Perceptions of Discrimination Among Atheists: Consequences for Atheist Identification, Psychological and Physical Well-Being Doane, J. Michael. , & Elliot, Marta. University of Nevada, Reno. Psychology of religion and Spirituality 2015, Vol. 7, No. 2, 130-141 This article was written by Michael J. Doane and Marta Elliott for the purpose of discovering the outcome of discrimination and the consequences of Identification as an Atheist on their psychological and physical well-being. I believe that the title for this article is accurate as it accurately reflects the content of the article.
There is a lot of good information and hypothesis in this article, but unfortunately there is not enough conclusive evidence, nor is the gathered sample of the population actually random. With these major issues they could not gather accurate enough information to come to a definite conclusion. There are several thing right away that I do have to disagree with within this article. The authors use the terms “theological atheists” which they describe to mean “people who do not believe in god(s)” as well as the term “self-identifying atheists” as “people who identify as atheist from among other non-religious categories.
The term “theological atheist,” as they describe is redundant as the definition of Atheist is specifically the lack of belief in god(s). For “self-identifying atheist” they claim that some of these self-identifying atheists report varied beliefs in god(s). Which may be true, but then we must account that they are not actually atheists and should be excluded from the study because the studies focus is on people who do not believe in any god(s).
Some basic information about the atheist population that has been gathered so far that their research indicates that most of the atheist population tends to be male, educated, politically liberal and less likely to live in southern states or rural areas. Although the actual percentage between male and female atheists’ polls vary we unfortunately do not have an accurate ratio. According to a poll, (Pew Research Center, May, 2015. “America Changing Religious Landscapes”) 22. 8% of the US population is religiously unaffiliated and 3. % are Atheists.
Atheists are a marginalized group, a group of people blocked from various rights, opportunities, and resources that are normally available to members of different groups. There are many examples of atheists being barred from certain rights and opportunities in this country such as the Constitution of the State of Arkansas, (Article 19 section 1) “No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this state, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court.
This is just one of many examples. An atheist may not hold office in many states and are denied rights that everyone should have. “Atheist are less likely to be accepted publically and privately than any others from a long list of ethnic, religious, and other minority groups” (p 211 Edgell et) This article claims that 41% of atheists experience some form of discrimination during the five years before their study participation. (Cragun et al. 2012) I believe that this number may actually be much higher.
Many atheists do not share that facts that they are atheists because of fear of discrimination from either family members, friends’ coworkers, strangers and they fear that they will be ostracized. A lot of atheist are not very open about their atheism because of the repercussions they may face doing so. If people do not know that you are an atheists you are much less likely to be personally discriminated against as an atheist.
Although there may not be an accurate poll yet, I believe from my personal experiences, that I have to agree with the statement, “discrimination toward atheists is pervasive, stemming from various sources (e. . , family members, friends and coworkers) and involving such acts as ostracism (e. g. , being avoided or isolated), coercion (e. g. , pressured to engage in religious activities), and slander (e. g. , being told that one is sinful and immoral”; Hammer et al. , 2012). Being an open atheist leads to social rejection, threats of burning in hell, and even physical threats that are sometimes carried out. It’s unclear whether experiences of rejection undermine well-being for atheists.
The broader literature indicates that belonging to a marginalized group comes with psychological and even physical costs (Clark, Anderson, Clark, & Williams, 1999; Pascoe & Smart Richman, 2009) Based on the Rejection-Identification Model (RIM), studies of other marginalized groups our authors hypothesize that atheists may also experience the same affects, negative psychological and physical well-being. They also hypothesize that similar to other marginalized groups, atheists may cope with discrimination by finding in their stigmatized identity- a process of rejection and identification. Branscombe, Fernandez, Gomez, & Cronin, 2011; Branscombe et al. , 1999)
Our authors hypothesize based on the previous research, and I agree with them that, identification reduces the deleterious effects of discrimination on well-being. I definitely agree with this, all people feel the need to fit in and when we don’t, we look to others similar to us. This can also help a person, having other people with similar ideas as you to talk to and share ideas with. Being associated with groups with similar ideas as you can make you feel better about yourself and help you to deal with discrimination.
Being the only atheist in a place where everyone discriminates against you can be very hard, especially if you know that your family will disown you, it’s similar to what LGBTQ people go through. Although I believe that the effects on a person will vary greatly between each individual depending on their situation and location, circumstances are a big factor to consider. Atheists have been found to be especially threatening to people’s values and appear to experience pervasive rather than infrequent discrimination in the United States.
The difference in social power may cause some atheists to challenge and compete with religion. (Smith, 2013) The new atheist movement is an indication that some atheists join organizations of similar others to respond to perceived injustices against them by religious individuals and institutions. (Guenther et al. , 2013) I definitely do agree with these statements because atheists look for evidence whereas religion is faith based, when atheist question someone’s religion and make points that may complicate the religious persons religious views it makes them feel threatened.
Most atheists do not attack religious people themselves but the validity of their religion. We question things about their religions that they may not question or make bring up topics or points that they may not have thought of and no one wants to doubt their religion and so people feel threated by that. I also agree that some atheists join atheist or secular organizations to help deal with the injustices done to them and put upon them by our mostly Christian nation.
Just like members of a church group, it’s always comforting and reassuring that there are others that share your idea and will have your back and help stand up to the injustices put upon us. Another point that I have some disagreements with is the statement that, “people actively choose to be an atheist by rejecting the notion of a god(s) through a complex process of identity formation. ” (Smith, 2011) Our author’s state that the atheist identity differs from many other identities examined with the RIM model because it is both concealable and chosen.
Although an atheist may be able to conceal the facts that they are an atheist it can be a difficult task depending on circumstances, and that one should have to conceal that facts should not have to happen. The statement that atheists choose to be atheist is the part I disagree with the most. A person does not choose to be an atheist, a person is born an atheist and a religious person chooses what god(s) they believe, usually based on their parent’s belief or through indoctrination.
An atheists cannot choose to make themselves believe in any god with no evidence no matter how much they may wish that they could so that they may be accepted by society. Atheists do not conform to the majority just because they are a majority, just like the Milgram’s Obedience experiment from our textbooks, (Farias, Newheiser, Kahane, and de Toledo, 2013) found that relatively secular individuals reported greater conviction in science when under stress and anxiety.
Identifying with ones minority group and endorsing ones minority beliefs in the face of uncertainty may be a mechanism to help bolster one’s sense of self. All of the participants for our authors study came from members of the Atheist Alliance International (AAI). Although this may seem like a good sample group to conduct a survey, the results cannot be considered statistically relevant. AAI agreed to post the study information to its social media website, and encouraged its members to participate.
AAI also agreed to send email inviting people to participate, but because the sample population for this study is not random and is a voluntary response sample these numbers cannot be considered very accurate. Although these results are not statistically acceptable we can gather vague information from them. Out of the people who decided to participate, the 1007, 95% did not believe in god(s) and 5% were agnostic.
Through the participation of this sample group our authors where able to come to several conclusions all of which are unfortunately, “cross-sectional and cannot conclusively claim any causal links between the paths outlined in the RIM, including perceptions of discrimination affecting atheist identification and well-being. ” (Doane, and Elliott, 2015) We can draw from their results as well as from results on the studies of other marginalized groups about what the consequences could be and what identification could do but we must focus future studies on a broader scale of atheist to find a real correlation between them.
Rejection and identification process may ultimately protect well-being by reducing discriminations negative effects by providing people with a sense of belonging, acceptance, provide social relationships, and enhance social support. We must also focus on not only getting more conclusive evidence, but also on ways to improve the discrimination of marginalized groups.
