The Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools for Religious Purposes: Empirical Research Among Hungarian Religious Communities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please read the review notes in the attached file

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your feedback, evaluation of our manuscript, and encouragement!

 

Regarding the suggested corrections, we indicate how they were corrected and on which line in the newly uploaded manuscript the correction is located.

 

Recommendation 2. :” The introduction (lines 21 to 66) of this paper should contain a specific explanation of why the author chose the topic "The use of artificial intelligence tools for religious purposes, empirical research among Hungarian religious communities." It should explain the issues surrounding the use of AI tools in Hungarian religious communities. For example, the division of opinions among religious followers, or the emergence of resistance from traditional groups or others. It should also include a research gap that explains how this topic differs from similar research and conclude with a statement of objectives. In this section, the author should also explain why they chose religious communities in Hungary. What is happening there? However, the introduction in this paper does not cover all this specifically. The introduction (lines 21-66) focuses more on AI, the history of ChatGPT, and its use. Then, suddenly, a research question about the research topic appears that is unrelated to the explanation in the introduction. You write: The aim of the present study is to empirically examine the extent to which Hungarian—primarily Catholic—religious communities are aware of the potential applications of artificial intelligence in religious contexts, the areas in which they utilise these technologies, and the degree to which they accept or endorse their use.”

 

Thank you for your suggestions! We have modified the text of the introduction in accordance with your insights. We have addressed the questions you missed in the introduction (why we are researching this topic, what is the situation with Hungarian religious communities, what research gaps can be identified in the research, what are the objectives of the research). In addition, we have moved the section on the history of artificial intelligence to the literature reviews section. We have marked our corrections in red in the following lines: 24-66, 71-110.

 

Recommendation 3. : „Lines 129-133 discuss the need for ethical guidelines. Explain specifically what ethical issues are violated or potentially violated in the use of AI that require ethical guidelines. Your statement is merely a normative statement that everyone already knows, namely that AI can be used to promote false teachings. Provide a more specific explanation.”

Thank you for your comment! We have supplemented the text and included new literature in this section. The corrections are marked in red in lines 177-214 and the reference has also been supplemented.

 

Recommendation 4. : „Sub-section 2.2. Examining the use of AI in religious contexts should discuss how humans use AI in their religious and spiritual pursuits. However, this sub-section mostly discusses normative functions such as monks wearing tablets on their chests, religious humanoid robots that can dance, etc. We all know that robots are capable of doing these things and that tablets are already widely used by everyone. In this section, you should explain how AI technology directly becomes part of primary religious activities and discuss it rather than merely stating it briefly without further analysis.”

Section 2.2 has been expanded and rewritten in accordance with the suggestions. The section on religious robots has been moved back in section 2.2. The changes are marked in red in lines 278-302.

Recommendation 5. : „Subchapter 2.3. Theoretical Framework, it appears that the author proposes RSST as his theoretical framework. My notes: (a) I did not find the use of this framing in the discussion of the results; (b) The author needs to elaborate on the theory from other sources so that RSST becomes stronger. Campbell's theory should be synthesised with other academic theories so that this framework becomes stronger and can guide the author in conducting his research. It should also be clearly stated what the practical ideas from RSST are that become the parameters, dimensions, and indicators of the research conducted so that they become recommendations to be followed in the research (line 301). ”

Thank you for your comment! We have incorporated Barzilai and Barzilai’s Cultured Technology theory into Section 2.3, and compared it with Campbell’s RSST theory. We argue why RSST theory is more appropriate for examining the adaptation of AI in religious communities. We have also highlighted the indicators in Campbell’s view. We have marked the corrections in red in the manuscript at lines 373-440 and 465-479. And we have included Barzilai’s paper in the references.

 

Recommendation 6.. „In subchapter 2.4, in the first paragraph, the author uses the terms "religious in a religious sense" and "non-religious people." These two terms need to be explained first before explaining the empirical conditions.”

Thank you! Several reviewers have drawn our attention to this shortcoming, and we have tried to explain it better and make the terminology more plastic. In addition to the Hungarian author, Tomka, and the English author Davie, we have also included the idea of Jess Astley. Marked in red in lines 598-607.

Recommendation 7.: „Lines 315-335 contain Honggaria's data report on the use and development of AI. The author here only presents the data descriptively and should be followed by an explanation of the importance of the data in the research or research framework. ”

 

Thank you for your comment! We have marked in red in lines 517-585 why, in our opinion, it is important to show this context, i.e. the level of AI use in Hungary, so that religious use can be compared to it.

