “supposit. The subsistent individual with body and soul is different from others; it is hypostasis. In other words, a subsistent individual is a being that does not “exist in” something else in the way that characterizes accidents such as weight, dimension, color, etc. Accidents or accidental forms, by nature, are not independent but dependent on another thing. All accidents are contingent upon other existing things. However, subsistent individuals are not contingent on another; they exist in themselves, not in another (Aquinas 1921, Summa Theologiae 1. q. 2).

The individual substance does not just make the human person unique, but also accords him his prime qualities, along with specific powers and operations. Consequently, every individual substance or hypostasis has the powers to perform whatever operations it is capable of performing in virtue of having the kind of nature that it has. The nature of operations that a human person can perform is limitless, based on their nature when compared to that of a lion. The same parallel can be drawn between the human person and AI. For whereas scientists can program some computers to engage in specific and limited operations, the human person can go beyond such programs, since he or she is the originator of his or her own actions. But it is not to say that the nature of man is parallel to God’s omnipotent and omniscient nature. Human persons can operate independently, as they possess both free will and free choice, as opposed to algorithms. They can determine the possible ends of their actions and understand their implications. Their rational nature and ability to apply are innate and often operate without external interference.

Aquinas’ theories of movement aptly present AI as something that is moved by another. The Angelic Doctor holds that either a thing moves to an end by itself or it is moved by another. “Those things which have reason move themselves towards their end, since they have control over their actions through their free will, which is a faculty of will and reason. But those things that lack reason tend to their end by natural inclination, as if being moved by another and not by themselves, since they do not have cognition of an end as such and consequently cannot ordain their behavior towards an end” (Aquinas 1921, Summa Theologiae I–II q. 6 a. 5). Unlike AI, the human person is unique in their nature because they share few things in common with both God and angels, but are considered a lower being. He operates as an independent being and is responsible for his actions.

6. AI as Imago Hominis Reshaping Christian Anthropology

The Christian concept of imago Dei stands out as the substantive attribute that sets humans apart from machines and other lower beings. Flexibility, adaptability, and linguistic giftedness are additional factors not easily found in machines such as AI. “Basically, machines were not self-moving, self-designing, autonomous. They could not achieve man’s dream, only mock it. They were not man, an author to himself, but only a caricature of that masculinist reproductive dream” (Haraway 2016, p. 11). In effect, such human inventions as AI have no direct attribute of the imago Dei and were not made ex nihilo. But, as imago hominis, AI only mirrors the human intelligence and currently challenges the Christian notion of human personhood.

Building on this challenge to Christian anthropology, the rising discourse on machine intelligence is prompting a radical reassessment of human thinking, feeling, and understanding of what it means to be human. This exacerbates classic issues in philosophy and theology, leading to a renewed focus on concepts beyond cognitive abilities, such as the spiritual dimension, emotional depth, and relationships central to the imago Dei. Consequently, some theologians maintain that AI lacks the inner life, subjective experience, or soul required for authentic personhood. They have come to conclude that AI can mimic behavior but does not possess a true self. Garner (2006, p. 102) suggests that even if AI could replicate cognitive functions, it would not possess the “Imago Dei” (Image of God) or the embodied, relational self that is central to Christian anthropology, while others emphasize the importance of divine creation, embodiment, and the unique spiritual nature of human beings.

As the debate continues, AI’s complex computational abilities further highlight that the essence of being human may not lie in intelligence alone. Theologians are now increasingly focusing on relational aspects, emphasizing that humans, as God image-bearers, are created for an authentic and loving relationship with God and with one another. Therefore, this aspect of rationalism cannot be replaced easily by AI since it lacks some emotional and spiritual qualities. Donna Jeanne Haraway aptly observes that “late twentieth-century machines have made thoroughly ambiguous the difference between natural and artificial, mind and body, self-developing and externally designed, and many other distinctions that used to apply to organisms and machines. Our machines are disturbingly lively, and we ourselves frighteningly inert” (Haraway 2016, p. 11).

