Do Christians Think They're Better Than Atheists?

Pic: Gabriel S. Delgado C. from Puerto Ordaz

Christians are often seen to be exhibiting an air of superiority. Usually this involves their preachy, holier than thou attitude to social interactions, but there are several psychological and philosophical reasons too. I sometimes wonder if they'd be secretly disappointed if everyone on Earth became a Christian and got into heaven. Who would they be superior to then? Six arguments are presented below for why Christians might think they're better than atheists. Following that, a number of psychological studies are cited that conclusively answer the question.

1. Christians get to go to heaven, but atheists don't. If the most perfect being in the universe thinks some people deserve paradise while others deserve torture, what does this tell us? That we're all equal, or that some people deserve more than others? Surely then, Christians believe that God has deemed them to be better.

2. Nearly every Christian I've met has tried to convert me to their faith. If they want me to be more like them, surely they think that becoming a Christian would improve me. If that's accurate, then they must think they're currently better.

3. Christians believe that Jesus was an ideal, perfect, model human. He was supposedly a god within the form of a man. So if Christians model their life upon him, they must believe they are closer to that perfection than atheists.

4. Christians believe that morality and love are perfect human attributes that come from God. By possessing these attributes, we supposedly accept a part of God into ourselves. However, by not loving God or following his commandments, how can an atheist hope to possess these attributes to the level of a Christian? Christians must believe they're more righteous and loving than atheists.

5. People often determine their strengths based on the alliances they keep. If Christians believe they are allied with the most powerful entity in the universe, they must believe they're stronger than atheists. In their eyes, they're better equipped to deal with the travails of life, and better protected by their celestial ally.

6. Christian groups often ask lawmakers to censor explicit words and violent imagery from music, books, movies, and video games. They try to dictate the lives of others by denying them the right to see this material. Clearly many Christians think their opinion is more important than everyone else's.

So, do Christians think they're better than atheists? Well, you actually don't need to take my word for it. A meta-analysis of several social surveys and psychological studies found that religiosity is correlated with self-enhancement and socially desirable responding. Religiosity is also correlated with the better than average effect, as well as socially desirable responding on questions about generosity and other pro-social or moral behaviors.

If Christians do possess an air of superiority (and it appears they do) it wouldn't be anything to be ashamed of. Most people compete for superiority and want to think of themselves as `better than average' or better than people from other social groups. Ultimately, no matter who we are, or what we claim to believe, our human instincts and evolutionary drive to compete shine through.

Why Are Religion and Morality Linked?

Picture: Public Domain via Wiki Commons.

Every major religion makes the claim that without the guidance and instruction of gods, we would be immoral and brutal beings. Whether it is the Ten Commandments (pictured), the Hindu Purusarthas, the Eight Fold Path, or the Five Pillars of Islam, religion and morality appear to be irrevocably linked in our minds and cultures.

Despite this connection, there is an obvious argument against religion giving rise to morality. It centers around the idea that organized religion requires a functioning society in order to exist; and societies require some form of moral behavior for people to cooperate with one another. Without a functioning society, there could have been no religion for the various prophets to disseminate their messages to.

Another argument against god-given morality is evidence for moral behavior in the animal kingdom. Many animals co-operate within packs, care for their young and elderly, demonstrate altruism, and exhibit anguish when a family member is killed. Just because our moral behavior is the most elaborately evolved on the planet, we shouldn't assume that we're the only species to have it.

So why are religion and morality heedlessly bundled together? I will summarize a number of potential reasons below:

1. They are conceptually similar. They both present mysterious, workable answers to some of our most important and difficult questions.
2. Gods are supposed to provide a watchful eye over our behavior, and if a deity is deemed to be morally concerned, our paranoia about being watched can make us act morally. As a result, we appear to have evolved a superstitious trigger for acting morally. When we believe we're being watched by a deity or spirit, we are less likely to cheat, and more likely to be cooperative. This is adaptive, meaning societies that behave this way are more likely to succeed.
3. Religious morality confirms our belief in being superior to the animal kingdom. If we believe morality is sent from the gods, we can also believe that we are special and distinct from the animal kingdom. This is a desirable belief to possess.
4. Religious morality makes us look trustworthy. By belonging to a religion, we advertise our adherence to the moral code of that religion. Therefore we only need to identify ourselves via a religious symbol or marking (e.g. a crucifix or skull cap) to extract the benefits of being considered moral.
5. Religious morality establishes control over the masses. The threat of hell is an effective way of ensuring obedience.
6. Religious morality gives particular people power. Clergymen claiming to know the will of gods have historically accumulated much power and wealth (e.g. the Pope). Kings seeking greater power can tap this resource by asking clergymen to endorse their coronation.

Unless we disentangle religion from morality, the absolutist messages of religion will continue to shape our systems of fairness and justice. This may have worked in the past when barbarism was commonplace. In today's world, a more nuanced approach is necessary to maximize the fairness of the justice system. By showing us where morals came from and how they work, evolutionary and social psychology may provide the best way to fine tune our moral code in future generations.

Can Science and Religion Ever be Compatible?

Picture: NASA and ESA via Wiki Commons.

When Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe is expanding, he provided evidence for an explosion that spawned the cosmos of stars and worlds we observe today (the Big Bang). When Charles Darwin discovered evolution through natural selection, he provided evidence for ancestral species that look nothing like those which currently reside on Earth. Both discoveries were groundbreaking enough to force some religious believers to reinterpret scripture. As a result, schisms opened up between traditionalists and progressives.

Within Christianity, Genesis became metaphorical for progressives, while traditionalists demanded a literal interpretation. Somewhere between these two camps, Intelligent Design (ID) emerged as an attempt to reconcile the conflicting views. It sought to scientifically prove that some organisms could only have been created by an intelligent being. Even though ID endorsed some areas of evolutionary science, it relied on the absolute certainty of God. Thus, ID failed because it was inherently biased. While scientists attempt to derive answers, the ID Christians started with an answer and tried to prove it correct. This is one of the reasons why science and religion are diametrically opposed. Christians start with an answer and work backwards. Scientists start with a question and work forwards.

It's worth mentioning that scientists have no particular desire to bring religious beliefs into question, though an objective search for truth will have casualties. The apparent conflict has caused religious believers to think scientists have adopted a set of anti-religious absolute truths. However, when Newton's theory of motion was supplanted by Einstein's, the old equations were changed. This example illustrates that no scientific theory is deemed sacred or absolutely certain. As such, scientists don't believe with certainty that the universe `came from nothing' as some religious folk would contend. That is merely an unproven theory.

Miracles are another source of contention between science and religion. When religious people declare something to be a miracle, they're effectively asking scientists to stop looking for an answer. For example, if enough people had declared fire to be a miracle, we might still be living in caves, holding onto each other for warmth. Indeed, why investigate the cause of something if a god made it happen magically? One might ask if religious people deserve to live in a world of phones, computers, motorcars and medicine. These are advances that relied on scientists looking at physical, chemical, and biological processes, and saying "this is not a miracle".

Perhaps the most incontrovertible reason why science and religion aren't compatible is a purely philosophical one. Religion endorses belief in absolute certainty, whereas science relies on nothing being absolutely certain. For this reason, they're inherently incompatible, and agreement is only found when the produce of science is consistent with something that religion has already deemed to be absolutely certain.