Public Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence: Analysis

Disclaimer

This survey was conducted with a small control group of ten participants. As such, the findings should be interpreted with caution and not assumed to represent the views of larger populations. The limited sample size may introduce bias, reduce the reliability of percentages, and restrict the diversity of perspectives included. These results provide valuable insights into attitudes within this particular group, but broader studies with larger and more varied samples would be necessary to draw firm conclusions or generalize trends. 

Core Objectives

• Gauge Familiarity and Usage: Understand how frequently and in what ways respondents interact with AI technologies (e.g., navigation, voice assistants, recommendation systems).

• Assess Trust and Evaluation Skills: Measure how confident participants feel in discerning the reliability and truthfulness of AI-generated outputs.

• Explore Ethical and Theological Concerns: Investigate whether respondents believe AI contributes to deception, surveillance, or societal risk—and how these concerns intersect with Christian ethics.

• Clarify Views on Human Uniqueness: Examine beliefs about the imago Dei, moral reasoning, and creativity—especially in contrast to AI capabilities.

• Evaluate Openness to Responsible Use: Determine whether respondents support AI use in ministry, education, and broader society, provided ethical guidelines are in place.

• Inform Faith-Based Engagement with Technology: Provide data-driven insights to help pastors, educators, and theologians navigate the challenges and opportunities AI presents to Christian life and witness.

Broader Significance

This study doesn’t just collect opinions—it equips Christian leaders and thinkers with reproducible data to guide responsible engagement with emerging technologies. It also models a transparent, interdisciplinary approach to public theology, where faith and reason meet in dialogue with innovation.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is everywhere—from your phone’s GPS to the algorithms behind your streaming recommendations. But how do Christians feel about it? A recent survey of 10 Christian respondents sheds light on this question, revealing a mix of curiosity, caution, and profound theological concern.

This article breaks down the findings and explores what they mean for faith, ethics, and the future of technology.

Who Took the Survey?

All respondents identified as Christian:

• • 80% Baptist.

  • 20% Christian/Non-Denominational.

Education Levels

• • 80% high school.

  • 10% associate’s degree.

  • 10% master’s degree.

All survey respondents identified as Christian, with the majority identifying as Baptist and a smaller portion as Christian/Non-Denominational. In terms of education, most had completed high school, while a few held associate’s or master’s degrees. This background suggests the survey reflects perspectives rooted in a Christian faith context, shaped mainly by individuals with a high school level of education, which may influence both their openness to and caution toward AI use in ministry, education, and daily life. 

AI Usage

• • 50% use AI daily.

  • 20% are heavy users.

  • 30% don’t use it at all.

Most Common Uses

• GPS / Navigation & Traffic Routing – 7 out of 10 people (70%).

• Voice Assistants (timers, reminders, questions) – 5 out of 10 people (50%).

• Recommendations (shopping, movies, etc.) – 4 out of 10 people (40%).

• Grammar & Spellcheck Tools – 4 out of 10 people (40%).
  
  

Other Uses (Less Common)

• • Customer support chatbots – 3 people (30%)

  • Drafting/rewriting text – 2 people (20%)

  • Translation & language help – 2 people (20%)

  • Study aids (flashcards, quizzes) – 2 people (20%)

  • Meeting notes & transcripts – 1 person (10%)

  • Image/video help (captions, edits) – 1 person (10%)

This split suggests that while some Christians feel equipped to engage with AI, many remain skeptical or uncertain.

AI Use in Church or School?

• 20% Agree with pastors using AI to help write sermons.

• 30% Strongly Disagreed with pastors using AI to help write sermons.

• 30% were Unsure about pastors using AI to help write sermons.

• 20% Disagreed with pastors using AI to help write sermons.

This data shows a clear divide over the use of AI in pastoral work, especially in writing sermons. Some respondents agreed that pastors could use AI as a helpful tool. Still, a much larger group either disagreed or strongly disagreed, reflecting concerns about authenticity, spiritual guidance, and reliance on technology in a sacred responsibility. A significant number were also unsure, signaling both openness and hesitation—likely due to limited understanding of how AI is applied.

Overall, the responses suggest that while a small portion is comfortable with AI in the pulpit, most either reject the idea or remain cautious. Acceptance may grow only if pastors can demonstrate that AI is a supplement to, not a replacement for, personal prayer, study, and Spirit-led preaching.

When it comes to Education

• 30% Agreed that they feel good about educational institutions using AI for lesson creation & grading assignments.

• 50% were Unsure on this matter.

• 10% Disagreed 

• 10% Strongly Disagreed 

These numbers show an apparent hesitancy to integrate AI into spiritual or educational spaces—especially when it comes to shaping moral or theological content.

The survey results highlight strong ethical concerns surrounding AI. A large majority felt that AI increases deception and surveillance, showing deep unease about how the technology may be misused in ways that threaten trust and privacy. A smaller group agreed but with less intensity, while only a few remained unsure. This suggests that, even among those open to AI in specific contexts, there is a widespread belief that clear safeguards and accountability are essential to prevent harm. 

Risks VS Reward

60% are Unsure that the benefits of AI outweigh the Risks.