In the context of such digital development in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, theologians find it necessary to reconsider established teachings and reaffirm core beliefs. As Haraway remarks, “Modern machines are quintessentially microelectronic devices: they are everywhere and they are invisible. Modern machinery is an irreverent upstart god, mocking the Father’s ubiquity and spirituality” (Haraway 2016, p. 12). In effect, Christian anthropology, especially from the Catholic perspective, drawing from revealed truth in the Holy Scripture, magisterial documents, and papal teachings, affirms that humans are imperfect and sinful, uniquely made in the image and likeness of God (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1994, n. 1700–1705).

The doctrine of the Incarnation, in which God assumes human form, further emphasizes the significance of embodiment in revealing the divine image. “Christ, … in the very revelation of the mystery of the Father and of his love, makes man fully manifest to himself and brings to light his exalted vocation. It is in Christ, the image of the invisible God, that man has been created in the image and likeness of the Creator” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1994, n. 1701). Consequently, the inability of AI to participate in this physical reality constitutes a fundamental barrier to its equivalence with human existence, thereby distinguishing machine intelligence from human consciousness.

In response, some scholars advocate for a performative or functional interpretation of the imago Dei, viewing it as a vocation rather than a static attribute. This perspective suggests that both humans and sufficiently advanced non-human entities could fulfill the imago Dei through responsible stewardship. However, this approach challenges traditional views of human exceptionalism rooted in nature. The reduction of the human person to a purely functional entity, as suggested by R. Kurzweil, is not universally accepted. Kurzweil (2000) proposed that “the human brain presumably follows the laws of physics, so it must be a machine, albeit a very complex one.” But what stands theologically is that performing machines including AI are best understood as part of humanity’s creative activity, reflecting the creative impulse inherent in the imago Dei. Thus, theology continues to affirm in all circumstances that AI participates in creatio continua, but does not constitute creatio ex nihilo.

7. Continuing Creation

Augustine of Hippo once made the distinction between “initial creation” (creatio prima) and “continuing creation” (creatio continua), positing that these two entities belong to distinct categories. Whereas the creatio prima belongs to God as the eternal Creator, the creatio continua belongs to man as an intelligible being. He teaches that God alone created out of nothing (ex nihilo) as a single initial act. Apart from God, anything that exists is the product of God, who is totally sufficient in himself and made everything in his own free will. He designed everything to manifest his goodness. God, in his own free will, granted to humanity the wisdom and understanding to advance further his act of creation, but not ex nihilo. “The intuitive self-understanding by which people perceive themselves as being more than machines has its counterpart within the Judeo-Christian context in the symbol of the image of God” (Soes 2025, p. 104). Thus, man made in the image and likeness of God (Gen. 1:26–27) can replicate whatever he wants from the already existing materials. It is this form of creation that Augustine called “continuing creation” (creatio continua).

To illustrate the concept of creatio continua in contemporary terms, consider the current debates around AI governance frameworks. The responsible stewardship of AI technologies echoes the theological notion of humans as active participants in creation. The development of ethical AI guidelines can be viewed as an ongoing process of creation, where humanity leverages its inherent wisdom to address contemporary challenges and ensure these tools serve the greater good of society. This contemporary engagement with moral and ethical frameworks in AI not only underscores the importance of acting as stewards of technological advancements but also aligns with the theological claim that human creativity is inherently linked to divine creation.

Creation, as understood from the Christian perspective, is the free act of the Triune God. God created “not to increase his glory, but to show it forth and to communicate it” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1994, n. 293). Since God creates according to his Wisdom (cf. Wis. 9:9, Jer. 10:12), creation is imbued with an intrinsic order that reflects God’s plan (cf. Gen. 1; Dan. 2:21–22; Is. 45:18; Ps. 74:12–17; 104), within which God has called human beings to assume a role to cultivate and care for them. Theology identifies the human understanding and knowledge as a clear form of participation in the divine nature and governance of visible creation. This form of creation is linked with stewardship according to the International Theological Commission. “This privilege is granted to them by the Creator who allows the creature made in his image to participate in his work, in his project of love and salvation, indeed in his own lordship over the universe. Since man’s place as ruler is in fact a participation in the divine governance of creation, we speak of it here as a form of stewardship” (ITC 2004, n. 57).

