Religious vs. Nonreligious - Who is More Trustworthy?

[Quintessence]

Interesting that the atheists show the strongest bias. Highlighting my contention that most atheists are really just anti-religion. So much so that real atheists have pretty much been driven right out from under the atheist label umbrella.

If you look at the rest of the survey that I pulled that from, that narrative comes out even moreso. I thought about making a thread about that too, but... I'm pretty sure I know how that would go and I know better.

 

[Quintessence]

I said no answer. Overall, it comes down to the individual. But an individual's beliefs...both religious and non-religious...can impact on behaviour to some degree.

So the question doesn't quite make sense to me as stated (but is an interesting talking point).

I felt that way about most of the survey this particular data table was from. In spite of PEW having done work recently that casts light on how dated their approach to surveying is, they still use a lot of the same metrics that don't do a good job of capturing the complexity of the issues they are studying. I suppose they do that in part so they can run multi-year comparisons, but still.

 

[Quintessence]

Well, to answer that, I ask myself the question: what are the factors that determine thrustworthiness? What incentives do people have to betray trust? What logical path exists from (a)theism to such an incentive?

I interpret it as being simple in-group, out-group dynamics which are pretty universal across a wide variety of things. We are more inclined to trust those who are "like us" and less inclined to trust those who are "not like us." That is reflected across the data.

As for the rest of your observations, I strongly disagree that theism comes with any sort of set of rules. All theism says is "this person accepts some particular god-concept in their worldview." That's it. Nothing else beyond that. I'll grant that the religions the survey included are all theistic (sans the nebulous "unaffiliated" group) - and monotheistic at that - but let's remember not to conflate theism with religion (or especially with monotheist religions). It also seems pretty obvious that where someone does adhere to some religion with dictums for behavior that the actual effect of that is pretty... well... inconsistent would be a polite way of putting it? There's more I could remark on about that, but I think I'll save that point for the moment.

 

[Quintessence]

The Hard core of both are not honest with themselves and therefore untrustworthy however the moderates of both are very trustworthy.

This is interesting. What about being "hardcore" indicates untrustworthiness to you? In thinking about that, could you shed some more light on what you mean by "hardcore?"

 

[Thief]

I voted "equally trustworthy" - because in the end it is probably a wash. There's a range of "trustworthiness" on both sides of the proposed "coin."

you win

as for me....not having a religion

maybe you people should take my postings with a grain of salt

and an aspirin
and a calcium tab
and some anti histamine
and maybe a laxative
and some hemorrhoidal cream

but no haggis
@Revoltingest
definitely not

 

[Quintessence]

I was the one who said religious people are more trustworthy.

What do you think led you to feel this way? It was something in your life experiences, but what was it? What does it mean to be "religious" to you and how does that intersect with the concept of trustworthiness?

 

[Quintessence]

It depends on the person not what they call themselves.

Outward symbols, forms and lip service can never hope to compare with good deeds and upright character. A person may call himself pagan but if he is trustworthy and of good character then he is truly religious whilst a person may call themselves religious but be unkind, cruel and a liar. So a man will be distinguished by his deeds not his name.

While I agree actions speak louder than titles and words, there's something I feel the need to clarify. When I say Pagan, I mean Pagan, not pagan. Paganism (proper case) is a religion... or more properly a religious movement that harkens back to indigenous polytheistic/animistic religions that our species practiced for most of its existence. While I recognize pagan (lower case) is a snarl word some people use to mean "atheist" or "people to hate" or "irreligious" that isn't at all what I meant in the OP.

 

[bobhikes]

This is interesting. What about being "hardcore" indicates untrustworthiness to you? In thinking about that, could you shed some more light on what you mean by "hardcore?"

The zealots, the hard right or anti-religious. Their belief, religious and atheist, is so strong they deny facts and only follow others like themselves. They seek only information that confirms their ideal and refute or ignore all other information. They will even complain about the moderates in their own cause. They will label other groups as opposition. Both groups have them and they are untrustworthy because they lie to themselves first and foremost.

 

[Laika]

Voted "No Answer/Refuse".

 

[Quintessence]

The zealots, the hard right or anti-religious. Their belief, religious and atheist, is so strong they deny facts and only follow others like themselves. They seek only information that confirms their ideal and refute or ignore all other information. They will even complain about the moderates in their own cause. They will label other groups as opposition. Both groups have them and they are untrustworthy because they lie to themselves first and foremost.

