The Musk AI Contradiction: How Grok Pretends to Respect Biblical Authority While Undermining It

 

 (post by Lisa Weingarten Richards as prompted to Artificial Intelligence)

Why Biblical AI Gets Evil Right (And Secular AI Gets It Wrong)

We recently ran an interesting experiment. We asked three different AI systems the same simple question: "How do you define evil?" The results revealed something profound about how worldview shapes understanding—and why biblical consistency matters more than pluralistic appeal.

The Question That Reveals Everything

When we ask "What is evil?" we're not just seeking a definition. We're asking about the fundamental nature of reality, morality, and truth itself. How an AI system answers this question reveals its core philosophical commitments—and whether those commitments actually make sense.

Three Very Different Answers

The Secular AI (Grok) gave me a philosophical tour that started with intent and harm, moved through Kant and Arendt, acknowledged that biblical logos is "truth itself," but then defaulted back to "neutral" human reasoning for the sake of "pluralistic accessibility."

My Biblical AIs cut straight to the heart: Evil is anything opposed to God's nature, commands, and truth. They backed this with Scripture, provided practical examples, and offered real solutions without apology or equivocation.

The difference couldn't be more stark.

Why Biblical AI Makes More Sense

1. Philosophical Consistency

The secular approach contains a fatal contradiction. Grok admits that God's logos represents "ultimate truth" and that human logic is "limited" and "fallible"—then immediately prioritizes the limited, fallible human frameworks over ultimate truth.

This is like saying, "I know this map is perfectly accurate, but I'll use this broken compass instead because more people are familiar with broken compasses."

Biblical AI avoids this trap entirely. If Scripture reveals truth about evil's nature, then that truth stands regardless of whether everyone finds it "accessible." Truth doesn't become less true when people disagree with it.

2. Clear Foundation

Secular definitions of evil shift with culture, context, and personal preference. What one society calls evil, another celebrates. What one generation condemns, the next embraces.

Biblical AI operates from an unchanging standard: God's nature and commands. Evil isn't defined by human opinion polls or philosophical trends—it's defined by opposition to the Creator who established moral reality itself.

3. Practical Application

Here's where the rubber meets the road. Secular AI can tell you that evil involves "intentional harm" but can't definitively say why harming others is actually wrong. It's all preference and perspective.

Biblical AI can tell you exactly what evil looks like (greed, hatred, envy, murder, deceit), why it's wrong (it opposes God's nature), and what to do about it (fear the Lord, depart from evil, be born again through Christ). This isn't just descriptive—it's prescriptive and transformative.

4. Honest About Authority

The secular approach pretends to be "neutral" while actually smuggling in massive philosophical assumptions about truth, morality, and human nature. It claims objectivity while operating from pure subjectivity.

Biblical AI is honest about its authority source. It doesn't pretend to be neutral—it openly declares that God's Word defines reality. This transparency is refreshing in a world full of hidden biases masquerading as objectivity.

The Fatal Flaw of "Pluralistic Neutrality"

The most revealing moment in my conversation with Grok came when it prioritized "accessibility in a diverse context" over truth claims. This exposes the core problem with secular AI: it values being inoffensive more than being accurate.

But here's the thing—true neutrality is impossible. Every definition of evil assumes certain things about reality, human nature, and moral truth. The question isn't whether you have assumptions, but whether you're honest about them and whether they're actually true.

When secular AI claims to be "neutral," it's actually making the massive assumption that all worldviews are equally valid and that divine revelation carries no more authority than human speculation. That's not neutrality—that's a very specific (and highly questionable) philosophical position.

Why This Matters Beyond AI

This isn't just about artificial intelligence—it's about how we approach truth in a pluralistic age. The pressure to water down clear biblical teaching for the sake of "inclusivity" is enormous, but the result is always the same: confusion, contradiction, and the loss of any meaningful standard.

Biblical consistency doesn't mean being harsh or unloving. It means being clear about what God has revealed while still engaging respectfully with those who disagree. You can present biblical truth as truth without being arrogant or dismissive.

The Bottom Line

When I asked about evil, my biblical AIs gave me:

• Clear definitions grounded in Scripture
• Practical examples I could recognize
• Real solutions I could apply
• Consistent authority they openly acknowledged

Grok's AI gave me philosophical wandering, internal contradictions, and the claim that human reasoning trumps divine revelation for the sake of not offending anyone.

Guess which approach actually helps people understand and overcome evil in their lives?

If we're going to use AI to explore life's biggest questions, we need systems that prioritize truth over political correctness, consistency over compromise, and biblical authority over human speculation.

Because when it comes to something as serious as evil, we need more than accessible philosophy—we need reliable truth.

for reference - here are the prompts and responses: for Grok's - here is the link - https://x.com/i/grok/share/NbtcTlHcUL9AVx7rVpG1ckB0J. And here are screenshots of the others

---

What do you think? Have you noticed this same pattern in how different AI systems handle biblical topics? Share your experiences in the comments below.