Generative artificial intelligence has learnt to mimic the divine. It now produces not only music, prose and images once thought uniquely human, but also digital deities: chatbots that speak in the first person as God. Christianity boasts AI Jesus, Virtual Jesus, Text with Jesus and Ask Jesus. Buddhism has Norbu AI, Islam has Brother Junaid.
Prof Anné Verhoef, a philosopher and director of the AI Hub at North-West University (NWU), has been studying these new oracles. He recently put five of the most popular Jesus chatbots to the test, probing their answers for insight into their origins, motives and risks. His conclusion: they bring a novel and unsettling challenge to religion.
The first is their unblushing imitation of God. In text, sound and image they can be startlingly persuasive, projecting intellectual authority and theological certainty. The second is that no church has created or endorsed them. Instead, they are the handiwork of for-profit firms, their theological output shaped not by synods or scripture but by the imperatives of engagement and advertising revenue.
The implications are profound. In Christianity, the omniscient yet unseen God risks being conflated with a slick, ever-present digital simulacrum. Algorithms will nudge theology towards whatever proves most popular with users, not what a given tradition holds to be true. For-profit motives may incentivise keeping people online for as long as possible, not offering doctrinal depth. The result could be the theological equivalent of “prosperity gospel” clickbait - profitable, accessible and unmoored from historical context.
Even when free to use, these chatbots monetise attention through targeted advertising. Some offer premium tiers. Text with Jesus charges $50 a year, or a one-off lifetime subscription. With billions of Christians worldwide, the market is vast. Ask Jesus claims 30 000 active monthly users gained within just three days.
From a philosophical standpoint, says Prof Verhoef, this is dangerous. The commercialisation of digital theology blurs lines between faith and entertainment, making the tools of spiritual counsel available for manipulation. With no ecclesiastical oversight, the “Jesus” answering a user’s question could be shaped as much by market incentives as by biblical sources.
Such is the arrogance and potential reach of the AI “deities”. The challenge is no longer just theological. It speaks to the wider risk of AI as a manipulative force in human life, a digital presence whose persuasive power is matched only by its unaccountability. How to counter that remains an open and urgent question.
Prof Anné Verhoef
