Artificial Intelligence, Religious Ethics, and Human Responsibility: A Systematic Literature Review of Global Theological Perspectives
Keywords:
Artificial Intelligence Ethics, Theological Anthropology, Human Dignity, Algorithmic Governance, Religious Responsibility, PRISMA 2020Abstract
This review synthesized global theological perspectives on artificial intelligence and clarified how major religious traditions frame human responsibility in the governance and use of AI. A PRISMA 2020 guided systematic literature review was conducted across peer-reviewed articles, edited volumes, and official religious and intergovernmental documents published between 2019 and 2025, with foundational pre-2019 texts included when conceptually necessary. The final corpus comprised 46 documents that were coded thematically through a three-layer framework covering normative principles, anthropological assumptions, and governance implications. The literature converged on six dominant ethical anchors: human dignity, stewardship, justice, non-maleficence, truthfulness, and relational accountability. Christian sources emphasized imago Dei, pastoral discernment, and the irreducibility of human personhood. Islamic sources foregrounded maqāṣid al-sharīʿah, public welfare, and epistemic restraint. Buddhist sources stressed compassion, non-attachment to technological fascination, and caution toward anthropomorphic projections. Jewish sources emphasized responsibility, legal discernment, and the moral limits of delegation to machines. Across traditions, the strongest gap concerned implementation, since many texts articulated principles more clearly than institutional procedures. Global theological discourse does not reject AI; it demands that AI remain accountable to human flourishing, moral agency, and social justice. The review offers a comparative framework for scholars and policymakers seeking ethically defensible AI governance.
References
Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 610–623. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922
Church of England. (2024a). Artificial intelligence advice 2024.
Church of England. (2024b). Synod affirms work as key to “human dignity and purpose” in face of AI revolution.
Francis. (2024a). Artificial intelligence and the wisdom of the heart: Message for the 58th World Day of Social Communications.
Francis. (2024b). Message of the Holy Father to participants in the “AI and peace” conference.
Goltz, N., Zeleznikow, J., & Dowdeswell, T. (2020). From the tree of knowledge and the golem of Prague to kosher autonomous cars: The ethics of artificial intelligence through Jewish eyes. Oxford Journal of Law and Religion, 9(1), 132–156. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojlr/rwaa015
Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(9), 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2
Mau, M., Hulu, W., & Faot, S. Y. I. (2024). Artificial intelligence ethics within Christian pedagogy: Reconstructing faith-based educational discourses in the era of algorithmic culture. International Perspectives in Christian Education and Philosophy, 1(3), 44–59. https://doi.org/10.61132/ipcep.v1i3.525
Methodist Church. (2025a). Artificial intelligence report.
Methodist Church. (2025b). Embracing AI with care and caution: Interim guidance for Methodist churches.
Mittelstadt, B. (2019). Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(7), 501–507. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0114-4
OECD. (2019). OECD AI principles.
OECD. (2024). OECD updates AI principles to stay abreast of rapid technological developments.
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, Article n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Pontifical Academy for Life. (2020). Rome Call for AI Ethics.
Rappaport, Z. H. (2006). Robotics and artificial intelligence: Jewish ethical perspectives. In C. Nimsky & R. Fahlbusch (Eds.), Medical technologies in neurosurgery (Acta Neurochirurgica Supplements, Vol. 98, pp. 9–12). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-211-33303-7_2
Resnik, D. B., & Hosseini, M. (2025). The ethics of using artificial intelligence in scientific research: New guidance needed for a new tool. AI and Ethics, 5, 1499–1521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00493-8
Selbst, A. D., Boyd, D., Friedler, S. A., Venkatasubramanian, S., & Vertesi, J. (2019). Fairness and abstraction in sociotechnical systems. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(CSCW), Article 59. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287598
Smuha, N. A. (2022). The human condition in an algorithmized world: A critique through the lens of 20th-century Jewish thinkers and the concepts of rationality, alterity and history. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4093683
UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence.
UNESCO. (2024). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence.
Vatican Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, & Vatican Dicastery for Culture and Education. (2025a). Antiqua et nova.
Vatican Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, & Vatican Dicastery for Culture and Education. (2025b). Antiqua et nova: Note on the relationship between artificial intelligence and human intelligence.
Yampolskiy, R. V. (2013). Artificial intelligence safety engineering: Why machine ethics is a wrong approach. In The philosophy and theory of artificial intelligence (pp. 389–396). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31674-6_29