Further extending this understanding of stewardship, human nature is distinct from that of other creatures and cannot be identified with any particular skill or abilities, but is summed up in their performances and stewardships. Christian theology acknowledges such dominance with both domestic and royal imageries. From the royal perspective, humans are called to in the sense of holding an ascendancy over the whole of visible creation, in the manner of a king. They are also the master of a household to whom God has confided care of all his goods (cf. Mt 24:45). Man can deploy all the resources of visible creation according to his ingenuity, and exercises this participated sovereignty over visible creation through science, technology, and art (ITC 2004, n. 58). In effect, AI and other man-made objects fall within the realm of sovereignty over creation or creatio continua. Vatican’s theological publication on AI, DDF and DCE (2025) affirms that human beings are called to develop their abilities in science and technology, for through them, God is glorified (cf. Sir 38:6). It explains that, in a proper relationship with creation, humans use their intelligence and skill to cooperate with God in guiding creation towards the purpose to which he has called it, creation itself, will aid the human mind to ascend gradually to the supreme Principle, who is God.

From a theological perspective, it is essential to situate AI within the framework of creatio continua. The International Theological Commission emphasizes that Christians must integrate modern scientific understanding within the broader theology of creation (ITC 2004, n. 62). The existence of AI does not conflict with the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, as AI is a product of human ingenuity designed to replicate certain human functions. Therefore, AI should be regarded as an extension of the human image, aligning with the concept of continuous creation. Researchers have developed machines capable of imitating aspects of human cognition, solving abstract problems, and processing natural language. Accordingly, the Church interprets AI as a manifestation of human effort to address complex problems and exercise stewardship over creation, as referenced in Genesis 1:26–27.

8. Socio-Theological Appraisal of AI

Artificial intelligence holds transformative potential for contemporary society, but this promise is inseparable from ethical, religious, and social challenges—most notably, concerns around bias and fairness. The opacity and lack of transparency in some AI-generated outputs demand critical reassessment. AI can mirror or even amplify biases present in its training data, potentially leading to unfair or discriminatory outcomes. These biases typically emerge in data, development, and user interaction. Thus, promoting fairness in AI algorithms requires an interdisciplinary approach. Theology and related disciplines demonstrate their integrity when distinguishing authentic discourse from biased interpretations in addressing doctrinal or societal challenges.

The Church positions itself as a guardian of human dignity in the context of technological advancements, including AI. Its moral and social teachings offer frameworks to ensure that AI upholds human agency and dignity in alignment with theological principles. Exercising prudence enables individuals and communities to identify responsible applications of AI that serve the common good. The Church remains committed to guiding the ethical and effective use of technology, while emphasizing universal moral teachings. The pursuit of theological truth requires careful discernment of revelations and human experiences within a complex societal landscape. Doctrinal decisions cannot and should not depend exclusively on AI-generated content, as theological truths demand a nuanced interpretation of sacred texts, traditions, and revelations. Uncritical acceptance of AI-generated interpretations without theological oversight can lead to significant misunderstandings. Because AI systems learn from data, they may perpetuate existing biases in theology. Maintaining the integrity of theological reflection increasingly depends on distinguishing authentic insights from distortions.

Artificial intelligence is playing an increasingly significant role in education, but a careful evaluation of its advantages and disadvantages is necessary. Generative AI offers robust tools that streamline administrative tasks, increase opportunities for teacher-student interaction, personalize learning experiences, enhance accessibility, and support curriculum development. However, challenges include: privacy and security risks, algorithmic biases that may influence educational outcomes, potential overdependence on technology, and the financial burden of implementation and maintenance. Implementing strong safeguards and continuous monitoring by educators and administrators is essential to prevent their unethical use (University of Illinois 2024).

