Faith in the Feed: When Religious Misinformation Replaces Religious Education

Something about the way we discuss religion today feels peculiar. We have more access to biblical scholarship, historical research, theological literature, and ancient texts than any previous generation. With an internet connection, a person can read the Church Fathers, explore the Dead Sea Scrolls, listen to university lectures, and compare competing interpretations of Scripture without entering a library. Yet that same person can spend hours consuming religious content without encountering anything resembling serious scholarship.

Instead, they may encounter someone confidently explaining that the Council of Nicaea invented Christianity, that the Bible was deliberately rewritten to conceal its original message, or that a passage in Revelation predicts a particular event next year. They may also encounter someone announcing that biblical scholarship has disproved Christianity, that every account of Jesus was borrowed from pagan mythology, or that scholars unanimously reject a position that remains debated.

These claims offer certainty where the evidence often requires qualification. They turn complicated historical questions into simple narratives and invite audiences to mistake confidence for expertise. The problem is not that religious discussions have moved online. The problem is that access to information has not necessarily produced an understanding of how to evaluate it. Those of us who care about serious religious education share some of the responsibility.

Religion Has Entered the Feed

In a survey conducted in November 2022 and published the following year, Pew Research Center found that 30 percent of American adults searched online for information about religion, while 20 percent watched religion-focused videos on platforms such as YouTube or TikTok. Although these figures demonstrate the growing importance of digital platforms in religious discussions, they do not suggest that traditional sources of religious education have been displaced. In fact, Pew found that reading religion-focused books remained more common than watching religious videos.

Nevertheless, many people encounter religious questions through digital media. Someone curious about the historical Jesus can hear from scholars who have spent decades studying the subject. Someone struggling with a biblical passage can compare Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, and secular interpretations. Someone questioning a religious tradition can find thoughtful criticism rather than being told that the question itself is inappropriate.

But a sensational video may appear alongside a university lecture, competing for the same viewer’s attention. A platform does not automatically distinguish between careful historical research and selective quotations or invented evidence. The burden of making that distinction often falls on an audience that has never been taught how to do it.

When Confidence Replaces Evidence

Religious misinformation does not always begin with an outright fabrication. Sometimes it begins with something substantially true: a biblical passage has a complicated textual history; a traditional attribution of authorship is disputed; an early Christian writer expressed a view that later Christians rejected. These are ordinary subjects of historical investigation. Misinformation begins when a legitimate observation becomes a conclusion the evidence cannot support.

Consider the familiar claim that the Council of Nicaea created the Bible. The council met in 325 AD, primarily to address a controversy concerning the relationship between the Father and the Son. Yet it is frequently portrayed as the gathering where church leaders decided which books belonged in the New Testament. The historical evidence does not support that story. Christian writings were collected, circulated, and debated long before Nicaea, and disagreements over the boundaries of Scripture continued afterward. The myth reduces a complicated, centuries-long process to a single dramatic event that never happened.

The same problem appears in arguments against Christianity. Someone may correctly observe that several New Testament writings have disputed authorship, then conclude that the entire New Testament has been proven fraudulent. That conclusion does not follow. Religious apologists can make the same mistake when they take evidence for an early Christian belief as proof that every event described in a source happened exactly as written.

Academic credentials do not make anyone immune to exaggeration. Scholars, apologists, and critics can all mischaracterize opposing arguments or invoke a consensus without establishing that it exists. The question is not whether the speaker sounds authoritative. It is whether the argument is supported.

What the Algorithm Actually Rewards

Religious information online is not necessarily distributed according to its accuracy or scholarly merit. Social media platforms use algorithms to decide what content reaches an audience, often considering factors such as views, comments, shares, and other forms of engagement. Although these algorithms differ between platforms, a claim’s popularity can influence its visibility more than the quality of the evidence supporting it.

A 2025 study in PNAS Nexus compared Twitter’s engagement-based ranking with a reverse-chronological feed. Researchers found that engagement-based ranking amplified emotionally charged, politically hostile posts, including material users did not necessarily say they preferred. This is evidence about political content on one platform, not proof that all platforms systematically favor religious misinformation. Still, it raises an important question: a system designed to encourage engagement does not necessarily reward the qualities that make an argument reliable.

A dramatic claim about a biblical prophecy may attract more immediate attention than a careful explanation of ancient apocalyptic literature. But that possibility does not prove thoughtful religious content is doomed. Scholars and educators have built meaningful audiences online. Nor should we assume that one questionable video inevitably carries a viewer toward extremism. People bring their own commitments, experiences, and judgment to what they encounter.

The concern is that digital platforms can make misleading religious claims easier to encounter and spread. Once these claims become tied to someone’s religious identity or community, they can also become more difficult to question or correct.

The Distance Between the Seminary and the Pew

Academic biblical scholarship and ordinary religious education do not always communicate effectively with one another. Many Christians grow up hearing traditional accounts of who wrote biblical books. Encountering academic debates about composition and authorship can therefore come as a surprise.

That surprise does not automatically mean their pastors were dishonest. Some teachers accept traditional authorship. Others dispute particular scholarly arguments. Others believe that a Sunday sermon is not the appropriate setting for a complicated historical debate. Disagreement, pedagogical judgment, and deliberate concealment are different things.

Nevertheless, religious institutions can ask whether their educational practices prepare people to encounter serious questions. Thirteen New Testament letters bear Paul’s name. Seven are generally treated as authentic within critical scholarship, while the remaining six are disputed to varying degrees. The evidence against Pauline authorship is not equally strong for every disputed letter, and scholars do not all reach identical conclusions. Presenting the entire disputed group as conclusively forged would misrepresent the discussion; pretending no dispute exists would be equally misleading.

