Why Atheists Are So Mistrusted

There are several studies that suggest that atheists are among the least trusted minority group in the United States. There may be several reasons for this, but one of the most important reasons why atheists are so mistrusted is rarely mentioned: Atheists, relative to religious people, simply have less incentive to be honest.

Most atheists are moral relativists or moral nihilists, and all reject the possibility of any judgement after death, objective meaning to human existence or eternal consequence for one's behavior. With this being the case, ask yourself the following questions:

Everything else being equal, who has more incentive to behave morally?

1. An individual who believes that there is an absolute foundation for ethics that isn't determined by society or majority opinion, who believes that his or her actions have eternal consequences and that they will be held accountable for their actions after death, and who believes that there is an objective meaning to life that is tied to or related in some way to this absolute standard for ethics?

Or,

2. An individual who believes all ethics boil down to socio-cultural relativism, that his or her actions have little consequence beyond their own life, and that one's meaning in life is whatever one wishes it to be?

It should be clear that the first individual has more incentive to behave morally. Many atheists would respond to this by claiming that it's "sad" or that they don't need bribes of heaven nor threats of hell to behave morally. One of the problems with this response by the atheist is that there are many things in the world that are "sad" but nonetheless true. It might be "sad", for example, that private insurance companies offer high-quality coverage to individuals primarily because they want to make money, with concerns for that individual's health being secondary. It might be "sad" that most people are more motivated by making money than by helping others. But the fact that one might find this to be "sad" doesn't change anything - it doesn't change the fact that this is the world we live in, and this is how people respond to incentives.    

Additionally, while an individual atheist may not need the prospect of punishment or rewards after death nor the prospect of an absolute standard for ethics to behave morally, this doesn't mean that this is true for others as well. There are many situations in which the benefits of immoral behavior far outweigh the risks involved. It's relatively easy, for example, to cheat on exams without being caught or with only minimal punishment, or to cheat people online and make quick money and get away scot-free. If one if facing a poor economy with intense competition for jobs, and one believes all ethics are just what's useful for society, then one can easily justify immoral behavior like cheating and stealing.  

Moral relativism, atheism and similar views sound nice to the undergraduate who's never lived in the real world, but when one has to survive and make a living for oneself, and has to live in a world dominated by supply and demand, incentive and constraint, the glaring weaknesses of moral relativism and atheism become painfully obvious. Individual atheists may be trustworthy, but atheists and moral relativists as a whole should be less trusted than religious people and moral absolutists.