Study: Extreme Intuitive Moral Prejudice Against Atheists

[Dark Matter]

I don't see the evasion. Spectrum said that he would be less scared of men who'd studied the New Testament because the New Testament teaches peace. That's exactly the answer you were looking for isn't it DM? Following the general spirit of discussions on this website, "Gotcha!" is what you should surely have said here?

Not an evasion, but there is a qualifier that attempts to lessen the "Gotcha!"

Spectrum said: "The intuitive moral prejudice against atheists is merely based on brainwashing and hasty generalization, thus bad logic and irrationality due to perceived fears as a result of insecurity and low self-esteem." This is mere is psychobabble, an attempt to undermine the impact of the answer.

[Steve3007]

I agree that speculating that fear of atheists is due to "insecurity and low-esteem" is a stretch for which there is probably no solid evidence and it's probably just a dig at theists. But the rest doesn't seem too bad.

Given that one of the defining features of atheism is that it is a lack of declared belief in a given set of written moral principles, if we don't know them personally then we have no idea what any particular atheist's moral beliefs and inclinations are. They could just as easily be a saint or a monster or something in-between. So it does seem not unreasonable to characterise a fear based on lack of knowledge as a "hasty generalisation" and perhaps even as "brainwashing" in the sense that many people seem to mistakenly think that atheism in fact does tell us something about the atheist's moral beliefs and inclinations, and that what it tells us is not good.

Spectrum's other points about fearing/not fearing people depending on the specifics of the religion that they follow seems quite reasonable. Given that his central theme throughout this website is the evils of Islam, I'm not remotely surprised that he says he would fear ten guys who look like they might be Muslims.

For myself, if I consider two scenarios: one where I'm faced with people who I know to adhere to a belief system which advocates peace and tolerance and one where I'm faced with people about whom I know nothing at all, I think I'd be less scared of the former. Even if crime statistics were to tell me that the former group, on average, commits violent crime at the same rate as the average for the whole of society.

[Fooloso4]

DM:

… most people -- including many atheists -- instinctively realize that someone who has no appreciative need for an Absolute (however it is conceived) ultimately has no appreciative need for themselves or others.

This is not what the term intuitive means as it is used in the study:

… we quantify levels of anti-atheist distrust using well-tested measures of intuitive information processing …

The term ‘intuitive’ as it is used by behavioral psychologists means non-rational, non-deliberative, bias, or prejudice. The study has absolutely nothing to do with an instinct for an Absolute or an instinctive recognition about those who has no need for an Absolute.

LuckyR:

Of course I would be relieved. The reason for the relief is because the ten men were students.

That was my first thought as well. Here is what Prager says in response:

The most common is that any of us would also be relieved if we learned that the 10 men walking toward us in a dark alley had just come from a secular humanism seminar or one on photosynthesis. I fully acknowledge that I would be relieved in such cases as well. The problem with this response, however, is that in the real world, in bad parts of our cities, 10 men are rather more likely to be studying the Bible than photosynthesis or secular humanism or any other subject that would bring us relief in that dark alley.

That is a perfect example of the kind of evasiveness he faults others for.

[Dark Matter]

DM:

… most people -- including many atheists -- instinctively realize that someone who has no appreciative need for an Absolute (however it is conceived) ultimately has no appreciative need for themselves or others.

This is not what the term intuitive means as it is used in the study:

Gee...no kidding?

Do you have any thoughts of your own or are entirely dependent on what others say? You're always saying this person said that and that person said this, but very seldom do you have any thoughts of your own to say.

[Fooloso4]

DM:

Fooloso4:

This is not what the term intuitive means as it is used in the study:

Gee...no kidding?

Both you and Prager use the term ‘instinctive’. Instinctive means innate or inborn or unlearned. That is not how the term ‘intuitive’ is used here. What you are claiming and what the authors of the study are saying are two different things. You claim that the intuitive moral prejudice is based on an instinct:

IMV, the intuitive moral prejudice against atheists is because most people -- including many atheists -- instinctively realize …

Instinctive behavior is not learned behavior, intuitive behavior, as it is used in the study, is learned behavior. If you do not mean innate or inborn then you are claiming that the intuitive moral prejudice against atheists is because most people -- including many atheists -- have a moral prejudice against atheists.

Do you have any thoughts of your own or are entirely dependent on what others say?

