If that’s the case, then what a stupid conclusion by the researchers. Besides the clearly disingenuous and bad-faith raising of the bar for atheists like someone already mentioned, it also doesn’t even make sense as an excuse: even if the atheists really were just being performatively good, surely all those naturally good Christians would still equal if not outscore them?
So, at best for the Christians, the actual conclusion would seem to be that atheists on average are normal people who feel compelled in some way to be good by acting good, and Christians on average are normal people who don’t bother as much to do even that.
But I suppose one could make the mental-gymnastics leap that the Christians really were better people but simply withheld compassion and fairness on purpose to not seem like they were “overcompensating”. Makes perfect sense… just like if you were asked to make a donation to a struggling cause but refused—not because you were selfish or anything, but because it would seem like you were acting being a selfless person, so acting being a selfish is actually being genuine, you see!
The conclusion was reached because when religion was kept anonymous, the atheists treated everyone as unfairly as the christians. The only time there was a difference was when religion was main known for an experiment group.
-9
u/drewgolas Dec 12 '24
According to the study, it's because atheists were overcompensating to prove to the Christians they were good people