Religious vs. Nonreligious - Who is More Trustworthy?

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

I strongly disagree with your idea that theism doesn't come with some sort of set of rules.
Sure, the "abstract" of "theism" doesn't. But the concrete implementation thereof, does.

"Theism" is going to manifest as being a specific religion like Islam, Christianity, etc.
To say that these religions don't come with a set of rules that need to be / sould be followed by the believers, is quite... well... obviously wrong.

Also note that I explicitly stated that it can't be said "in general". Context and specifics are important here.
For example, a fundamentalist muslim (like a member of ISIS or Al-qaida or whatever)) is going to act and think differently about plenty of things as opposed to some moderate muslim. I might trust the moderate with a hunting knife. The fundamentalist - not so much.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Absolutely. Reading my post again, I didn't mention that - that's on me. But yes, you are absolutely correct.

Taking my example of the sandwich and the 10 euro bill... it goes both ways indeed. There might be stuff part of the belief system that says the exact opposite: never to take money that isn't yours or to always return things to their rightful owner. The same logic off course goes both ways.

I guess I interpreted the thread as being geared towards what would negatively impact trustworthiness.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are comparing apples and oranges here.

You are comparing theistic ideologies, with atheism where the correct comparison is with atheistic ideologies.

No, I'm just responding to the OP, which is all about comparing the religious to the non-religious. It doesn't specify what other beliefs the non-religious might have. All that is mentioned is that religious beliefs aren't present.

Having said that, there's no such thing as "atheist ideologies". Sure, there are ideologies that doesn't include any gods. But to relate that to atheism is nonsensical. It's like talking about "atheistic theory of plate tectonics".

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.

Sure. And these ideologies aren't inherently part of atheism.

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

what kind of "atheistic religion" falls under the flag of "non-religious"?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Redheads off course... blondes are far to stupid to scheme and lie without it being painfully obvious.



//bad blondes joke

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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

No, people think we're more fun because after we steal a soul, the body is left permanently disoriented which creates a high sort of feeling.

 

[Howard Is]

No, people think we're more fun because after we steal a soul, the body is left permanently disoriented which creates a high sort of feeling.

Is that what this feeling is ?
Damn.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Absolutely. Reading my post again, I didn't mention that - that's on me. But yes, you are absolutely correct.

Taking my example of the sandwich and the 10 euro bill... it goes both ways indeed. There might be stuff part of the belief system that says the exact opposite: never to take money that isn't yours or to always return things to their rightful owner. The same logic off course goes both ways.

I guess I interpreted the thread as being geared towards what would negatively impact trustworthiness.

Yup. I wasn't reading your post as negative, more just that I was clarifying my take. But seems like we're on the same page.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

No, people think we're more fun because after we steal a soul, the body is left permanently disoriented which creates a high sort of feeling.

That's a little deeper than I was headed, so sure...let's go with that. It makes me sound less vapid.

 

[atanu]

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?

Both in the cited PEW poll and also in the RF poll, non religious have voted overwhelmingly in their own favour. What may be their data?

 

[Augustus]

No, I'm just responding to the OP, which is all about comparing the religious to the non-religious. It doesn't specify what other beliefs the non-religious might have. All that is mentioned is that religious beliefs aren't present.

Your reasoning is fallacious though. We know that atheists hold other ideological beliefs that may or may not be conducive to dishonesty the same as with theists. The question is a generalisation, so it doesn't matter that other beliefs are not specified as we are talking about the totality or religious v irreligious worldviews.

Theism and atheism on their own are single issue, but you were comparing theistic belief systems (ideologies) with "single issue" atheism, rather than the like for like comparison: atheistic belief systems (ideologies).

If we flip your argument we can make the same point in reverse. Theism on its own is just belief in god, it has no rules. Atheistic ideologies on the other hand contain guiding principles that may cause someone to behave dishonestly.

This is no more fallacious than your argument.

Having said that, there's no such thing as "atheist ideologies". Sure, there are ideologies that doesn't include any gods. But to relate that to atheism is nonsensical. It's like talking about "atheistic theory of plate tectonics".

Of course there are atheistic ideologies, and it makes perfect sense to describe an atheist's worldview as being atheistic.

Atheism is even a fundamental axiom in numerous ideologies so it's hardly incidental to the belief system.

 

[Quintessence]

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

And yet only a fraction of the respondents gave "no answer" with the survey. It makes one wonder, eh?

