People Say They’re Good if They Think God is Watching

[cleanhippie]

If you subliminally remind people about God, it can change their behaviour in all sorts of interesting ways. It can make people more honest, more obedient, more punishing, and even more persevering against impossible odds. And although it’s not certain, it seems to work for atheists as well as the religious.

Nobody really knows quite how this effect works, but one possibility is that reminding people about God creates in them the sensation that they are being watched. If people feel like they’re being watched, their behaviour changes markedly (even simply stick a photo of a pair of eyes in their peripheral vision, and they cheat less and condemn more).

--snip--

What Gervais found in his undergraduate subjects was that believers tend not to give socially desirable responses, unless they get primed first with thoughts of God. Non-believers, on the other hand, were more likely to give the socially desirable response without priming, and priming didn’t have any affect on them.

What these studies show is that god primes really do seem to trigger responses that you would expect if people felt they were being watched. That’s certainly the case for believers, although perhaps not so for non-believers.

http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2012/01/19/people-say-theyre-good-if-they-think-god-is-watching-2/

Interesting. Expanded results of the study at the link.

[rrneck]

1. I read somewhere that

over time punishment for crime has become less draconian while the ability to avoid punishment for crime has become more difficult.

Maybe that's part of why we seem to need God less now since there actually is someone there to "see" our crimes now.

[ZombieHorde]

2. The sociology of religion is one of the most interesting subjects to me.

Religion's effects on society are so complex.

[cbayer]

3. Science says people are "mostly good" without God.

Do these two studies completely contradict each other?

http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-atlanta/scientists-say-people-are-mostly-good-without-god

A recent study gives us a fascinating look into how humans "naturally" behave. Scientists collected data from the online game Pardus, which has over 300,000 players, and crunched it through a series of analysis techniques for complex systems. The game is one where the players are free to behave in any way they choose, with no built in advantages for good or bad. The bottom line? Humans are mostly good, most of the time, and they generally behave well even if there are no laws preventing bad behavior.

[tama]

4. In both cases people act knowing

that they are known, either by playmates or All-Knowing. And in neither cases there is no Authority telling them what to do and freeing them from responsibility.

But when there is a law creating bad behavior, an authority telling them e.g. to give electric shocks to someone, most people obey, even though they feel very badly about that and suffer from doing it.

Socio-psychological evidence in support of anarchy and against authoritarian hierarchies.

[PassingFair]

5. They DON'T obey if they see someone else NOT obeying.

"Later experiments conducted by Milgram indicated that the presence of rebellious peers dramatically reduced obedience levels. When other people refused to go along with the experimenters orders, 36 out of 40 participants refused to deliver the maximum shocks."


Willingness to shock dropped DRASTICALLY when the subjects saw someone else refuse to participate.

Children need to be taught to question, not to obey.

[tama]

6. Thanks

Didn't know that about Milgram studies and that's great, there's hope after all!

[Jim__]

8. No "built-in" advantages for good or bad behavior, but dire social consequences.

... Players with a high fraction of negative actions tend to have a significantly shorter life. This may be due to two reasons: First because they are hunted down by others and give up playing, second because they are unable to maintain a social life and quit the game because of loneliness or frustration. We interpret these findings as empirical evidence for self organization towards reciprocal, good conduct within a human society. ...

I think that's the way it works in life. People are good because there are serious consequences to being bad. People may be bad if they think they can get away with it. I would expect that natural selection would reinforce the tendency toward cooperative behavior.

[PassingFair]

9. Most people are good because it feels good to be good.

NOT because "there are serious consequences to being bad."

[Jim__]

11. Is feeding the hungry a good thing to do?

There are about 1 billion hungry people in the world. Yet there is an abundant supply of food for every person. Why don't most people do the "good" thing and feed the hungry? Most people, especially well-fed people, feel fine ignoring the problems of the hungry. Does that imply that ignoring the problems of the hungry is a good thing?

Or, take another example. What do you think would happen to government revenues in the US if they got rid of all the tax auditors and told people they would rely on their honesty in reporting and paying their tax bills? Do you really think that people would continue to pay their taxes because it feels good to do it? Of course, you can say that not paying taxes is a good thing; but then, if your conscience tells you that not paying your taxes is a good thing, are you following your conscience on this? Are most people?

Sure, people will do things that make them feel good. But, just because something feels good doesn't mean it is good. Nor can we say that just because something doesn't feel good that it is not good.

[PassingFair]

12. Many people do feed the hungry. People are not as intrinsically evil as you think.

I pay my taxes because I believe that the commons must be funded,
and a functioning government makes me feel good, so yes,
I guess I DO good things because it makes me feel good.

If we were weren't overwhelmingly GOOD, we would have annihilated ourselves long ago.

And most people do NOT "... feel fine ignoring the problems of the hungry" if those people
are in front of them, they would share.

That's why advocacy for the poor is so important.

You do not need divine rules or oversight to be good.

[Jim__]

13. First of all, I don't make any assumption that people are intrinsically evil.

Second, whether or not many people feed the hungry does not address the problem of 1 billion hungry people in a world with an abundance of food. The claim that people would share if hungry people were in front of them assumes only people living in isolation are hungry. That's an incorrect assumption.

Your answer with respect to taxes has nothing to do with the question I asked which was: What do you think would happen to government revenues in the US if they got rid of all the tax auditors and told people they would rely on their honesty in reporting and paying their tax bills?

As to your claim: If we were weren't overwhelmingly GOOD, we would have annihilated ourselves long ago, human history is a direct rebuttal to the claim that we are overwhelmingly GOOD.

As to your remark You do not need divine rules or oversight to be good, I have no idea what it is referring to.

[PassingFair]

14. The fact that humans...

are not HISTORY

... shows that our desire to live together
without violence is the fount of our basic goodness.

As to my remark: You do not need divine rules or oversight to be good.

I mean: You do not need the threat eternal damnation or an omnipotent punisher to do good.

[humblebum]

7. You always refer to an interesting range of sources in your posts.

Let's see. Atheist pub, secular, atheist, atheist, secular humanist, radical atheist, secular, atheist.... Yessiree! Nothing like expanding one's horizons.

[cleanhippie]

10. Thank you for your response.

Have a nice day.