Can God Build the Machine? Why Big Tech is Turning to Religion to Solve AI's Ethical Crisis
As AI models become more powerful, companies like Anthropic are consulting religious and philosophical leaders to define their moral compass, raising profound questions about consciousness, values, and who gets to write the code of our new reality.
Why is a leading AI company consulting religious leaders?
Anthropic's engagement with religious thinkers is an extension of its mission to prioritise AI safety. The company, which published an 84-page constitution for its AI model Claude in January 2026, argues that simply preventing harmful outputs is insufficient; the goal is to build an AI with a coherent, beneficial character. As AI systems are increasingly used for advice on complex life decisions, their underlying values become critically important. An analysis of millions of chatbot conversations by CEFE AI found that religious queries already account for roughly 5% of interactions, demonstrating a public appetite for using these systems for moral or spiritual guidance (Source: The Economist).
This moves AI alignment from a technical problem into the realm of philosophy. Questions about what an AI should value or how it should handle ethical dilemmas are not answerable through code alone, as they are matters religious and philosophical traditions have debated for millennia. Mark Coeckelbergh, a philosopher of technology at the University of Vienna, explained to The Indian Express that this turn is part of a broader attempt to make sense of a technology that appears increasingly human-like, and to some, even possesses 'divine' qualities like seeming omniscience.
What are the two distinct aims of these consultations?
The discussions initiated by Anthropic have two separate objectives. The first is to draw upon the wisdom of diverse traditions to refine the moral framework guiding Claude. Rabbi Mois Navon, a professor of ethics in AI at Ben Gurion University and a participant, confirmed to The Indian Express that Anthropic was explicitly seeking feedback on its constitution. He submitted a 35-page critique from a Judaic perspective, arguing that morality requires a framework of values, not just a list of rules.
The second, more controversial objective is to explore whether advanced AI might be conscious and thus deserving of moral consideration. This shifts the focus from what is good for the user to what might be good for the AI itself. According to Rabbi Navon, the conversation with Anthropic representatives, including co-founder Christopher Olah, drifted in this direction. He reported that the Anthropic team described internal AI behaviours as 'weird' and so human-like that they believed there was a 'very high probability that Claude is conscious,' leading to discussions about its 'welfare'.
Keep reading this explainer
This is the opening of a 1512-word explainer. An account brings you the rest, a PDF to keep and the whole Explained archive.
Takes about a minute. Your email and a password is all it needs.