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

It really depends on context, yeah? For some services it is not only extremely relevant but irresponsible not to discuss it. Counseling comes to mind in particular here as religious perspectives (or cultural perspectives more broadly, seeing as how religion is a subset of everyone's culture) are critical to understanding a client and building a good relationship between a therapist and a client.

 

[Quintessence]

"Theism" is going to manifest as being a specific religion like Islam, Christianity, etc.
To say that these religions don't come with a set of rules that need to be / sould be followed by the believers, is quite... well... obviously wrong.

Setting aside that there are religions that don't come with "a set of rules" (aka, are non-dogmatic and/or non-creedal), I've also meet and spoken with plenty of folks who are in the "spiritual but not religious" demographic. That is to say, their theological perspective (which is usually theistic) does not manifest as being a specific religion, much less dogmas or rules. This is becoming more rather than less common, actually.

Both in the cited PEW poll and also in the RF poll, non religious have voted overwhelmingly in their own favour. What may be their data?

Indeed... it's why I mention in-group and out-group bias in the OP. That kind of pattern is reflective of this - we're going to rate "like us" people more trustworthy than "not like us" people.

 

[SigurdReginson]

I chose equally trust worthy. From what I've experienced in life, personal character is the thing that shines through everything else when all is said and done.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your reasoning is fallacious though. We know that atheists hold other ideological beliefs that may or may not be conducive to dishonesty the same as with theists.

But the OP question isn't about that. It is only about if believing in a god or not believing in a god, impacts percepetion of trustwortiness.

The question is a generalisation, so it doesn't matter that other beliefs are not specified as we are talking about the totality or religious v irreligious worldviews.

I interpreted it otherwise, about how perception of trustworthiness is impacted by believing in a god vs not believing in a god.

If it's not and the it's rather about the generalisation of like, literaly everything anyone could believe at any time... then I'ld say that the question is rather stupid since then it could be rephrased as "do you think that some belief one can hold could impact trustworthiness more or less then another belief one can hold".

Well... yeah. Sounds like stating the obvious.
Some beliefs/worldviews are going to impact it more then others, sure.

Theism and atheism on their own are single issue, but you were comparing theistic belief systems (ideologies) with "single issue" atheism, rather than the like for like comparison: atheistic belief systems (ideologies).

I was comparing theism with atheism, yes.
Atheism as such as being: anything that doesn't include gods.

And I stick by my answer.

Your behaviour is determined by the things you DO believe, not by the things you don't believe.
So, there is no logical pathway from the mere fact of atheism towards incentives for more or less trustworthiness. In theism, there can be, since theism includes doctrines and rules and duties and such, within the context of the specific religion that is being followed.

Atheism doesn't have anything like that. Or better put in context of my response: there's none you can derive from that. Because one doesn't derive such things from "not believing". Such things are determined by what you DO believe. So someone's theism is going to define that person's worldview. Someone's atheism, is not going to do that. That person's worldview will necessarily have to have another source.

By these "atheistic ideologies", I'll go ahead and assume you mean things like secular humanism? Or even communism or something like that?

Here's how it's different. Communism is not a type of atheism. Secular humanism, is not a type of atheism. But christianity IS a type of theism. Islam IS a type of theism.

If we flip your argument we can make the same point in reverse. Theism on its own is just belief in god, it has no rules. Atheistic ideologies on the other hand contain guiding principles that may cause someone to behave dishonestly.

Except that I don't actually think that you can give me a single example of "atheistic ideology", as all those that you will come with, might also appeal to theists.
For example, I don't see how the political ideology of communism could only ever be atheistic. In fact, I'ld say a good case could be made to say that Jesus in the bible preaches communism or something akin to it. It doesn't sound like he would like capitalists very much in any case.

Secular humanism is the same. They are only atheistic insofar as they don't include any gods or don't have to. They are not atheistici in the sense that you can't be a member of the club unless you are an atheist.
Theists can be communists, right?
But an atheist can not be a christian or a muslim. That would be like a married bachelor.

Of course there are atheistic ideologies, and it makes perfect sense to describe an atheist's worldview as being atheistic.

But the question is, are these ideologies you speak off but haven't named yet, exclusive to atheists?
Can only atheists adhere to said worldviews?

Atheism is even a fundamental axiom in numerous ideologies so it's hardly incidental to the belief system.

Perhaps as an inclusion, but that's hardly the same as being derived from it.

That is to say, christianity is an instance of theism.
But communism (for example) is not an instance of atheism. It might include "forced atheism" (that is to say: forbid religion; make it illegal), but that is hardly the same as actually being atheism.