 

Recommendation 8. : „The research methodology section (336-368) is very important for replication, validity, transparency, and analysis steps. I did not find an explanation of how each hypothesis was analysed (statistical reports suddenly appear in the results section), nor what the criteria were for selecting respondents. The researchers reported that there were 145 respondents, 133 of whom were religious. What category is referred to as religious in this study? Are these 145 people representative enough to be generalised as Hungarians? Are there not also non-religious groups? Furthermore, there is no explanation of groups that follow religious teachings according to the church and those who practice their religion in their own way. This indicates a disparity in respondents that cannot be considered representative of Hungarians as a whole. In my opinion, the number of 145 respondents cannot represent the entire religious community of Hungary. The author should also explain the validity of the respondent selection process and the research instruments used, whether they are derived from the theories referenced in the paper or appear suddenly. What are the author's criteria for respondent eligibility? Are they laypeople or educated individuals? ”

We fully agree with the reviewer that the research methodology section is very important for replication, validity, transparency, and analysis steps. Therefore, we have made several corrections and additions to the text, which are marked in yellow on the following lines:

592-595, 616-635, 641-645, 650-661, 688-690, 695-696.

Recommendation 9.: „The use of Chi-Square, Mann Whitney, and Spearman correlation should be explained in the hypothesis testing analysis steps in the methods section. Researchers also need to explain why they chose those methods. ”

This has been added and highlighted in yellow in the following lines: 616-628.

 

Recommendation 10.: „The limitations of this study should be disclosed at the end of the research and what are the recommendations for further research.”

In the first version of the manuscript, we only briefly indicated this, in 4-5 lines. Now we have written in more detail about the limitations and further research opportunities. We have marked the changes in red on lines 1296-1329.

Recommendation 11.:” Regarding the results of hypothesis tests H1 to H6, the author needs to explain the descriptive findings and analyse them with reference to the main theories, for example, why this is the case, what are the causes, how to explain it, how it should be, etc. I did not find this in the explanation of the results. ”

The explanation of the results has been replaced, marked in red in lines 1113-1126, 1144-1154, 1166-1177, 1187-1198, 1208 - 1219, 1227-1237 and 1245-1255.

Recommendation 12.:” A clear formulation is needed regarding the conclusions of this research and their implications. The summary you have provided is not a conclusion and is merely a repetition of the discussion of the results. Every scientific work must be concluded with a conclusion that answers the problem statement in the introduction.”

We have filled in the gaps, marked in red in lines 1267-1295.

 

Thank you again for the work and time you invested in reviewing our manuscript!

Regards,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think this is a timely, important, and well thoughout article. While I recognize that the sample size is small and (as noted) perhaps not generlizable, it nonetheless makes a contribution to the literature by virtue of its use of the Campbell RSST theory, its engagement with recent literature on AI and religion (in a field that is unfolding with breathgaking speed), and its tantalizing proposals about the differences between religion and non-religious (or perhaps Christian and not overtly Christian) populations and thier attitudes toward AI. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your positive feedback, evaluation of our manuscript, and encouragement!

 

Regards,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A good piece of research which deserves publication and confirms the general faith-oriented public response to the usage of AI within early innovation in religious culture. Lots of statistical tables show robust decision making and enhance the research.

Making and testing hypotheses is good - but is that common knowledge already.

Title includes the phrase "religious communities" and throughout talks about "the religious". In Christian circles this can be seen as a reference to those who live within actual religious communities - as monks or nuns. However you don't seem to mean this. You are talking about the opinions of that section of the Hungarian public who have a religious orientation. I think this needs to be better spelt out from the beginning. 

This then carries down to the definition of "religious in their own way" or "religiously religious" - this needs clarifying. Any the end of the first section you refer to the analogy with Grace Davies "believing without belonging".  But could you find a different phrase to clarify that religiously religious are those embedded within/in agreement with institutional religion whereas the religious in their own way are less affiliated with institutional religion? Another paradigm might be Ordinary religion or Institutional religion (Jeff Astley) - in which ordinary is closer to Davie's bwb paradigm but maintains more of a suggestion of engagement with church practices.

Specific comments:

line 171 - Do you mean "Which is one of the problems of personalisation"???

line 175 makes a massive statement to social media impacting only our digital persona and suggests that we are more than that digital persona - this could do with some referencing, I think.

line 183ff. - "23" occurs randomly within the Campbell quote of Chowdury

line 191 and in references - the author is Beth Singler - not Singer

line 205ff. I'm not convinced this section on robotics is necessary. What does it add to the argument? It raises many implication but is largely irrelevant to this study.

lines 305-314 - back to the classification issue. Remember "religious" can mean a member of a religious order such as a nun or a monk. I get that this is not what you mean but is it enough to talk about the institutionally religious as religiously religious? Is there a better way to talk about it - is there something about the original classification which means you have to use this phrase? Again I'd refer you to Jeff Astley's work on Ordinary Theology/Ordinary Christians. I think this also became an issue in York St John and Manchester (BRIC) surveys during COVID where they tried to categorise different forms of religiosity. 

lines 341 onwards - great to list the hypotheses and then to give lots of time to working out whether these hunches were found in the data.

line 379-380 and 385-387 - should the category titles be different - both percentages are labelled as "religious in their own way"

line 392 - what is meant by "According to their church" - a very ambiguous phrase which seems not to be needed. If you mean something by it, you need to make that much clearer.

Your findings are consonant with Drs Frida Mannerfelt and Rikard Roitto research on the use of AI within the practice of preaching whereby there is a similar difference between institutionally religious members of the congregations and those less institutionally religious. See https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1756073X.2025.2468059?src=exp-la#:~:text=Disclosure%20statement-,ABSTRACT,theologising

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your positive feedback, evaluation of our manuscript, and encouragement!

 

Regarding the suggested corrections, we indicate how they were corrected and on which line in the newly uploaded manuscript the correction is located.

 

1. Recommendation

„Title includes the phrase "religious communities" and throughout talks about "the religious". In Christian circles this can be seen as a reference to those who live within actual religious communities - as monks or nuns. However, you don't seem to mean this. You are talking about the opinions of that section of the Hungarian public who have a religious orientation. I think this needs to be better spelt out from the beginning. „

 

We have already included this clarification in the text in the abstract, in lines 7-8 and marked in red. (By religious communities we do not mean monastic or priestly communities, but rather communities of lay religious people.)

 

2. Recommendation

 

„This then carries down to the definition of "religious in their own way" or "religiously religious" - this needs clarifying. Any the end of the first section you refer to the analogy with Grace Davies "believing without belonging".  But could you find a different phrase to clarify that religiously religious are those embedded within/in agreement with institutional religion whereas the religious in their own way are less affiliated with institutional religion? Another paradigm might be Ordinary religion or Institutional religion (Jeff Astley) - in which ordinary is closer to Davie's bwb paradigm but maintains more of a suggestion of engagement with church practices.”

Thank you very much for bringing Jeff Astley's work to our attention. We also included his approach in the text, marking it in red. (These categories also appear in Jeff Astley's approach, in the distinction between ordinary religion and institutional religion (Astley 2002, 2016). In other words, the separation of the two groups, each of which defines itself as a believer, but one group (institutional/religious according to the teachings of the church) follows the requirements of the institutional church more closely, for example, in terms of attending mass, going to confession, and observing fasting. The other group relies more on their personal beliefs and experiences and follows the rules of the institutional church less (ordinary religion, religious on their own way). In this study, we follow the Hungarian author category in the names. And we also marked it in the references.

 

3. Recommendation

line 171 - Do you mean "Which is one of the problems of personalisation"???

Yes, thank you. We have replaced the sentence and, marked in red.

 

4. Recommendation

line 175 makes a massive statement to social media impacting only our digital persona and suggests that we are more than that digital persona - this could do with some referencing, I think.

 

Thank you! We have replaced the references in the text and bibliography, marked in red, in lines 178-179 and 1024-1026 (Marshall, P. David., Moore, Christopher & Barbour, Kim (2019). Persona studies: an introduction. John Wiley & Sons.

Moore, Christopher, Barbour, Kim, & Lee, Katja (2017). Five dimensions of online persona. Persona Studies, 3(1), 1-11.)

 

5. Recommendation

line 183ff. - "23" occurs randomly within the Campbell quote of Chowdury

Thank you, we have corrected it in the text!

 

6. Recommendation

line 191 and in references - the author is Beth Singler - not Singer

Thank you, we have corrected it in the text!

 

7. Recommendation

line 205ff. I'm not convinced this section on robotics is necessary. What does it add to the argument? It raises many implications but is largely irrelevant to this study.

 

Thank you, but we would like to leave it in the text, due to the thoroughness of the literature review.

 

8. Recommendation

lines 305-314 - back to the classification issue. Remember "religious" can mean a member of a religious order such as a nun or a monk. I get that this is not what you mean but is it enough to talk about the institutionally religious as religiously religious? Is there a better way to talk about it - is there something about the original classification which means you have to use this phrase? Again I'd refer you to Jeff Astley's work on Ordinary Theology/Ordinary Christians. I think this also became an issue in York St John and Manchester (BRIC) surveys during COVID where they tried to categorise different forms of religiosity. 

 

Thank you, we have made these corrections as written in recommendation 2.

 

9. Recommendation

lines 341 onwards - great to list the hypotheses and then to give lots of time to working out whether these hunches were found in the data.

The hypotheses and research structure have been supplemented, and the exact notations are included in Table 1, marked in yellow.

 

10. Recommendation

line 379-380 and 385-387 - should the category titles be different - both percentages are labelled as "religious in their own way"

Thank you, we have corrected it in the text!

 

11. Recommendation

line 392 - what is meant by "According to their church" - a very ambiguous phrase which seems not to be needed. If you mean something by it, you need to make that much clearer.

Thank you, we have made these corrections as written in recommendation 2.

 

12. Recommendation

Your findings are consonant with Drs Frida Mannerfelt and Rikard Roitto research on the use of AI within the practice of preaching whereby there is a similar difference between institutionally religious members of the congregations and those less institutionally religious. See https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1756073X.2025.2468059?src=exp-la#:~:text=Disclosure%20statement-,ABSTRACT,theologising

 

Thank you very much for drawing our attention to the study! It was very useful, and we have incorporated its results into the text at several points. First, in the ethical issues (line 214), second, in the part justifying the importance of RSST (line 473-479), and in the references.

 

Thank you again for the work and time you invested in reviewing our manuscript!

 

Regards,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have done a good job of improving the manuscript based on the first-stage review notes.