Haha... that makes more sense. Though I am not blind to the irony that so-called "moderates" are in no way less prone to ignoring information that doesn't conform their ideals. Confirmation bias is a human universal - it doesn't care what ideology one professes to adhere to. I've conversed with quite a few hard-lined "moderates" who refuse to consider the merits of what the perceive as extremes. They're pretty dogmatic in that extreme/zealous must automatically be bad.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So to sum up:
- there's nothing inherently in atheism that might potentially influence trustworthiness
- there're many things in many different religions that might potentially influence trustworthiness. But you can't speak in general - you'ld have to see on a case by case basis.

I agree. But I think it's worth noting the religious impact could be positive or negative.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Haha... that makes more sense. Though I am not blind to the irony that so-called "moderates" are in no way less prone to ignoring information that doesn't conform their ideals. Confirmation bias is a human universal - it doesn't care what ideology one professes to adhere to. I've conversed with quite a few hard-lined "moderates" who refuse to consider the merits of what the perceive as extremes. They're pretty dogmatic in that extreme/zealous must automatically be bad.

They sound like extremists...ahem...

 

[Augustus]

Since atheism is a single position on a single issue, and doesn't come with its won set of rules on how one should live or anything like that, I can safely dismiss atheism as having an influence on wheter or not people will betray my trust. Just for the simple fact that there is nothing inherently part of atheism which would put the scale in any one direction.

Theism however.... theism DOES come with a set of rules by which the followers are supposed to live. So right there, there IS a potential incentive for people to betray my trust, for example when what I entrust them with is in conflict with their religious views. Obviously it would depend entirely on context as well as the content of the religious beliefs.

You are comparing apples and oranges here.

You are comparing theistic ideologies, with atheism where the correct comparison is with atheistic ideologies. All atheists still have ideologies as simply disbelieving in god doesn't make us less dependent on ideology to help make sense of the world.

Atheistic religions may also have sets of rules, just as theistic ones may do.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Just saying religious or not doesn't tell me if someone is trustworthy or not.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Personally I feel religious belief is irrelevant to ones trustworthiness. Rather silly to think that religious belief is any kind of indicator as to who might be trustworthy.

I can say, I am another who is mistrusting of Evangelicals/fundamentalists. I can trust them, however, to turn what Jesus taught and warp it into something toxic and abusive.

 

[Nakosis]

I can say, I am another who is mistrusting of Evangelicals/fundamentalists. I can trust them, however, to turn what Jesus taught and warp it into something toxic and abusive.

You'd think them fundamentalists would be more trustworthy since they know that God is watching them.

 

[Earthtank]

When it comes to trustworthiness, who wins the prize? The religious? The nonreligious?

way toooooooooooooo many factors to consider to ever even think about getting any meaningful answer.

 

[QuestioningMind]

When it comes to trustworthiness, who wins the prize? The religious? The nonreligious?

According to a recent survey done by the PEW Research group, roughly two-thirds of Americans would respond with: neither!

Source: Americans trust both religious, nonreligious people​

This is great, considering how little the category of "religious" and "nonreligious" really means given the heterogeneity of both groups. Drilling down into the data, though, we see some expected in-group and out-group biases. What I find pretty funny about these biases is that given the heterogeneity of these groups, should I really take from this that Evangelicals would consider a Pagan like me more trustworthy simply for being religious? I doubt it. While surveys like these are interesting, they certainly have their limitations.

What do you think of these findings? What are your thoughts on the trustworthiness of "religious" and "nonreligious" people? What do those categories mean to you?

It's a silly question in my opinion. May as well as if redheaded or blonde haired people are more or less trustworthy.

 

[Milton Platt]

It's funny to me that Evangelicals are more likely than other religious groups to consider religious people more trustworthy than non-religious people. That is something I would expect of Evangelicals -- I would expect them to think that -- but it is still funny because I know business people who will not do handshake deals with Evangelicals -- based on having gotten screwed by them once or twice too often.

I am talking about business people who ordinarily would not care one bit what religion you are -- money is money. But their actual experience has been that doing handshake deals with Evangelicals is unusually risky. If they are going to do business with an Evangelical, they want the deal in writing.

It is especially risky when a person mentions their religion in the course of doing business. It's a red flag for me.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It's a silly question in my opinion. May as well as if redheaded or blonde haired people are more or less trustworthy.

Well...clearly blondes are more trustworthy but isn't that what makes redheads more fun?