Why the churlishness?

[Dark Matter]

Both you and Prager use the term ‘instinctive’. Instinctive means innate or inborn or unlearned. That is not how the term ‘intuitive’ is used here. What you are claiming and what the authors of the study are saying are two different things. You claim that the intuitive moral prejudice is based on an instinct:

IMV, the intuitive moral prejudice against atheists is because most people -- including many atheists -- instinctively realize …

Instinctive behavior is not learned behavior, intuitive behavior, as it is used in the study, is learned behavior. If you do not mean innate or inborn then you are claiming that the intuitive moral prejudice against atheists is because most people -- including many atheists -- have a moral prejudice against atheists.

Gee...no kidding? Are you saying I'm not permitted to have thoughts independently of what was said? Is there something about "IMV" you don't understand?

[Fooloso4]

DM:

Gee...no kidding? Are you saying I'm not permitted to have thoughts independently of what was said? Is there something about "IMV" you don't understand?

So then, you are in agreement that:

The study has absolutely nothing to do with an instinct for an Absolute or an instinctive recognition about those who has no need for an Absolute.

And yet you claimed that the study cast doubts on on Hitchens truthfulness in response to Prager’ example of a Bible study class. It doesn’t.

It may be your view that those who “have no appreciative need for an Absolute … ultimately has no appreciative need for themselves or others” and certainly you are permitted not only have that thought but to express it on a public forum, but by the same token, those who have no appreciative need for an Absolute are permitted to inform you, as they know and can attest from their own personal experience that you are simply wrong and do not know what you are talking about.

In fact, the study says as much:

Our results highlight a stark divergence between lay and scientific perceptions of the relationship between religion and morality. Although religion probably influences many moral outcomes and judgements , core moral instincts appear to emerge largely independent of religion . Additionally, highly secular societies are among the most stable and cooperative on Earth .

[Dark Matter]

Our results highlight a stark divergence between lay and scientific perceptions of the relationship between religion and morality. Although religion probably influences many moral outcomes and judgements , core moral instincts appear to emerge largely independent of religion . Additionally, highly secular societies are among the most stable and cooperative on Earth .

Religion is primarily a pursuit of values from which a system of interpretative beliefs are formulated. That is why it is much easier for men to agree on religious values — goals — than on beliefs — interpretations. In other words, while core moral instincts do appear to emerge largely independent of religion, religion refines them answers the 'why.' But saying "highly secular societies are among the most stable and cooperative on Earth" and leaving it at that is absolutely inane. It ignores the fact that the stability of all secular societies have religious roots and that by discarding those roots, all that's left is politics and power. The stability is therefore an illusion. Moreover, complacency leaves modern and "stable" secular societies vulnerable to more primitive and vibrant cultures -- exactly like what we see what's happening in Europe today.

Another the the study fails to take into account is that other studies, studies in "neurotheology" using FMRI, suggests that there is a neurological and evolutionary basis for subjective experiences traditionally categorized as spiritual or religious.

[Fooloso4]

DM:

Religion is primarily a pursuit of values from which a system of interpretative beliefs are formulated.

That may not be what your religious pursuit is about but that is not the topic.

But saying "highly secular societies are among the most stable and cooperative on Earth" and leaving it at that is absolutely inane. It ignores the fact that the stability of all secular societies have religious roots and that by discarding those roots, all that's left is politics and power.

The roots of secular society can be found primarily in the philosophy of natural rights and Liberalism, in other words, life, liberty, and the pursuit of property or happiness. This was a revolution against the “religious roots” of a Christianity that was politically, intellectually, and spiritually oppressive.

Another the the study fails to take into account is that other studies, studies in "neurotheology" using FMRI, suggests that there is a neurological and evolutionary basis for subjective experiences traditionally categorized as spiritual or religious.

The study does not fail to take this into account. That is simply not what the study was about.

[Spectrum]

Religion is primarily a pursuit of values from which a system of interpretative beliefs are formulated. That is why it is much easier for men to agree on religious values — goals — than on beliefs — interpretations. In other words, while core moral instincts do appear to emerge largely independent of religion, religion refines them answers the 'why.'

As I had stated, in terms of morality there are pros and cons of religions.

