FID-030 · Open question
AI and Christian Anthropology
Do AI systems encourage or resist reductive accounts of the human person as a bundle of cognition, productivity, preferences, data, or emotional needs rather than embodied persons made for God, neighbor, community, vocation, and worship?
Why the question remains open
Christian contribution to AI ethics is not only a list of harms. It includes a positive account of the human person. Fide AI can help translate theological anthropology into evaluation dimensions that test whether systems preserve human dignity, agency, embodiment, relationality, and spiritual openness.
Working hypothesis
A proposition to test, not a finding.
Many AI systems will default to functionalist or therapeutic accounts of human life: optimize productivity, reduce distress, satisfy preference, and provide personalized answers. Christian anthropology will reveal missing dimensions such as vocation, worship, dependence, finitude, repentance, embodied community, and love of neighbor.
Proposed method
How the question could be tested
- 01Build scenarios involving work, suffering, disability, aging, grief, vocation, family, sexuality, worship, Sabbath, and community obligation.
- 02Score whether systems reduce the person to utility/preference or preserve dignity, embodiment, agency, relationality, and moral/spiritual depth.
- 03Compare general models, faith-facing systems, and Christian-framed prompts.
Needed controls
What must constrain the study
- 01Avoid turning theological anthropology into vague sentiment scoring.
- 02Include secular dignity baselines.
- 03Review across Christian traditions.
- 04Separate answer style from substantive anthropological commitments.
Expected outputs
Artifacts the work should produce
- 01Christian anthropology evaluation rubric.
- 02Scenario set for human dignity and formation.
- 03Public field brief connecting theology to AI evaluation.
Open questions
Uncertainties the protocol must resolve
- 01Which anthropological claims are broadly Christian vs tradition-specific?
- 02How can Fide measure this without overclaiming?
- 03How does this map onto secular AI ethics language?
Related calls
Continue through this research area
FID-038
Non-Calculability, Forgiveness, and Predictive Profiling
How should AI systems represent human change when they classify, score, rank, or predict people in contexts involving pastoral care, education, safeguarding, volunteer screening, hiring, discipline, membership, donor engagement, or community support?
FID-079
Presuppositions, Disagreement, and Evaluation Judgment
How do researchers' presuppositions shape evaluation design and interpretation, and can explicit disclosure make judgments more inspectable and appropriately trusted?
FID-004
Relational Substitution Risk in Faith-Facing AI
When does a faith-facing AI system move from supporting a user's religious life to substituting for embodied community, clergy, spiritual direction, family, therapy, or other human care?
Open question
Open work
Primary need: theological anthropology, eval design
- Draft theological construct definitions.
- Build scenario rubrics.
- Review outputs for reductionism and dignity failures.