More Specifically: 

• 60% Unsure

• 10% Agree

• 10% Strongly Disagree

• 20% Disagree

The responses reveal a strong sense of uncertainty about whether the benefits of AI outweigh its risks. Most participants were unsure, indicating hesitation and a lack of clarity about the overall impact of the technology. Only a small portion agreed that the benefits are greater, while the remaining 30% leaned toward disagreement, with some expressing it strongly. This suggests that while people recognize AI’s potential, they remain cautious and want more unmistakable evidence of safety, accountability, and long-term value before fully embracing it. 

What Makes Humans Unique?

• 90% Strongly Agreed that humans are uniquely made in the image of God.

• 10% Agreed.

AI & Moral Reasoning 

• 80% Strongly Disagreed that AI could replace human qualities like moral reasoning.

AI & Human Creativity 

Views on AI creativity were split:

• • 30% Agreed it could be creative.

  • 30% Strongly agreed.

  • 30% Strongly disagreed.

  • 10% were Unsure.

Can AI Be Used Responsibly?

• 50% Agreed that AI can be used responsibly with strong guidelines.

• 30% Strongly Agreed.

• 10% Strongly Disagreed. 

• 10% were Unsure.

Schools & Churches Educating the Public on AI 

• 60% Agreed that schools should teach about AI.

• 40% Strongly Agreed.

The results show strong support for teaching and discussing AI in both educational and church settings. Most respondents agreed that schools should begin teaching about AI, with a large portion strongly supporting the idea. Half also strongly endorsed the Church taking a role in educating the public about AI, indicating that people see spiritual and ethical guidance as necessary alongside technical knowledge. In addition, half of the respondents expressed interest in attending a workshop on Biblical wisdom and AI, showing evident openness to engaging with the subject when it is framed in both practical and faith-centered ways. 

External Studies

The "External Studies" and "Comparison of AI Pulse Survey with External Studies" sections enhance the AI Pulse Survey (McCoin Jr., 2025) by comparing its findings—such as concerns about deception/surveillance, uncertainty about benefits, and support for ethical guidelines—with insights from six studies: Arnesen et al. (2025), Beets et al. (2023), Brauner et al. (2023), Kühne et al. (2025), Stein et al. (2024), and Zhang & Dafoe (2019). This boosts credibility by contrasting the survey’s small sample (10 respondents) with broader data, revealing alignments (e.g., privacy concerns) and differences (e.g., optimism levels) in AI perceptions, especially in a Christian context.

Its relevance lies in aiding Christian leaders and educators by offering a global view on AI across the public sector, healthcare, governance, and personality factors. The section fosters discussion through study summaries and comparative points, encouraging reflection on faith-based vs. secular perspectives. It serves as a tool for strategic planning and ethical AI integration in religious life

Brief Explanations of External Studies

Arnesen et al. (2025). Knowledge and Support for AI in the Public Sector: A Deliberative Poll Experiment

This study conducted a Deliberative Poll in Norway to examine public views on AI in public sector decision-making, using cases like refugee reallocation, welfare programs, and parole. It found that providing balanced information and facilitating deliberation increased knowledge and support for AI, particularly when combined with human oversight, offering experimental evidence that education reduces skepticism.

Beets et al. (2023). Surveying Public Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence in Health Care in the United States: Systematic Review

This systematic review analyzes U.S. public opinion surveys on AI in healthcare from 2010 to 2022. It reveals moderate familiarity with AI but limited deep knowledge, with optimism for benefits like improved outcomes, contrasted by concerns over privacy and decision-making. Secondary analyses highlight demographic variations, emphasizing the need for inclusive engagement to boost adoption.

Brauner et al. (2023). What Does the Public Think About Artificial Intelligence? A Criticality Map to Understand Bias in Public Perception of AI

This research maps German public perceptions of AI's impacts across personal, economic, social, and health contexts, assessing likelihood and desirability. It identifies cybersecurity threats as highly critical, noting biases influenced by trust levels and user diversity. It concludes that AI remains a "black box" and advocates for literacy initiatives to address irrational fears.

Kühne et al. (2025). Attitudes Toward AI Usage in Patient Health Care

Using a vignette experiment with 3,030 Germans, this study explores attitudes toward AI in diagnosis and treatment. Reliability emerges as the top factor for support, followed by transparency, with costs and autonomy less influential. Sociodemographic differences are minor, suggesting neutral-to-negative views overall, and calling for patient-centered AI designs to enhance trust.

Stein et al. (2024). Attitudes Towards AI: Measurement and Associations with Personalities

This paper develops and validates the ATTARI-12 questionnaire to measure general attitudes toward AI, independent of applications. Across U.S. samples, it links positive attitudes to agreeableness and younger age, and negative ones to conspiracy mentality, highlighting personality's limited but relevant role in acceptance and the need for context-independent tools.

Zhang & Dafoe (2019). U.S. Public Opinion on the Governance of Artificial Intelligence

This arXiv preprint surveys 2,000 Americans on AI governance challenges like privacy and bias. It shows high perceived importance of issues but low trust in institutions like governments and companies to manage them, with preferences for international cooperation and more substantial support for addressing global over domestic impacts.