Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Why don’t atheists trust each other?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Or don’t they? From Phys.org:

A unusual social study has revealed that atheists are more easily suspected of vile deeds than Christians, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists—strikingly, even by fellow atheists, researchers said Monday.

This suggests that in an increasingly secular world, many—including some atheists—still hold the view that people will do bad things unless they fear punishment from all-seeing gods.

The results of the study “show that across the world, religious belief is intuitively viewed as a necessary safeguard against the temptations of grossly immoral conduct,” an international team wrote in the journal Nature Human Behaviour.
And it revealed that “atheists are broadly perceived as potentially morally depraved and dangerous.”

The study measured the attitudes of more than 3,000 people in 13 countries on five continents.
They ranged from “very secular” countries such as China and the Netherlands, to countries with high numbers of believers such as the United Arab Emirates, United States, and India.

The team found that people were about twice as likely to assume that the serial killer was an atheist.
“It is striking that even atheists appear to hold the same intuitive anti-atheist bias,” study co-author Will Gervais, a psychology professor at the University of Kentucky in Lexington, told AFP. More.

One wonders if the broad linkage of Darwinism and atheism play a role.

See also: Prof claims to know how to slam dunk creationists

and

Teaching evolution to creationist students: Why would anyone who was embarking on teaching evolution as a serious project in good faith try to involve a virulently anti-religious figure like Dawkins in the argument?

Comments
Atheists by definition don’t know what truth is...
What definition would that be?ET
August 13, 2017
August
08
Aug
13
13
2017
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT
"The Doll Test" in Brown v. Board of Education was an example of such a result being used to indict society at large for the sake of the subject minority. Admittedly, in spite of Dawkins' claims, people aren't born atheists, and this is a study taken across many different societies, we can't really do much that is objectively good with a simple prevalence of opinions; and, as promoters of a view that is a minority relative to the arenas where it is actually debated, shouldn't.LocalMinimum
August 13, 2017
August
08
Aug
13
13
2017
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
asauber @ 2
Atheists by definition don’t know what truth is,...
Does anyone? Sure, adherents of the world's various religions all believe their own faith is The One True Faith but since they tend to differ who knows which, if any, is true? At least atheists are not blinkered by a prior commitment to one particular set of beliefs and can, in principle, pursue an unbiased search for truth.Seversky
August 13, 2017
August
08
Aug
13
13
2017
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT
Atheists by definition don't know what truth is, so I'm not surprised they don't trust each other. And *I'm* distrustful of social studies as a rule, so I need to go get a cup of coffee and go find some truth somewhere. Andrewasauber
August 13, 2017
August
08
Aug
13
13
2017
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
A brief description of the method, which I find interesting:
To assess worldwide prevalence of anti-atheist biases, the authors utilized the conjunction fallacy, a well-known psychological bias. The classic conjunction fallacy presents a vignette about Linda, who was a philosophy major and was concerned with social justice and discrimination. Participants then answer whether they think it is more likely that Linda is a bank teller, or that she is a bank teller and a feminist. Although logically impossible (that is, the likelihood of two phenomena occurring together cannot exceed the likelihood of either one alone), this bias occurs because the conjunction (bank teller and feminist) better matches people’s impressions of Linda than the profession alone. Across 13 diverse countries, Gervais and colleagues demonstrated that participants are likely to commit this fallacy when asked if an immoral target (for example, a serial murderer) is more likely to be an atheist as well as a teacher (as opposed to just a teacher), but not when asked if the target is more likely to be religious.
While I don't doubt that atheists can be biased against other atheists, I would guess it depends on context. Perhaps I would have shown an anti-atheist bias in an experiment such as the one Gervais et al performed, which involved being presented with a hypothetical about a serial killer. I doubt that many of us here would overlook the conjunction fallacy, however, so maybe this experiment wouldn't work on us. On the other hand, suppose an atheist and a member of the LDS church (both scientists) were engaging in a debate concerning some archaeological evidence gathered in North America, which I know nothing about. I think I very likely would be biased in favor of the atheist in this situation. Edit: The paper makes a similar point:
Although we agree that the conjunction fallacy is a useful tool for examining implicit biases, it remains unclear how information about atheism affects perceptions in natural settings. Atheism is rarely the only piece of information known about interaction partners, and it is possible that, when included with the social information that individuals collect naturally, atheism will be perceived as less indicative of immoral behaviour.
daveS
August 13, 2017
August
08
Aug
13
13
2017
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply