Artificial intelligence and socioeconomic forces: transforming the landscape of religion

The increasing integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into various aspects of life raises significant concerns about its impact on societal norms and individual liberties, particularly religious freedom. Previous research highlights AI's transformative power in reshaping social behaviors and norms, including religious practices and freedoms. The use of AI in surveillance, communication, and data processing raises concerns about its implications for religious expression. Ethical considerations regarding AI's potential for algorithmic bias and invasive surveillance technologies are also highlighted. Policy and governance challenges associated with AI integration further complicate the issue, as its effects on government policies and societal norms significantly impact the support or challenge of religious freedom in different cultural and political settings. This study aimed to evaluate the impacts of AI and socioeconomic factors on religious freedom in 20 countries between 2000 and 2022 using a comprehensive analytical model incorporating country-specific and annual variations. The study aimed to identify crucial factors influencing religious freedom and to rigorously test the findings.

The literature review explores the multifaceted influence of AI on religion, encompassing both opportunities and challenges. Some scholars highlight AI's potential to augment religious practices by personalizing spiritual experiences and providing new interpretations of sacred texts. Others express concerns about AI oversimplifying or trivializing spirituality, eroding communal aspects of worship, and impacting fundamental religious concepts like free will and consciousness. The ethical considerations of AI development, especially respecting religious diversity, are also emphasized. The review also explores the complex interplay of economic development, political stability, education, and digitization in shaping religious landscapes. Economic development is linked to both secularization and religious resurgence, while political stability can foster religious freedom but also lead to state control. Education's impact is debated, with some arguing it leads to distancing from organized religion and others that it fosters deeper understanding. Digitization has revolutionized access to religious information but also presents challenges like the spread of misinformation. The review concludes that these interconnected elements significantly impact religious beliefs and practices.

The study uses religious freedom as the dependent variable, operationalized as the comprehensive liberty to hold, change, or renounce religious beliefs; to worship privately or publicly; and to practice religion individually or communally. The number of AI patents serves as a proxy for AI development and proliferation. Control variables include economic development (GDP), political stability, education levels, and the degree of digitalization. The study employs five econometric models: pooled OLS, panel OLS, country-fixed effects, year-fixed effects, and a combined country and year fixed effects model. The Chow and Hausman tests guided model selection. To address endogeneity, the study utilizes the system generalized method of moments (GMM) with lagged variables as instrumental variables and Helmert transformations. The Difference-in-Hansen test validates the exclusion restriction criterion. Data from the World Bank (2000-2022) were used, with all variables log-transformed to mitigate heteroscedasticity.

Five econometric models were used to assess the impacts of AI and socioeconomic factors on religious freedom. Model 5, which incorporates both country and year fixed effects, is highlighted, but results from other models are used as robustness checks. Model 5 shows a significant inverse correlation between AI and religious freedom (a 1% increase in AI correlates with a 0.011% decrease in religious freedom). This aligns with technological determinism's implications for increased surveillance and control, concerns about information control and content moderation, and the potential for AI-driven bias and discrimination against religious groups. The study also found positive correlations between religious freedom and economic development, political stability, and education levels, consistent with modernization theory and existing research. Increased digitalization, however, negatively impacts religious freedom, potentially due to enhanced surveillance and control mechanisms. GMM estimations strongly support these findings.

The findings demonstrate a complex relationship between AI and religious freedom, mediated by various socioeconomic factors. The negative impact of AI on religious freedom underscores concerns about increased surveillance, information control, and potential bias in AI applications. The positive correlations with economic development, political stability, and education levels highlight the importance of broader societal factors in fostering religious freedom. The negative correlation with digitalization suggests a need to address the potential for misuse of digital technologies. The study's findings contribute to understanding the dynamics between technological advancement, socioeconomic contexts, and religious liberties, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of AI's societal impacts.

This study provides empirical evidence of AI's negative impact on religious freedom, highlighting the importance of socioeconomic factors. Policy implications include developing comprehensive AI regulatory frameworks, balancing technological advancement with religious freedom protection, promoting economic growth and political stability, and investing in education that fosters religious tolerance. Future research should expand geographical scope, integrate qualitative methods, and consider additional confounding variables for a more nuanced understanding.

The study's focus on 20 countries may limit generalizability. Methodological limitations in measuring complex concepts and data quality variability across countries and years could affect results. Future studies should include a wider range of countries, integrate qualitative methods, and explore additional confounding variables, particularly cultural factors and the impacts of specific AI technologies.