Effective secular monitoring can erode the root cause of atheist distrust.

Evidence

What I have in mind is something much more interesting and important. It is interesting because it is an unlikely source of prejudice reduction that flows directly from the logic of the analysis presented here, but does not easily flow from other perspectives; and it is important because it leads to the decline of atheist distrust among believers—the very group that is most likely to hold exclusionary attitudes toward atheists in the first place. … That unlikely source is effective secular institutions. What I mean by this is cultural exposure to institutions and mechanisms such as courts, contracts, and police that have emerged in some modern societies and that are designed to monitor human behavior and make people accountable. The logic of the argument is as follows: if atheists are seen as untrustworthy because they do not believe in supernatural monitoring, then perhaps exposure to secular monitoring might erode the root cause of atheist distrust—the religious anxiety that atheists are moral wildcards because they are unconstrained by any kind of social monitoring. — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 300

Categorization

• XREF: Directly extends the Big God mechanism into a testable substitute: secular institutions as functional replacements for watchful deities, tied to the reader’s analytical bridge between Norenzayan and Baumard.
• SEED: Angle: if effective courts can substitute psychologically for watchful gods, then weak or corrupt secular institutions may paradoxically keep religious distrust and God-belief robust—a mechanism for religiosity persistence.