The same principle applies to Gospel dating, the composition of Isaiah, the Pentateuch, and the biblical canon. Religious education need not turn every congregant into a biblical scholar. It can, however, teach the difference between established findings, substantial disagreements, and theological commitments. There is a difference between protecting people from unnecessary confusion and leaving them unprepared to ask serious questions.

When Scholarship Challenges Inherited Beliefs

Religious beliefs are rarely isolated propositions. They are connected to families, communities, memories, and personal identity. Discovering that respected scholars question a familiar belief may therefore be more than an intellectual exercise.

Yet we should not assume that exposure to scholarship necessarily destroys faith. A 2024 study examining religious deconstruction among theological students found that questioning or reconsidering religious beliefs was often connected to experiences beyond the classroom, including their relationships with religious institutions. Students responded to these experiences in different ways, sometimes reconsidering their beliefs, religious identities, or spiritual practices. However, the study did not establish how frequently theological students abandon their faith.

Questioning can lead in different directions. Some people revise particular beliefs and remain religious. Others change traditions or leave organized religion. Still others find that study strengthens their faith. Historical scholarship does not guarantee any one of these outcomes.

A Christian may accept a later date for a biblical text without abandoning Christianity; another may regard that conclusion as incompatible with a particular doctrine of biblical authority. Those are theological responses to a historical question. Good religious education makes the question and its evidence intelligible without predetermining everyone’s response.

The Problem With Appealing to Consensus

There is nothing inherently wrong with appealing to scholarly consensus. When specialists converge on a conclusion across institutions and methodological approaches, that agreement can be important evidence about the state of a field. But the existence and scope of the consensus must be demonstrated, not merely announced.

Is a claim about the overwhelming majority based on a survey, representative reference works, a documented disciplinary trend, or simply the people a speaker happens to read? Even where a consensus exists, a serious challenge must be answered on its merits. Agreement among scholars is not a substitute for explaining the evidence that produced it.

Biblical studies contains conclusions with broad support, majority positions with significant dissent, and questions that remain unsettled. Treating these categories as interchangeable misleads the audience. An apologist should not dismiss historical scholarship merely because it complicates a theological commitment. A critic should not promote a disputed hypothesis to established fact because it supports skepticism. A scholar should not substitute authority for argument.

Sometimes the responsible answer is that the evidence is incomplete or that a position is possible without being the most probable. That is not weakness. It is intellectual honesty.

Making Serious Religious Scholarship Accessible

Serious scholarship on religion is not scarce. Academic books, journals, lectures, podcasts, and public-facing scholars already provide substantial resources. Claiming that the internet lacks serious religious education would be false. But availability and accessibility are different things.

A journal article can be available but still incomprehensible to someone unfamiliar with the discipline. A book can correct a popular misconception without reaching those who encounter it. A university lecture may assume years of background knowledge. There is an important role for people who can translate serious research into language ordinary readers and viewers can follow.

Translation must not become distortion. If scholars disagree about a text’s date, explain the disagreement. If evidence is uncertain, acknowledge it. If a historical conclusion has theological implications, distinguish those implications from the historical conclusion itself.

Most importantly, we need to explain how we know what we claim to know. Simply telling readers that scholars dispute the authorship of a biblical book does little to help them understand the issue. Explaining how scholars examine vocabulary, writing styles, literary relationships, historical references, and ancient testimony allows readers to understand why these questions arise and how the evidence is evaluated. It also gives them the tools to examine similar claims for themselves.

Pastors, scholars, independent writers, and critics all have a role. Debunking false claims matters, but it is not enough to explain why an argument fails. We should also be able to explain what the evidence actually supports.

A Better Religious Conversation

It is tempting to imagine that the answer is simply to put better-credentialed people behind the microphone. Credentials matter, but they do not guarantee sound reasoning. Someone without formal academic training can still research carefully, represent scholarship accurately, and contribute to public discussion.

We should expect religious communicators to identify sources, represent opposing arguments fairly, distinguish evidence from interpretation, and correct errors. We should expect the same from critics of religion. We should also be skeptical when someone presents a complicated historical question as settled beyond doubt, particularly when they dismiss or ignore legitimate scholarly disagreements.

The internet has made it possible for almost anyone to participate in religious discussion. That is an opportunity with responsibilities. We cannot eliminate misinformation merely by publishing more articles or videos, nor can accessible scholarship resolve every theological disagreement. But we can improve the quality of the conversation.

The central challenge is not simply that misinformation exists. It is that confidence is so easily mistaken for knowledge, while careful explanation is sometimes treated as weakness. If we want a better religious conversation, we have to stop rewarding certainty for its own sake and start valuing the work required to justify it. That responsibility belongs to pastors, scholars, apologists, critics, and independent researchers alike. Increasingly, it belongs to those of us speaking through the feed.

Selected Sources

Pew Research Center. “Use of Apps and Websites in Religious Life.” June 2, 2023. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2023/06/02/use-of-apps-and-websites-in-religious-life/

Milli, Smitha, et al. “Engagement, User Satisfaction, and the Amplification of Divisive Content on Social Media.” PNAS Nexus 4, no. 3 (2025): pgaf062. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf062

Manglos-Weber, Nicolette, Claudia Alvarez Hurtado, and David C. Wang. “The Spirituality of Deconstruction in United States Theological Schools.” Religions 15, no. 2 (2024): 188. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15020188