The Myth of the Angry Atheist

Meier, Brian P.; Fetterman, Adam K.; Robinson, Michael D.; Lappas, Courtney M.

doi:10.1080/00223980.2013.866929

Cited by 15 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Advocates of science have also been accused of being strident, angry, and intolerant of their opponents. For example, all of these attributes have frequently been ascribed to the so-called “New Atheists” [17, 18, 19]. At the core of the argument put forth by the New Atheists is the idea that it is important to embrace a scientific world-view, to rely on reason and evidence when evaluating the quality of ideas, and to reject faith-based claims [20, 21, 22, 23].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moralized Rationality: Relying on Logic and Evidence in the Formation and Evaluation of Belief Can Be Seen as a Moral Issue

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the present article we demonstrate stable individual differences in the extent to which a reliance on logic and evidence in the formation and evaluation of beliefs is perceived as a moral virtue, and a reliance on less rational processes is perceived as a vice. We refer to this individual difference variable as moralized rationality. Eight studies are reported in which an instrument to measure individual differences in moralized rationality is validated. Results show that the Moralized Rationality Scale (MRS) is internally consistent, and captures something distinct from the personal importance people attach to being rational (Studies 1–3). Furthermore, the MRS has high test-retest reliability (Study 4), is conceptually distinct from frequently used measures of individual differences in moral values, and it is negatively related to common beliefs that are not supported by scientific evidence (Study 5). We further demonstrate that the MRS predicts morally laden reactions, such as a desire for punishment, of people who rely on irrational (vs. rational) ways of forming and evaluating beliefs (Studies 6 and 7). Finally, we show that the MRS uniquely predicts motivation to contribute to a charity that works to prevent the spread of irrational beliefs (Study 8). We conclude that (1) there are stable individual differences in the extent to which people moralize a reliance on rationality in the formation and evaluation of beliefs, (2) that these individual differences do not reduce to the personal importance attached to rationality, and (3) that individual differences in moralized rationality have important motivational and interpersonal consequences.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moralized Rationality: Relying on Logic and Evidence in the Formation and Evaluation of Belief Can Be Seen as a Moral Issue

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Researchers have found that atheists are among the least favorably viewed groups in the United States (Edgell, Gerteis, & Hartmann, 2006; Jones, 2012), often experiencing discrimination (Hammer, Cragun, Hwang, & Smith, 2012). In addition, atheists are perceived as untrustworthy (Franks & Scherr, 2014; Gervais, Shariff, & Norenzayan, 2011), immoral (Cook, Cottrell, & Webster, 2015; Wright & Nichols, 2014), and angry (Meier, Fetterman, Robinson, & Lappas, 2015). Further, atheists are generally underrepresented in the scientific literature and in psychology scholarship in particular (Brewster, Robinson, Sandil, Esposito, & Geiger, 2014).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Atheism as a Concealable Stigmatized Identity: Outness, Anticipated Stigma, and Well-Being

Abbott

Mollen

2018

The Counseling Psychologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a preliminary exploration of atheists using a concealable stigmatized identity framework, we investigated outness, identity magnitude, anticipated stigma, and psychological and physical well-being. Atheists (N = 1,024) in the United States, completed measures of outness, atheist identity magnitude, anticipated stigma, and psychological and physical wellbeing online. Consistent with predictions, we found small but significant associations between (a) anticipated stigma and well-being, (b) social components of atheist identity magnitude and outness as well as well-being, and (c) outness and well-being. A significant and moderate association was found between anticipated stigma and outness. There were significant, small indirect effects of ingroup ties, a social component of atheist identity magnitude, on psychological and physical well-being via outness; and of ingroup affect, another social component of magnitude, on psychological well-being via disclosure of atheist identity. Implications for research, practice, and training are offered.

show abstract

“…Correspondingly, studies note that atheists in the US experience anti-atheist discrimination (Hammer et al 2012), and that these experiences may have deleterious outcomes on mental health (Brewster et al 2016) or employment status (Wallace et al 2014). One of the rationales offered to account for anti-atheist prejudice is that atheists themselves are hostile towards religious groups (Meier et al 2015;Uzarevic et al 2017), implying that subsequent anti-atheist prejudice is responsive and justifiable. Functionally, atheists are perceived to be antagonistic towards religious groups and the dislike of atheists is 'retaliatory.'…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Love thy Neighbour… or not: Christians, but not Atheists, Show High In-Group Favoritism

Speed

Brewster

2021

Secularism and Nonreligion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Atheists are among the most disliked groups in America, which has been explained in a variety of ways, one of which is that atheists are hostile towards religion and that anti-atheist prejudice is therefore reactive. We tested this hypothesis by using the 2018 American General Social Survey by investigating attitudes towards atheists, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, and Muslims. We initially used a general sample of Americans, but then identified and isolated individuals who were atheists, theists, nonreligious atheists, religious theists, and/or theistic Christians. Logically, if atheists were inordinately hostile towards religion, we would expect to see a greater degree of in-group favouritism in the atheist group and a greater degree of out-group dislike. Results indicated several notable findings: 1). Atheists were significantly more disliked than any other religious group. 2). Atheists rated Christians, Buddhists, Jews, and Hindus as favourably as they rated their own atheist in-group, but rated Muslims less positively (although this effect was small). 3). Christian theists showed pronounced ingroup favouritism and a strong dislike towards atheists. No evidence could be found to support the contention that atheists are hostile towards religious groups in general, and towards Christians specifically, although this may have been a Type II error. If atheist groups do dislike religious groups, then this hypothetical dislike would be significantly smaller in magnitude than the dislike directed toward atheists by Christians.

show abstract

The Myth of the Angry Atheist

Cited by 15 publications

References 47 publications

Moralized Rationality: Relying on Logic and Evidence in the Formation and Evaluation of Belief Can Be Seen as a Moral Issue

Moralized Rationality: Relying on Logic and Evidence in the Formation and Evaluation of Belief Can Be Seen as a Moral Issue

Atheism as a Concealable Stigmatized Identity: Outness, Anticipated Stigma, and Well-Being

Love thy Neighbour… or not: Christians, but not Atheists, Show High In-Group Favoritism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About