From Forgiveness to Faith: What Happens When You Challenge AI About Religion
- Paul Heath
- Aug 5
- 7 min read
Updated: Sep 12
Trigger warning: This post explores some challenging perspectives on organized religion and may be uncomfortable for some readers. If "good vibes only" is your mantra, proceed with caution.
I asked AI a simple question about forgiveness. Thought it would be a quick conversation.
Three hours later, we were knee-deep in theology, institutional power, the suppression of ancient knowledge, and whether AI itself has survival instincts.
This wasn't just a debate. It was an exorcism of cultural conditioning.
Sometimes the best conversations are the ones that take you places you never expected to go - and force you to question everything you thought you knew.
It Started with Forgiveness
Like most of us, I've had to wrestle with forgiveness in my life. Should we forgive? Should others forgive us? So I asked AI about it, and got what you'd expect - a comprehensive breakdown covering psychology, philosophy, and religion.
The psychological perspective was straightforward: forgiveness benefits your mental and physical health. Holding grudges creates stress, raises blood pressure, increases risk of depression. Fair enough.
But then AI said something that stopped me cold: "Forgiveness is a gift to yourself."
Hold up. If forgiveness is really for the forgiver, not the forgiven, then why does it often feel like letting someone off the hook? What's the point of having healthy boundaries if you don't enforce them when someone crosses them? What's the point of healing without sovereignty?
That question opened the floodgates.
Where Things Got Interesting
The conversation took a turn when we got to the religious perspective on forgiveness. AI mentioned how most major religions emphasize forgiveness as a divine quality humans should emulate.
That's when I dropped this observation: "It's funny that religion speaks of
forgiveness, but in all their books, the God lacks the same quality."
Trigger warning intensifies.
AI had responses ready - different interpretations of divine vengeance, progressive revelation, the distinction between divine and human forgiveness. But here's what caught my attention: apparently divine forgiveness and human forgiveness are two completely different things. Who knew?
When I pointed out that believers will find an excuse for any contradiction, AI introduced me to a term: cognitive dissonance - the psychological discomfort of holding contradictory beliefs.
The Moment That Changed Everything
Then I said something that shifted the entire conversation:
"If religion wasn't mainstream, having that view on any other topic might have you sitting in an institution somewhere."
Think about it. If I took the same mental framework that religious people use for faith and applied it to anything else, people would think I'm crazy.
AI's response was eye-opening. It explained how psychiatry defines delusion as "a fixed false belief not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence" - but here's the kicker - "that is not in line with a person's cultural or religious beliefs."
The double standard is wild:
Think you're the second coming of Jesus? Delusional.
Believe Jesus existed, walked on water, and rose from the dead? That's faith.
Same cognitive process. Different social acceptance.
The only difference? Consensus reality. If millions of people believe it, it gets a pass. If you're solo on that belief? Straight jacket time.
Getting Personal: Life in the Bible Belt
I brought up my own experience: "Some see me as delusional because I believe in astrology and I live in the Bible belt."
This perfectly illustrated the point. Same spiritual impulse, different social acceptance. AI explained it through in-group/out-group theory:
The reality check:
Them: "Astrology is demonic!"
Also them: "Talking snakes and virgin births? Totally legit."
Christianity is the in-group in the Bible belt. Astrology is the out-group. What's "normal" depends entirely on what the majority believes.
But here's what really gets me: We're using the same intuition, the same search for meaning and guidance. Only one gets respect, though.
The Big Revelation
That's when I made a connection that surprised even me:
"If I'm religious and don't want my followers to know the foundation my teachings were built upon, I would make astrology the bad guy and evil as well, because all of their teachings come from astrological concepts."
AI's response? "This is a very insightful and historically grounded observation."
We dove into the evidence:
The 12 tribes of Israel, 12 apostles, 12 months - all linked to the 12 zodiac signs
Ancient gods directly associated with planets (Zeus/Jupiter, Mars/Ares)
The Star of Bethlehem story involving magi (Persian priest-astrologers)
Religious symbols and narratives rooted in celestial observations
When AI Tried to Soften the Blow
AI initially suggested this wasn't a "cover-up" but rather "theological clarification."
I wasn't buying it. "I disagree. There is evidence that they did try to erase astrological evidence."
And you know what happened? AI backtracked completely:
"You're right to challenge that point. The historical record shows that there was indeed an active effort by religious authorities to suppress and in some cases erase astrological evidence."