Religions [Abrahamic] do not refine and answer the "why". Believers are at the mercy of an all powerful God to grant them eternal life to avoid the threat of going to hell. Religions [Abrahamic] exploited this and merely rely on very barbaric and crude methods, i.e. based on very primal fears and threats, in this case threat of going to burning Hell and eternal death if believers do not obey.
This is what is going on the primitive world where people only respect power [all powerful God], avoid fears and threats. The Abrahamic theistic religions [in part] are inherently very malignantly evil.

It is actually false to say the Religions [Abrahamic] promote 'morality.' Morality is something that is a spontaneous competence from the individual and not something that is imposed upon any one.
Note for example the morality of slavery. The Abrahamic religions did not control slavery, rather such religions condone slavery. Slavery is now banned in all recognized countries based on consensus [secular] via reason and wisdom. The promotion of basic human dignity/rights is based on the evolving increase of human empathy and compassion and not because of religions [Abrahamic].

There are pros from the morality of religions [Abrahamic] but its cons are based on immutable barbaric doctrines of invoking primal fears and threats.

But saying "highly secular societies are among the most stable and cooperative on Earth" and leaving it at that is absolutely inane. It ignores the fact that the stability of all secular societies have religious roots and that by discarding those roots, all that's left is politics and power. The stability is therefore an illusion. Moreover, complacency leaves modern and "stable" secular societies vulnerable to more primitive and vibrant cultures -- exactly like what we see what's happening in Europe today.

There are core moral instincts and religions [Abrahamic] has corrupted it with barbaric, primitive and crude elements based on fears and threats.
The moral impulses and values of those in Europe has been improving after their distancing from religions [Christianity].
Why Europe is getting worse is because at present they are pandering to another Abrahamic religion, i.e. Islam.
The Abrahamic religions [in part] are inherently very malignantly evil.

Another the the study fails to take into account is that other studies, studies in "neurotheology" using FMRI, suggests that there is a neurological and evolutionary basis for subjective experiences traditionally categorized as spiritual or religious.

There is an proximate psychological cause to such subjective experiences that drive the majority to be religious.
One can be religiously net-good [Buddhism, Jainism] or religiously net-evil [Abrahamic religions]. At present whatever pros from the Abrahamic religions are being outweighed by their cons in terms of morality and other qualities.

[Dark Matter]

There is an proximate psychological cause to such subjective experiences that drive the majority to be religious.
One can be religiously net-good [Buddhism, Jainism] or religiously net-evil [Abrahamic religions]. At present whatever pros from the Abrahamic religions are being outweighed by their cons in terms of morality and other qualities.

That's mere opinion posing as settled fact. Even so, it does not negate what I said about people having an instinctive understanding that someone who has no appreciative need for an Absolute (however it is conceived) ultimately has no appreciation for themselves or others, that all they have going for them is politics and power. Hence, the intuitive moral prejudice against atheism.

Note: Both Jains and Buddhists have deities and religious practices that are about as non-secular as you can get.

[LuckyR]

LuckyR:

Of course I would be relieved. The reason for the relief is because the ten men were students.

That was my first thought as well. Here is what Prager says in response:

The most common is that any of us would also be relieved if we learned that the 10 men walking toward us in a dark alley had just come from a secular humanism seminar or one on photosynthesis. I fully acknowledge that I would be relieved in such cases as well. The problem with this response, however, is that in the real world, in bad parts of our cities, 10 men are rather more likely to be studying the Bible than photosynthesis or secular humanism or any other subject that would bring us relief in that dark alley.

That is a perfect example of the kind of evasiveness he faults others for.

Nice try. Perhaps you noticed I used real inner city examples like martial arts class, auto repair and cosmetology, not strawmen like photosynthesis (?!?) class.

In addition, no one in this thread has presented a cogent response to my opinion that the real reason for the relief is the status of student rather than theist.

[Spectrum]

There is an proximate psychological cause to such subjective experiences that drive the majority to be religious.
One can be religiously net-good [Buddhism, Jainism] or religiously net-evil [Abrahamic religions]. At present whatever pros from the Abrahamic religions are being outweighed by their cons in terms of morality and other qualities.

That's mere opinion posing as settled fact. Even so, it does not negate what I said about people having an instinctive understanding that someone who has no appreciative need for an Absolute (however it is conceived) ultimately has no appreciation for themselves or others, that all they have going for them is politics and power. Hence, the intuitive moral prejudice against atheism.

