Distrust Feeds Anti-Atheist Prejudice

By Tom Jacobs | 15 November 2011
Pacific Standard

Plenty of people are reviled for their religious beliefs. But a lack of faith seems to inspire even more intense antipathy.

A landmark 2006 study, analyzing data from a large survey of Americans, found that atheists “are less likely to be accepted, publicly and privately, than any others from a long list of ethnic, religious and other minority groups.” Writing in the American Sociological Review, researchers noted that “while rejection of Muslims may have spiked in post-9/11 America, rejection of atheists was higher.”

So why are atheists “among the least liked people … in most of the world,” in the words of a research team led by University of British Columbia psychologist Will Gervais? In a newly published paper, he and his colleagues provide evidence supporting a plausible explanation.

Atheists, they argue, are widely viewed as people you cannot trust.

“People use cues of religiosity as a signal for trustworthiness,” the researchers write in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Given that “trustworthiness is the most valued trait in other people,” this mental equation engenders a decidedly negative attitude toward nonbelievers.

Gervais and his colleagues approach this phenomenon from an evolutionary perspective. “A number of researchers have argued that religious beliefs may have been one of several mechanisms allowing people to cooperate in large groups, by in effect outsourcing social monitoring and punishment to supernatural agents,” they write.

Religion, in other words, has served a specific function throughout much of human history (beyond assuaging existential fears): It keeps people in line, discouraging them from engaging in selfish acts that hurt the larger community. Gervais and his colleagues point to recent research that bears this notion out; several studies have found people engage in less-selfish behavior “when reminded of watchful supernatural agents.”

If you believe – even implicitly – that the prospect of divine retribution is the primary factor inhibiting immoral behavior, then a lack of belief in a higher power could amount to a free pass. A 2002 Pew Research Center survey found nearly half of Americans feel morality is impossible without belief in God.

There is no actual evidence backing up the assumption that atheism somehow leads to a decline in morality. In a 2009 study, sociologist Phil Zuckerman argued that “a strong case could be made that atheists and secular people actually possess a stronger or more ethical sense of social justice than their religious peers,” adding that they, on average, have “lower levels of prejudice, ethnocentrism, racism and homophobia” than the much larger population of believers.

He adds that “with the important exception of suicide, states and nations with a preponderance of nonreligious people actually fare better on most indicators of societal health than those without.”

But the link between atheism and amorality persists in the public imagination, and is particularly strong for those with strong religious beliefs. Gervais and his colleagues provide evidence of this in the form of six experiments, five of which features students at the University of British Columbia.

Western Canada, they note, is one of the most secular regions of North America. But they found even in that environment and among highly educated people, implicit distrust of atheists is easy to identify.

Consider one of the experiments. One hundred and five students read a brief vignette about a man who fails to take responsibility when he hits a parked van with his car, and then pockets money from a wallet he finds on a sidewalk.

Participants were asked whether they thought it was more probable that this clearly amoral man was either (a) a teacher, or (b) a teacher and a second identifying factor. That factor varied for individual participants; for some it was “a Christian,” while for others it was “a Muslim,” “a rapist” or “an atheist.”

“A teacher and an atheist” was the equation most likely to chosen over the simple “a teacher.” Astonishingly, it was slightly more likely to be chosen than “a teacher and a rapist.”

“This description – of an individual who commits insurance fraud and steals money when the chances of detection are minimal – was only seen as representative of atheists and rapists,” the researchers write. “(It was not seen as) representative of religious individuals, be they Christian or Muslim.”

Another experiment suggested this distrust has real-life ramifications in the job market. Forty undergraduates were asked to choose between a religious candidate and an atheist for two jobs – a daycare worker and a waitress. Beyond their religious affiliation (or lack thereof), the candidates had identical qualifications for the position.

“Participants significantly preferred the religious candidate to the atheist candidate for a high-trust job (as a daycare worker),” the researchers report. “Conversely, participants marginally preferred the atheist candidate to the religious candidate for a low-trust job (as a waitress).”

To put it simply: “Participants discriminated against an atheist candidate when hiring for a job that required a particularly trustworthy individual.” This means “distrust of atheists translates into discriminatory decision-making,” they write.

There are undoubtedly other factors also at play here. Religious belief, including belief in an afterlife, provides existential meaning to many people. Any threat to that feeling of comfort and reassurance would presumably be regarded as unwelcome, if not hostile. That alone could engender a negative attitude toward atheists.

But Gervais and his colleagues make a strong case that a perceived lack of trustworthiness is at the heart of anti-atheist sentiment. Perhaps it’s time to make more people aware of the ethical tenets of humanism.

Tom Jacobs is a veteran journalist with more than 20 years experience at daily newspapers. He has served as a staff writer for the Los Angeles Daily News and the Santa Barbara News-Press. His work has also appeared in the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune and Ventura County Star.

Be sure to ‘like’ us on Facebook


  1. Values held in common by a group are not necessarily tied to religion. Many Secular sects from the Masons to the Society For Creative Anachronism have strong Moral structures not tied to religion, and are trusted more than those of the same religion but not the same secular group.

    It occurs just now that the Masons have had a "must believe in a supreme being" clause in their entering and since many of the Founders were both Masons and Deists, I wonder if that was how they got around the clause as actual atheists.

  2. There are also many religions that do not had a God and only the Judaic ones have such an anthropomorphic everything god, yet nobody who is Taoist, Confucian, or Buddhist calls themselves or is called an Atheist.