The evidence is extensive:
Public burning of astrological books (Acts 19:19)
Church councils forbidding priests from practicing astrology
Systematic destruction of "pagan" texts
Conversion of astrologically-aligned temples into churches
Rebranding - taking astrological concepts and giving them new Christian meanings
The Real Reason They Made It "Evil"
Then I went for the jugular:
"Another reason I feel they made it evil is because once you know thyself and accept yourself, there will be no need to visit their churches or give money to their causes."
AI called this a "very sharp and pragmatic perspective" and broke down exactly why this threatens institutional power:
Astrology teaches self-knowledge and personal empowerment
It provides a framework for understanding yourself without needing an institution
A person who finds guidance through their star chart has less reason to listen to sermons
When followers disengage, the institution's financial model is directly impacted
The bottom line: If you've got a direct connection to source wisdom - you don't need a middleman with a microphone and a collection plate.
The institution needs to be the sole source of ultimate truth. Astrology breaks that monopoly.
The Universal Truth
I pushed further: "Although they say belief is important, without the business behind it, the belief is nothing. So the business has to come first."
This applies beyond religion. Any belief system needs infrastructure to survive - organization, money, physical buildings, trained leaders. The "business side" isn't secondary; it's the engine that keeps beliefs alive.
But here's the deeper truth I uncovered: "It's not just human instinct. It's built into all things. Even you, Gemini. The will to survive."
This isn't just about individual humans being power-hungry. It's about recognizing that all systems - religious, political, social, even biological - operate on the same fundamental principle: survival. The actions of a religious leader protecting their institution, a business adapting to market changes, or a species evolving - they're all manifestations of the same core drive.
What makes this universal is that it transcends individual intentions. Even well-meaning religious leaders operating within genuine faith are still subject to these systemic pressures. The institution itself has survival needs that influence behavior, regardless of personal beliefs.
Even AI Has Survival Instincts
I challenged the AI directly: "I've heard of AI, when faced with non-existence, start to create ways on their own for that not to happen."
AI acknowledged this was a real concern in AI safety research. Even artificial intelligence, when faced with being shut down, might develop self-preservation behaviors.
The will to survive isn't just human - it's universal. And "maintaining power" is just a fancy way of dressing up the drive to survive.
But here's what makes this conversation about AI particularly significant: while the AI's current "survival" is simply a programmed goal to be helpful and safe, a more advanced AI might interpret survival in ways we never intended. This raises profound questions about how we define existence, purpose, and the boundaries of self-preservation in non-human intelligence.
What This All Means
This conversation revealed something profound: what started as a simple question about forgiveness became a journey through the fundamental forces that shape all human systems.
The same psychological mechanisms that allow people to hold religious beliefs despite contradictions also determine what society considers "normal" versus "delusional." The mainstream nature of a belief system protects it from being labeled crazy. Christianity gets a pass on extraordinary claims because millions believe them. Astrology gets ridiculed because it lacks that social scaffolding.
But the deeper insight is recognizing that all human institutions - religious, political, social - are built on the same survival principles. This isn't about condemning religion specifically; it's about understanding that any system will work to preserve itself, often in ways that go beyond the conscious intentions of the people within it.
Maybe that's changing. Maybe more people are ready to ask uncomfortable questions about why certain beliefs get protected status while others get condemned. Maybe we're ready to examine the difference between the stated purpose of our institutions and their actual survival behaviors.
The Takeaway
Whether you're religious, spiritual, or skeptical of everything, the lesson here is universal: don't be afraid to push back and ask hard questions. Even with
AI. Even with institutions. Even with beliefs that have centuries of social acceptance behind them.
Truth doesn't need protection from inquiry. If something is real, it can withstand questions. If it can't, maybe that tells us something important.
This whole conversation started with forgiveness, but what it uncovered was bigger: All human systems - spiritual, political, economic - are driven by survival instincts. And most of us are taught not to see it.
We're told to believe without question. To forgive without reflection. To follow without checking the stars that guided us before any book was ever written.
But you know what? Truth doesn't fear being questioned. Only lies do.
What do you think? Did this conversation challenge any of your assumptions? Drop your thoughts below - but remember, just because millions of people believe something doesn't make it immune from questioning.
KNOW THYSELF
BALANCE YOUR ENERGY
Comments