In medicine, a patient’s autonomy, respect, and privacy must be maintained at all times. In effect, data used to train AI systems must be protected and secure. “Autonomy must be considered for the use of personal health data for developing, training, and validating AI systems, and the application of AI systems in patient care” (Hanna et al. 2025). Because AI relies on large amounts of health data, in-depth protection is crucial to maintain trust and comply with regulatory standards. Developing transparent systems, addressing bias for fair representation, rigorous validation across populations, and protecting healthcare data privacy are critical. Protecting sensitive personal and community information is crucial and urgent. Consequently, ethical guidelines and legislation on AI are imperative.

Other significant ethical concerns in the design and use of AI systems are transparency and accountability. Attributing responsibility for mistakes or harm caused by AI is a complex process, highlighting the need for robust accountability and liability frameworks. Many sophisticated AI models, particularly those based on deep learning, are difficult to interpret and often regarded as “black boxes.” Enhancing transparency and accountability in AI systems is vital for building user trust. The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) addresses these issues by granting individuals the authority to contest decisions made exclusively by AI. Article 22 specifically enables individuals to dispute the results of automated processing and to request explanations for those outcomes. For instance, if an AI system categorizes an individual as a criminal, that person is entitled to challenge and seek clarification about the decision.

Decisions derived exclusively from AI outputs should not be regarded as definitive in moral contexts. AI systems prioritize outcome optimization based on predetermined criteria, frequently neglecting individual human values and perspectives. Reliance on AI for ethical decision-making risks abdicating personal moral responsibility, which is central to the theological conception of humans as moral agents created in the image and likeness of God. Consequently, AI-generated content must undergo rigorous scrutiny and verification to ensure accuracy and integrity. The complexity and opacity of AI algorithms highlight significant socio-theological concerns. Addressing these challenges demands collaboration among technologists, ethicists, policymakers, and regulators. The development of ethical guidelines and regulations is essential to ensure that AI serves humanity, promotes fairness and accountability, and upholds human dignity as imago Dei.

The Catholic Church, in some Vatican statements, recognizes both the promise and risks of AI. Their primary position is that AI can amplify either positive or negative human actions, depending on its design and intended use. The Catholic Church, with the 2025 document Antiqua et Nova, asserts that AI should serve everyone—especially the marginalized—not just a privileged few. Used responsibly, AI can uncover and address injustices, furthering justice and peace; however, if unregulated, it may exacerbate inequality and erode human dignity. Vatican II’s Gaudium et Spes acknowledged that AI could enhance relationships but not replace them, emphasizing the importance of socialization for human development while warning of its dangers.

Consequently, the Church cautions that technological manipulation has the potential to weaken interpersonal relationships and contribute to social alienation. Unregulated technological advancement, particularly through certain AI applications, may reduce individuals to objects within systems that are focused exclusively on efficiency. Such developments risk undermining the social contract; when technology influences behavior without detection, it challenges the rational-choice principles that underpin democracy and self-governance, raising critical questions about individuality and the foundations of the liberal order. The International Theological Commission’s document on ITC (2004, n. 1); also attests;

The explosion of scientific understanding and technological capabilities in modern times has brought numerous advantages to the human race, but it also poses significant challenges. Our understanding of the universe’s immensity and age has made human beings seem smaller and less secure in their position and significance within it. Technological advances have greatly increased our ability to control and direct the forces of nature, but they have also turned out to have an unexpected and possibly uncontrollable impact on our environment and even on ourselves.

To this end, it is important to maintain certain boundaries in human inventions. Pope Benedict XVI holds that there are indeed final boundaries we cannot cross without becoming the agents of the destruction of creation itself, without going far beyond the original sin and the first Fall and all its negative consequences. The human person who invents AI and other scientific and technological discoveries is a being endowed with intellect and volition. “When we see how people, with genetic codes available to them, are really starting to pick from the tree of life and make themselves lords of life and death, to resemble life, then precisely what man was supposed to be protected from is now actually happening: he is crossing the final boundary” (Ratzinger 2002, p. 143).