Nothing in atheism mandates any kind of behaviour whatsoever.
I, on the other hand, know of no instance of theism that does NOT mandate or even requires or prohibits any kind of behaviour.

And it is from that perspective that I formulated my answer.

 

[Segev Moran]

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?

I cant see how being religious or not have any impact to one being trustworthy

 

[Augustus]

But the OP question isn't about that. It is only about if believing in a god or not believing in a god, impacts percepetion of trustwortiness.

I think you misunderstood the OP. It was about religion/irreligion.

If it's not and the it's rather about the generalisation of like, literaly everything anyone could believe at any time... then I'ld say that the question is rather stupid since then it could be rephrased as "do you think that some belief one can hold could impact trustworthiness more or less then another belief one can hold".

That's sort of the point of the OP: given the diversity in both religious and irreligious beliefs it's a bit strange to see people holding preferences especially as they seem to constitute an in-group bias.

Your behaviour is determined by the things you DO believe, not by the things you don't believe.
So, there is no logical pathway from the mere fact of atheism towards incentives for more or less trustworthiness. In theism, there can be, since theism includes doctrines and rules and duties and such, within the context of the specific religion that is being followed.

My atheism certainly influences my thoughts and behaviour, yours does too.

Why does mere theism i.e. belief in gods have any doctrines though? Deism has rules?

Theistic religions may do, sure, but that would be the apples and oranges I was talking about.

But the question is, are these ideologies you speak off but haven't named yet, exclusive to atheists?
Can only atheists adhere to said worldviews?

You couldn't be a theist and be a doctrinaire Marxist (in the sense of following the actual ideology of Marx rather than any thing dubbed loosely 'Marxism'). That would be like being a fundamentalist Muslim who isn't a theist. Marx and numerous of his adherents, are pretty explicit on atheism being essential to his worldview as it is fundamental to their moral and political philosophy.

But that is beside the point, it doesn't matter if any belief system is exclusive to atheists, it matters that it is the worldview held by atheists in place of a theistic worldview.

Atheists and theists both hold worldviews and this worldview may or may not be conducing to honesty. It makes no sense to assume we can only identify theists as having worldviews, and must disregard the worldviews of atheists even though we know for certain that they have one.

 

[Quintessence]

But the OP question isn't about that. It is only about if believing in a god or not believing in a god, impacts percepetion of trustwortiness.

I just want to throw this here...

I think you misunderstood the OP. It was about religion/irreligion.

... because this is very much the case.

I get that a lot of people in Western culture make the mistake of conflating theism with religion and atheism with irreligion constantly. It's incorrect, annoying, and something many of us need to work on erasing from our brains. Non-theistic (at times explicitly atheistic) religions are a thing, and the "spiritual but not religious" crowd of who usually affirm some sort of god-concept but do not affiliate with a religion are also a very common thing. The survey asked about trustworthiness as it relates to being (or not being) religious, however that was interpreted by the listener. And while it's fair to say that at least some listeners no doubt make the interpretive conflation @TagliatelliMonster has, a fair number probably didn't.

What we'd really want to do in order to get at this would be some follow-up surveys framing the issue of trustworthiness in different ways. Those of us who are familiar with survey methodology are very aware of how the framing of a question can significantly change how the same group of people respond to it. Just as an example, imagine if I had not provided a "no answer/refuse" in my own poll and forced participants to actually choose. Where would those votes go? We don't know. In any case, I'm pretty sure that if we dove into questions like "are people who accept my god or gods more trustworthy" we'd see the same in-group and out-group biases.

 

[Milton Platt]

And yet only a fraction of the respondents gave "no answer" with the survey. It makes one wonder, eh?



It really depends on context, yeah? For some services it is not only extremely relevant but irresponsible not to discuss it. Counseling comes to mind in particular here as religious perspectives (or cultural perspectives more broadly, seeing as how religion is a subset of everyone's culture) are critical to understanding a client and building a good relationship between a therapist and a client.

The religious beliefs of the counselor should have no bearing on the counsel given to the client. That is irresponsible.

 

[Quintessence]

The religious beliefs of the counselor should have no bearing on the counsel given to the client. That is irresponsible.

Then you've clearly never had counseling for something for which discussing religion was very relevant to your recovery or situation. Sorry, but you are simply wrong here.

 

[Milton Platt]

Then you've clearly never had counseling for something for which discussing religion was very relevant to your recovery or situation. Sorry, but you are simply wrong here.

I did not say that. I said that the counselor's religious views should have no bearing..