Study: Atheists are nicer to Christians than Christians are to Atheists

20 May 2020

A study published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology provides evidence that atheists behave more fairly towards Christians than Christians behave towards atheists.

The Independent reports:

Atheists are more generous toward Christians than Christians are toward them, a new study has claimed.

Researchers at Ohio University asked participants to share monetary rewards with partners in a version of the “dictator game”, in which one person had no power to affect the division of the bounty.

When atheists were told of their partner’s religious beliefs, they “behaved impartially toward ingroup and outgroup partners,” the study’s authors wrote in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.

However, “Christians consistently demonstrated an ingroup bias”.

Lead author of the study, Colleen Cowgill, explained to PsyPost: “The rise of the so-called ‘New Atheists’ about a decade ago coupled with the ongoing ‘culture wars’ between religious and secular groups in the United States has led atheists as a population to gain an unprecedented level of visibility in this country in recent years, even as their prevalence has only incrementally increased. This has sparked a particular interest in anti-atheist prejudice research in social psychology.”

In 2017 a study in Canada found that a majority (76%) of people did not believe being religious made someone a better citizen. And more than half of those polled believed faith did more harm than good. In Britain, fewer than a quarter of people believe religion is a force for good.

Sam Harris offers a detailed explanation of why he feels morality based on the Christian God is lacking.

Does Believing in God Make You Dumb?

Atheists and Christians Debate Truth And Belief

Ricky Gervais And Stephen Go Head-To-Head On Religion

Be sure to ‘like’ us on Facebook

7 COMMENTS

  1. Is this supposed to convince someone of something?

    Arthur Brooks cites numerous studies that show that in the United States serious believers are, in fact, far more generous with their money, time, and even blood than people who don't hold beliefs. That's really evidence. This, by contrast, appears to be merely a game some people played.

    And one cannot lump all "religions" (whatever they are) into one category. As an historian, I am confident that Christianity has, in fact, changed the world much for the better, and could give you reams of evidence to show that. I have no such confidence about, say, the Aztec religion.

    • Arthur Brooks is American, a country where the majority of citizens are Christian. It could be assumed that when donating blood or money, that the anonymous recipient will more than likely be Christian. It's often only when someone identifys themselves as an Atheist that we are treated differently. In this experiment, the Atheists were known and it was clearly shown that Christians greatly prefer their own.

    • Note that the study in the article was about one particular aspect: generosity while knowing the "target's" religious affiliation, and the conclusion that Atheists are more sharing with Christians than Christians are with Atheists.

      I know a fair number of Christians who are quite willing to "share" with their church, or with Christian causes, or perhaps even with Christian charities that provided help to poor people (though often on a "We will give you food if you listen to our sermon" basis). None of that is the object of the study in this article.

      I have also known or known of Christian business owners or managers who were quite willing to unfairly advantage other Christians, and indeed members of their own sect over other Christians, compared to non-Christians. Some were even defensive about how that was the correct thing for them to do, and that laws against it were discriminating against them because of their religion.

  2. There is no test to differentiate a real Christian from a fake one. i.e. someone who believes and understands enough to make their beliefs close enough to the doctrine to be classified objectively as someone who is, vs. someone who is pretending.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here