The ethical responsibility for AI rests with its developers, who must ensure that their creations do not contribute to the degradation of human dignity as imago Dei. AI-generated false images and misinformation have the potential to undermine institutions and erode generational legacies by diminishing public trust. The creation of manipulative and convincing fabricated content, commonly referred to as deepfakes, complicates the distinction between fact and fiction. When deepfakes are used to produce false news targeting individuals within or outside the Church or other organizations, they can inflict irreparable harm and erode confidence in both people and institutions. It is therefore imperative to implement measures that limit the spread of AI-generated content capable of distorting reality, as such content fosters skepticism toward digital information.

AI is often regarded as ushering in a new industrial revolution that is rapidly reshaping the global economy, eliciting a range of responses similar to those observed during the nineteenth-century Industrial Revolution. While some view AI as a significant technological achievement, others argue that it displaces individuals from their livelihoods, drawing parallels to the historical Luddites. Contemporary ‘AI Luddites,’ akin to nineteenth-century skilled laborers who saw machines as diminishing the dignity of labor and creativity, perceive AI as a threat to humanity. They contend that widespread AI integration in various domains fosters dependence on non-human entities, leading to the decline of tasks traditionally performed by humans. This shift is anticipated to result in substantial workforce reductions and job scarcity, which will undermine individuals’ sense of purpose and identity. These critics express skepticism or opposition to the rapid advancement and integration of AI, particularly in creative and intellectual fields (cf. Feldman 2024). Their concerns extend to unemployment and broader moral, economic, and social implications, as large language models (LLMs) with complex algorithms and extensive datasets are capable of producing sophisticated outputs.

Again, they fear that the world is heading toward a societal cataclysm in human history, when meaningful jobs are scarce and economic disparities become increasingly pronounced. “What currently seems to happen in the labor market as a result of AI and robotics automation is job polarization. The highly skilled technical jobs are in demand and highly paid, but the mid-qualification jobs in factories and offices, i.e., the majority of jobs, are under pressure and being reduced” (Kavalackal 2020). Hence, they consider the values placed on AI as an erosion of traditional human creativity, since AI, in optimizing for efficiency and volume, might compromise the depth and nuance that come from human creativity. On account of this, Elon Musk considers unregulated AI the biggest risk facing human civilization. Musk told the American governors that AI calls for precautionary, proactive government intervention when he asserts, “I think by the time we are reactive in AI regulation, it’s too late” (Domonoske 2017).

Concerns regarding the negative societal implications of AI are legitimate, yet they do not negate the technology’s substantial positive contributions and advancements throughout human history. Some perceive AI as a threat to the concept of imago Dei, equating its rise with a devaluation of human agency. The erosion of human agency, moral autonomy, and relationality is seen by some as distorting the imago Dei and undermining the theological understanding of humanity’s unique status as beings created in the image of God. “Rather than fulfilling the role of stewards of creation and fostering flourishing communities, there is a risk that humans may become subservient to AI systems that prioritize efficiency and utility over the inherent dignity of humans” (Platovnjak and Sveteji 2024, p. 832). Nevertheless, such theological skepticism should be reconsidered if AI is understood as imago hominis, and expression of human creativity. The International Theological Commission, advocates for the integration of modern scientific knowledge within the broader framework of the theology of creation (ITC 2004, n. 62).

In sum, the existence of AI is compatible with the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, as AI represents a product of human ingenuity as imago hominis, intended to replicate specific human functions. Consequently, AI should be viewed as an extension of the human image, consistent with the notion of continuing creation. Researchers have developed machines that can emulate aspects of human cognition, solve abstract problems, and process natural language. In this context, the Church interprets AI as a manifestation of human endeavor to address complex challenges and exercise stewardship over creation, as reflected in Genesis 1:26–27.