    • the comment about only "judaic" religions having an omnipotent anthropomorphic god is pure ignorance and intolerance and is an example of prejudice not being confined to the so caalled abrahamic religions or even to religion… the comment is nonsense. asian religions are complex and often have ideas of incarnation and humanoid deities and people like gurus getting superhuman power the power of shiva and kali and even the numerous buddhist deities is frightening..Judaism was reviled for having an invisible god who did not even possess a name. by using the word judaismm the commentor is encoraging the most genocidal of all prejudices Jews being persecuted by the Voltaires of the world aand the fanatical chomskies as well as iranian mullas atheism is just another belief system and like all belief systems subject to murderous abuse cf hitler and mao and stalin etc. whethr or not there is a god, the great writings of the worlds religions can be profound and brilliant and go far beyond the sheer ignorance and simpleminded paranoid thinking of the commentator

      • I find it quite ironic that you choose to lambast an individual under the auspices of "ignorance" when you are guilty of the exact same thing only a few sentences later. Hitler believed that he was doing the Christian god's work on earth. He believed he was divinely inspired and was saved from dozens of assassination attempts by divine intervention. (do about 18 seconds of reading on the subject) Furthermore, to say that mao and stalin committed the atrocities that they did because of or in the name of atheism is absolutely ludicrous. find me a speech where mao or stalin say "because of my belief in god I find it justifiable to murder millions upon millions of people." good luck.

    • Seems to me that people need the affirmation of others to sustain their own beliefs. …what a shame. Most atheists are fine people who just like to live and let live. We'd sure have less war and hatred were atheism the major belief of the nation.

      It's impossible to force yourself to believe in something when your brain tells you it just ain't logical.

  3. The irony is, as we've seen in the news, the atheist is far less likely to be a child molester, whether this is due to religion itself or just the pedophile's similar belief that declaring religiosity will make for a more trustworthy veneer.

  4. I am one of the most untrustworthy. Here are my credentials. I have been an: elementary teacher, high school science teacher, school principal, developer of an outdoor environmental education camp, recipient of my country's Medal of Bravery, community volunteer, director on an environmental group combating climate change, father of two successful professional daughters, and more. I once received a parking ticket. I guess that my three undergraduate and graduate degrees have worked against me since they helped me develop my critical thinking skills and intellectual curiosity. Since I do not subscribe to a supernatural being, I imagine I am doomed to roast in eternal hell for all of my pathetic "after" life. Make total sense.

  5. That’s okay, when screening new sitters or nannies I pass on those who list their church involvements. I don’t want a religious person spending 5-8 hours on any given day with my children. So I guess us atheists can be a bit prejudiced as well. Blame it on my past experiences with being told about hellfire and damnation on a regular basis.

    Not for my kids!

    • Good for you Tori! I will refuse to allow someone to attempt to scare my child into thinking that they are filthy creatures without faith in a deity as I was in sunday school. Some people have no shame!

  6. This is what thousands of years of uninterrupted religious slander will do.

    Atheists are maligned by those who require a supernatural carrot and stick in order to be decent human beings.

  7. IMHO, explanations of religion(s) as useful or necessary at a certain stage of human society evolution is totally biased by the need to justify the tendency of humans to believe in the supernatural. In short, the argument seems always to be "it's there wherever you look, so it must be useful to some purpose. Let's strive to find what it is".

    Well, viruses and cancer hare there wherever you look either, but the usefulness of the winter flu that seems to involve the whole of the mankind yearly since we have records seems not to have any positive effect on our evolution. They just "are here" because evolution doesn't work towards perfection. Flu is just not strong enough to wipe us out of this planet, neither are we strong enough to wipe it away. So we co-exist, and that's not necessary a "good".

    IMHO, the same goes with religion. It's not useful, it just happens to be there because of our intrinsic defects, and we didn't make it through evolution thanks to it, but despite of it.

    Of course, any well-enough organized society needs a common view and goal, but whenever a religion occupies this common view-goal, things get worse. We have two massive example of this happening when Christianity was ruled as official religion of the Roman Empire by Constantine, which doomed Europe to 800 years of cultural regression (Romans had public transport, artificial water supply control, and most of technology we were able to get back in late ONLY in 1600), and thrown us in the dark Middle Age, from which we were able to get out thanks to rebellious intellectual movements (alternative, non-religious views and goals), and in the end of the golden age of the Persian empire. They invented Algebra, gave name to the stars, and had some of the most advanced technology of the world at the time, but then Islam came and deemed numbers as the "work of devil"; and they still have to recover from that.

    If anything, religion was an illness that the societies were doomed to withstand, and able to survive to.

  8. I am a Christian and I have no hatred or dislike toward atheists. In fact, I love them. I believe that a part of God lies within each of them…whether they believe it or not…and I am out to discover every facet of God I can find. I think He hid a bit of Himself inside each person for others to discover and enjoy. I also don't think trustworthiness is the reason people dislike atheists…I think that many people falsely associate atheists with satanists (Jesus said, those who are not with Me are against Me). I think in general, people are afraid of atheists. Atheists challenge us to really dig into our faith and examine what we believe and why we believe it. Many people can't come out on the other end of that with their faith intact…so they run from it.

  9. I think people are confusing atheism with sociopaths. They think that the lack of compassion and the lack of supernatural beliefs go hand in hand. The truth is likely that there are only about 10% of human beings who develop the logical mathematical thinking ability to understand rational processes like the scientific method. The rest of humanity lacks the understanding and curiosity to see the beauty behind the veil and just accepts a certain amount of mystery in their lives. To lazy to question authority, or deal with the conflicts that arise, they simply try to 'fit-in' to their local group and take advantage of the community. Atheists are usually those who for some reason are ostracized from the community, because of sexual desire, or simply because they see the damage and hypocrisy that the local religious political scheme inflicts often outweighs any advantages. But the thing that ultimately dams all religions is that our technology has out run our tribal nature, and we can't allow religions to rule our actions in a world with WMD. This is the ultimate existential dilemma.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here