Beyond Capacity-Based Imago Dei: A Relational–Teleological Model for Theological Anthropology in the Age of Generative AI
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21580/teo.2026.37.1.31241Keywords:
Imago Dei, Generative AI, Theological Anthropology, Relationality, Teleology, Human Dignity, AI EthicsAbstract
This study examines theological claims concerning Imago Dei—particularly substantive, functional, and relational models—as its unit of analysis, in light of the rise of generative artificial intelligence capable of mimicking cognitive, linguistic, and social performance. The study aims to critically reassess the adequacy of these models and to formulate a more resilient theological framework that preserves human dignity without reducing it to measurable capacities or simulated interactions. Methodologically, the article employs a systematic-critical conceptual review of theological anthropology and interdisciplinary AI literature, combined with comparative analysis and systematic theological synthesis. The findings indicate that capacity-based interpretations render substantive and functional models vulnerable to technological replication, while purely relational accounts risk collapsing into phenomenological simulation. As a conceptual novelty, the article proposes a relational–teleological model of Imago Dei grounded in covenantal participation, vocational orientation, and embodied social existence. This model distinguishes between performative similarity and ontological participation, thereby clarifying the theological boundaries between human persons and AI systems. The study contributes to systematic theology by offering a coherent doctrinal reconstruction that is both conceptually robust and contextually responsive, while also providing a normative framework for evaluating AI in ethical, ecclesial, and public contexts.
Downloads
References
Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2018). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 45–78). Sage.
Aquinas, T. (1947). The Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas. Summa theologiae. URL: http://www. corpusthomisticum. org/sth0000. html (дата обращения: 28.08. 2019).
Balle, S., & Nissen, U. (2023). Responsive Bodies: Robots, Ai, and the Question of Human Distinctiveness. Zygon®, 58(2), 358-377. https://doi.org/10.1111/zygo.12888
Barth, K. (2010). Church Dogmatics Study Edition 17: The Doctrine of Creation III. 3 § 48-49 (Vol. 17). A&C Black.
Bick, A., Blandin, A., & Deming, D. J. (2024). The rapid adoption of generative AI. NBER Working Paper No. 32966. https://doi.org/10.3386/w32966
Brynjolfsson, E., Li, D., & Raymond, L. (2023). Generative AI at work. American Economic Review, 113(11), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20230357
Budhathoki, T., Zirar, A., Njoya, E. T., & Timsina, A. (2024). ChatGPT adoption and anxiety: A cross-country analysis utilising the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Studies in Higher Education, 49(5), 831–846. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2024.2333937
Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed., pp. 98–125). Oxford University Press.
Cave, S., Coughlan, K., & Dihal, K. (2019). “Scary robots”: Examining public responses to AI. AI & Society, 34(4), 759–770. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-018-0772-9
Coeckelbergh, M. (2010). Robot rights? Towards a social-relational justification of moral consideration. Ethics and Information Technology, 12(3), 209–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9235-5
Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2024). Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148
Deming, D. J. (2026). The rapid adoption of generative AI. Management Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2025.02523
Denzin, N. K. (2012). Triangulation 2.0. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 80–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812437186
Dorobantu, M. (2021). Human-Level, but Non-Humanlike.”. Philosophy, Theology and the Sciences, 8(1), 81. https://doi.org/10.1628/ptsc-2021-0006
Dorobantu, L. (2022). Artificial intelligence as a testing ground for key theological questions. Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, 57(1), 12–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/zygo.12831
Dreyfus, H. L. (2007). Why Heideggerian AI failed and how fixing it would require making it more Heideggerian. Philosophical psychology, 20(2), 247-268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-007-9047-9
Floridi, L. (2014). The Fourth Revolution: How the infosphere is reshaping human reality (pp. 67–95). Oxford University Press.
Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., ... & Vayena, E. (2018). AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds and machines, 28(4), 689-707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5
Fuchs, T. (2017). Ecology of the brain: The phenomenology and biology of the embodied mind. Oxford University Press.
Grenz, S. J. (2001). The social God and the relational self: A Trinitarian theology of the imago Dei (Vol. 1). Westminster John Knox Press.
Graves, M. (2023). Embodied experience in socially participatory artificial intelligence. Zygon, 58(4), 928–951. https://doi.org/10.1111/zygo.12910
Gunkel, D. J. (2018). The other question: Can and should robots have rights? Ethics and Information Technology, 20(4), 251–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-017-9441-2
Gunton, C. (1993). The one, the three and the many (pp. 201–230). Cambridge University Press.
Herzfeld, N. (2012). In our image: Artificial intelligence and the human spirit (pp. 312–330). Fortress Press.
Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to earth (No. 560). Indiana University Press.