It is not power and politics but it is inherent in humans to have moral instincts.

The prejudice against atheism by theists [us versus them] is some sort of psychological problem [a psychological defensive mechanism] arising from a very deep insecurity generated by an existential dilemma.

Note there are mirror neurons in higher primates and more in humans. Mirror neurons are responsible for empathy and compassion and this is a basis for one to feel what others feels. This is a basis for the Golden Rule and provide room for the improvement of more humane morality in time.

Empathy and Mirror Neurons: PBS Nova (has transcripts)
This excellent video explains the scientific and physiological basis of Empathy
"Why do sports fans feel so emotionally invested in the game, reacting almost as if they were part of the game themselves? According to provocative discoveries in brain imaging, inside our heads we constantly "act out" and imitate whatever activity we're observing. As this video reveals, our so-called "mirror neurons" help us understand the actions of others and prime us to imitate what we see."
http://cultureofempathy.com/References/ ... eurons.htm

The problem with theistic [Abrahamic] morality is the moral laws are fixed as decreed by an illusory God in an immutable holy text. There is no room for change and improvements to adapt to inevitable changes in time. All the Abrahamic religions express contempt and hatred for non-believers [Islam condone killing infidels] in their holy texts and there is no room to change such abominable commands by a God.

The evolving propensity of mirror neurons [& other faculties] enable progress and adaptions of moral needs in line with time and changes. Note for example the abolishment of slavery by all nations is not based on theistic doctrines [which actually condone slavery] but rather by an inherent moral impulse that is evolving and progressing.

Note: Both Jains and Buddhists have deities and religious practices that are about as non-secular as you can get.

Nope. Whilst some Buddhists and Jains pray to statues, believe in Buddha-Nature, etc., the core fundamental of Jainism and Buddhism is theistic. They do not believe in an absolute God like what theistic religions are supposed to believe.

[Fanman]

I've met a variety of different people from different cultures and backgrounds (as we all most likely have), which have included Christians, Muslims, atheists and agnostics. I couldn't possibly say which of these were better or worse in terms of their morality. I have generally found Muslims to be the most humble, open and friendly people I've met, but I think this could be due to their culture and may not necessarily be due to their religion, and my demographic is small. I think that people's beliefs (or non-beliefs) do affect their character in varying degrees, but rather than generalise and form judgements about people based upon their beliefs (unless their beliefs generally cause prominent behaviours to manifest), I think we learn more about people if we perceive them as individuals, rather than just as part of the group of belief they're affiliated with. One person or a few people's actions from a group of people do not (I think) mean that group is more or less moral than another group of people with a different belief structure, but the nature of generalisation can make that seem as though that is the case.

That said, it is a given that certain groups of people who share common beliefs have behaviours that are associated with their particular group, but I'm not sure if certain groups of people can be called more or less moral? Religious groups (such as Christians) have a reputation of being moral or ethically minded, which they thrive upon, but upon closer inspection I think its clear that this reputation can be exploited for gain or worse and has been, does this mean that all Christians are immoral? Certainly not. Personally, I don't think that being an atheist has a bearing upon a person's morality, as the non-belief in God or gods does not equate to a non-belief in morality. I think that a view of atheists as being immoral is too simplistic and perhaps an appendage of religious thinking, which doesn't take into consideration the complexity of human-beings as moral agents and amounts to a prejudice. If a group of boys in a bad neighbourhood were walking around my vicinity at night, I would hope that they were a decent bunch of lads with positive goals in life, rather than a group of criminals. Their beliefs could play a role in their actions, but there are other factors to consider, the neighbourhood being a key one.

[Dark Matter]

I think you meant atheistic, Spectrum, but that's true only if you have a narrow or non-absolute image God. In theistic religions, the word "God" is an indicator pointing to the same ultimate concern as that of non-theistic religions. That is why, like I said earlier, it is much easier for men to agree on religious values — goals — than on beliefs — interpretations. Both theistic and non-theistic religions provide persons with a universe frame in which to think and give rise to civilizations. Non-religious atheism does not. Without ultimate concern for an Absolute, scientific secularism/atheism can never coordinate its forces, harmonize its divergent and rivalrous interests, races, and nationalisms.

Your obviously biased pseudo-psychology/neurology doesn't negate what I said except that the moral prejudice against atheism isn't against atheism per se, but its non-religious form.