Did humans evolve to prefer religion? Research shows many atheists intuitively favour faith

Many atheists consider themselves to be highly rational people who rate evidence and analytical thinking above religion, superstition and intuition. They might even argue that atheism is the most rational worldview.

But that doesn’t make them immune to having intuitive beliefs themselves. Science suggests the link between rationality and atheism is far weaker than is often assumed.

A study my colleagues and I conducted, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggests that even avowed atheists in some of the most secular countries on Earth might intuitively prefer religion to atheism. We argue this new evidence challenges simplistic notions of global religious decline and the beginning of an “atheist age”.

In his 2007 book, Breaking the Spell, the philosopher Daniel Dennett speculated that, although atheists lack belief in god(s), many of them may retain what he dubbed “belief in belief”. This is the impression that religious belief is a good thing, and the world would be better off with more of it.

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

But is this true? Our research investigated belief in belief among around 3,800 people in eight of the world’s least religious countries: Canada, China, the Czech Republic, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom and Vietnam. To test for belief in belief, we turned to the “Knobe effect”, a task honed by experimental philosophers for evaluating judgements of morality and intent.

The classic Knobe effect demonstration goes something like this. Imagine a CEO mulling a new policy for their company that will increase revenue, but will also harm the environment. The CEO declares that they don’t care one way or another about the environment, they care only for the bottom line. They adopt the policy, money is made, environmental harm occurs. Here’s the crucial question: did the CEO intentionally harm the environment?

Most people (upwards of 80% in Knobe’s first demonstration) report that the CEO did, in fact, intentionally harm the environment. However, if people receive an identical vignette in which the environment is incidentally helped rather than harmed, people’s intuitions entirely reverse, with only around 20% of people thinking the CEO intended to help.

This reveals a stark asymmetry, whereby people intuitively feel that harmful side effects are intentionally caused, whereas helpful ones are not.

We presented participants with a modified Knobe effect vignette in which a journalist publishes a story that sells a lot of papers. The story either leads to more atheism in the world, or to more religious faith. Crucially, we asked our participants to rate whether the ensuing religious shifts were intentionally caused by the journalist.

So, would our participants view increasing societal atheism as more intentionally caused (like harming the environment) or incidental (like helping the environment)?

Overall, our participants’ odds of rating the religious outcome as intentionally caused were about 40% higher when the news story created more atheists, as opposed to more believers. This effect persisted across most countries in our sample, and was even evident among participants who were themselves atheists.

Participants in the original Knobe effect studies viewed environmental pollution as an intentionally caused insult. Our participants intuitively viewed creating more atheists as similarly intentionally caused – a spiritual rather than environmental pollution, perhaps.

This sounds a lot like belief in belief. Dennett illustrated this as suggesting “belief in God is a good state of affairs, something to be strongly encouraged and fostered wherever possible: If only belief in God were more widespread!”

Why might intuitions favouring religion persist among atheists in some of the world’s least religious societies?

10,000+ years of religion

Over the past few decades, markers of religious commitment – self-reported religious attendance, belief in god(s), private prayer – have steadily declined in some parts of the world. This rapid secularisation stands against a backdrop of more than 10,000 years of potent religious influence.

My recent book Disbelief: The Origins of Atheism in a Religious Species asks how a species as historically religious as Homo sapiens could nonetheless have rising numbers of atheists. It ultimately provides important context for our new study’s results.

A consideration of religion’s deep history gives us hints as to why belief in belief might exist among atheists in secular countries today. One prominent theory holds that religions may have helped unlock our species’ cooperative potential, allowing us to expand from our humble origins to become our planet’s dominant species.

As religions reshaped our lives to boost cooperation, people increasingly came to view religion and morality as largely synonymous. Over cultural evolutionary time, the association between religious belief and moral goodness has become deeply culturally ingrained. This has left its trace on individual intuitions – as illustrated in the recent study by me and my co-authors and those by other researchers.

Because religions have exerted tremendous influence on our societies for millennia, it would be genuinely surprising if some latent religious trace didn’t culturally linger as overt expressions of faith decline. Our newest results are consistent with this possibility.

Belief may be wavering in many countries, but belief in belief persists, complicating any conclusion that we’ve truly entered an “atheist age”.

Will Gervais has received funding from various organizations over the years, including The Leverhulme Trust and the John Templeton Foundation