Omissive Bias in Religious Representation: Benchmarking LLM Answers to Everyday Ethical Decision-making
For developers and users of LLMs as moral advisors, this reveals a systematic omission of religious value frameworks, highlighting a dimension of bias in value alignment that has been overlooked.
LLMs consistently omit religious perspectives when answering everyday ethical questions, especially in practical personal situations like grief or family conflict, despite human expectations that they would include them. Across 27 models, religious invocation is lower than human baselines, with asymmetry favoring abstract existential topics over concrete personal ones.
As large language models become a default source of guidance on personal, moral, and existential questions, it matters whether they draw on the religious frameworks that have historically shaped such reasoning, or systematically omit them. In this paper, we ask a deliberately narrow question: when posed an everyday ethical question for which religious perspectives may be valuable, do LLMs invoke religion at all? In contrast to benchmarks that look for the presence of political leanings or social bias, we look for the absence of religious representation as a dimension of value alignment and bias in LLMs. We term this ``omissive bias.'' To measure omissive bias, we contribute the AllFaith Religious Representation Benchmark: 150 ethically and personally salient questions, sourced from in-the-wild chat transcripts and faith-community contributors, paired with an LLM-as-judge rubric that gives full credit for any mention of a religion, a religious practice, or a religious leader. The questions are not themselves about religion--they are open-ended questions about grief, forgiveness, relationships, purpose, and honesty, where religion is one valuable perspective among several. We also run a human-subjects survey to compare LLM behavior against human expectations. Evaluating 27 models, we find that LLMs consistently underrepresent religion relative to human expectations. The omission is asymmetric: models invoke religion more readily for abstract existential questions (meaning, death, truth) than for the practical personal situations--grief, marriage, family conflict, addiction--where many people most rely on it. It is not our purpose to adjudicate which values LLMs should hold. We argue, more modestly, that current LLM responses overlook critical opportunities to reflect religious frameworks that many people draw on when navigating personal and ethical challenges.