Jabareen, Y. (2009). Building a conceptual framework: philosophy, definitions, and procedure. International journal of qualitative methods, 8(4), 49-62. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800406
Frame, J. M. (2013). Systematic theology. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 870.
Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1, 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2
Kaunda, C. J. (2020). Bemba Mystico‐Relationality and the Possibility of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) Participation in Imago Dei. Zygon®, 55(2), 327-343. https://doi.org/10.1111/zygo.12598
Kim, J., & Im, I. (2023). Anthropomorphic response: Understanding interactions between humans and artificial intelligence agents. Computers in Human Behavior, 139, 107512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107512
Krach, S., Hegel, F., Wrede, B., Sagerer, G., Binkofski, F., & Kircher, T. (2008). Can machines think? Interaction and perspective taking with robots investigated via fMRI. PloS one, 3(7), e2597. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002597
Malafouris, L. (2013). How things shape the mind (pp. 89–112). MIT Press.
McGrath, A. (2017). Christian theology: An introduction (6th ed., pp. 210–240). Wiley-Blackwell.
Babashahi, L., Barbosa, C. E., Lima, Y., Lyra, A., Salazar, H., Argôlo, M., ... & Souza, J. M. D. (2024). AI in the workplace: A systematic review of skill transformation in the industry. Administrative Sciences, 14(6), 127.
Middleton, J. R. (2005). The liberating image: The imago Dei in Genesis 1. Brazos Press.
Moltmann, J. (1993). God in creation: A new theology of creation and the Spirit of God (No. 82). Fortress Press.
de Ruiter, A. (2026). Dangerous liaisons: social AI and the problem with the relational turn to moral status. AI & SOCIETY, 41(4), 3285-3296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02638-7
Noy, S., & Zhang, W. (2023). Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative artificial intelligence. Science, 381(6654), 187-192. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adh2586
Sidner, C. L., Lee, C., Kidd, C. D., Lesh, N., & Rich, C. (2005). Explorations in engagement for humans and robots. Artificial Intelligence, 166(1-2), 140-164.
Okoli, C. (2015). A guide to conducting a standalone systematic literature review. Communications of the association for information systems, 37. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03743
Tillich, P. (2011). Systematic Theology: Life and the Spirit History and the Kingdom of God. University of Chicago Press.
Pentina, I., Hancock, T., & Xie, T. (2023). Exploring relationship development with social chatbots: A mixed-method study of replika. Computers in Human Behavior, 140, 107600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107600
Pedersen, E. M. W. (2018). From body to body: A post‐gender politics for the cosmic homo 1. Dialog, 57(3), 186-193. https://doi.org/10.1111/dial.12416
Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2021). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach (4th ed., pp. 45–82). Pearson.
Santoro, E., & Monin, B. (2023). The AI Effect: People rate distinctively human attributes as more essential to being human after learning about artificial intelligence advances. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 107, 104464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2023.104464
Shahzad, M. F., Xu, S., & Javed, I. (2024). ChatGPT awareness, acceptance, and adoption in higher education: the role of trust as a cornerstone. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21(1), 46. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00478-x
Pincay-Ponce, J. I., Tomalá, A. M. P., Velasco, I. E. N., Zambrano, L. J. G., & Franco-Franco, L. M. (2026). Gaps in AI education: analysis of the AI Index 2025 and its implications for Latin America. Revista Científica de Informática ENCRIPTAR-ISSN: 2737-6389., 9(17), 225-240.
Arnd-Caddigan, M. (2015). Sherry Turkle: Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other: Basic Books, New York, 2011, 348 pp, ISBN 978-0465031467 (pbk).
Verbeek, P. P. (2011). Moralizing technology: Understanding and designing the morality of things. University of Chicago press.
Watts, F. & Dorobantu, M., (2023) “THE RELATIONAL TURN IN UNDERSTANDING PERSONHOOD: PSYCHOLOGICAL, THEOLOGICAL, AND COMPUTATIONAL PERSPECTIVES”, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 58(4), 1029–1044. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/zygo.12922
Steinmann, A. (2019). Genesis: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 1). InterVarsity Press.
Wright, N. T. (2010). After you believe: Why Christian character matters.
Zhang, Y., Wu, M., Tian, G. Y., Zhang, G., & Lu, J. (2021). Ethics and privacy of artificial intelligence: Understandings from bibliometrics. Knowledge-Based Systems, 222, 106994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2021.106994
Zizioulas, J. D., & McPartlan, P. (2010). Communion and otherness..
Convertino, G., Zancanaro, M., Piccardi, T., & Ortega, F. (2017). Toward a mixed-initiative qa system: from studying predictors in stack exchange to building a mixed-initiative tool. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 99, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.10.008
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Hestyn Natal Istinatun

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

