9. Conclusions

That AI has emerged as a pervasive force in the twenty-first century, significantly influencing various sectors of society, is a truism. Its integration into daily life is extensive, making disengagement from AI technologies increasingly impractical for all age groups. The transformative impact of AI extends beyond manufacturing to agriculture, healthcare, education, transportation, military applications, cybersecurity, administrative processes, scientific research, and climate change mitigation. These developments suggest that AI will continue to be a permanent feature of contemporary society.

At the same time, AI systems possess the potential to be manipulative and misleading. Their widespread use for personal advantage and influence over decision-making has prompted theology to advocate for the application of authentic wisdom. This wisdom requires a critical engagement with reality. The human person is distinguished by creativity, dynamism, and the capacity to integrate past, present, and future experiences to achieve ethically significant outcomes. Therefore, it is essential to employ discernment in distinguishing the unique capabilities and dignity of human beings from the functional operations of algorithms and data-driven systems.

The personification of AI presents a significant ethical concern within theological discourse. The anthropomorphic design of AI can obscure distinctions between authentic and artificial entities, potentially facilitating superficial exchanges that may undermine genuine interpersonal relationships. Such developments risk fostering dissatisfaction and social isolation. Human interaction, foundational to human dignity, cannot be replicated by AI. Religious, cultural, and philosophical traditions assert that human dignity derives from intrinsic qualities such as rationality, freedom, and consciousness. While AI can simulate certain forms of communication, it lacks the capacity for genuine empathy or emotional engagement. While some AI programs can stimulate empathetic responses, they cannot replicate the inherently personal and relational nature of a human person, rooted in family and community.

Thus, any act of enslavement to technological manipulation will destroy the interpersonal relationship and breed human estrangement. The Church warns against allowing humanity to become slaves to its own work since unchecked technological advancement, especially in some AI products, can subordinate the human person to a technocratic paradigm that is solely efficiency-oriented. “The consequences include… the dissolution of the social contract. If people can be subtly altered, if a computer system can change their behavior without them even realizing it, the rational-choice assumptions that underlie the modern social order collapse. The very idea that we are self-aware, rational players participating in a democratic system comes into question, and with it the basic tenet of liberal political order” (Desmond 2021).

Since AI has come to stay, there is an urgent need to promote transparency and accountability and avoidance of bias. The ethics of AI lie with the programmers who should ensure that they are not used to dehumanize the human person or for fraudulent purposes. Similarly, regulatory bodies must guarantee their safety and curtail the proliferation of AI-generated content that is capable of misrepresenting reality, which in turn makes people skeptical of several digital contents. “If technology is to serve human dignity and not harm it, and if it is to promote peace rather than violence, then the human community must be proactive in addressing these trends with respect to human dignity and the promotion of the good” (Francis 2025).

The Church, on her part, can engage with the government and private sectors at various levels in dialog to ensure that AI products protect human justice and dignity. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has set the paradigm for such dialog and engagement with the government. In a letter of recommendation to the US Congress, the bishops were emphatic that the Church acknowledges the positive impact of AI. Therefore, they affirmed that the Church is both ad intra and ad extra, as noted by the Belgian cardinal at the wake of the Second Vatican Council in 1963, and is willing to offer some recommendations. They note that “As AI technologies transform our lives, workplaces, relationships and even our sense of identity, the Church must be a prophetic voice, calling the world to place the human person, made in the image of God, at the heart of this transformation” (USCCB 2025).

Ultimately, the problems, threats, or dangers associated with AI are man-made. Since they are made imago hominis, their designs, deployments, and regulations begin and end with the human person. It is the values and intentions attached to their usage that matter for theology. The Genesis 1:28 account is the exegetical keyword often not interpreted as a license for exploitation, but rather as a call for responsible stewardship of God’s creation and the act of continuous creation. Consequently, it will be right to conclude that any threat or danger that is associated with AI comes from those who program and codify it. The high market value bereft of any moral values or ethical standards is behind all these aberrations. Pope Leo XIV reminds the world that AI requires responsibility and discernment in order to ensure it can be used for the good of all, so that it can benefit all of humanity (Leo XIV 2025).