Religious priming effects are testable against the ideomotor alternative

Evidence

So how can we distinguish the supernatural watcher account from ideomotor processes? There are several test cases. First, if God primes disentangle the felt presence of supernatural watchers from their alleged prosocial consequences, then these effects could not be solely the result of ideomotor processes. For example, if the supernatural watcher explanation is at play, religious primes should arouse feelings of external authorship, as well as perceptions of being under social surveillance, independent of any prosocial behavior. Second, if religious priming effects are weaker or nonexistent for nonbelievers, then the effect could not be solely due to ideomotor processes, which are typically insensitive to prior explicit beliefs or attitudes. — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 159

For example, if the supernatural watcher explanation is at play, religious primes should arouse feelings of external authorship, as well as perceptions of being under social surveillance, independent of any prosocial behavior. Second, if religious priming effects are weaker or nonexistent for nonbelievers, then the effect could not be solely due to ideomotor processes, which are typically insensitive to prior explicit beliefs or attitudes. — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 159

Categorization

• DEFINE: Clarifies what distinguishes felt supernatural surveillance from mere semantic priming, giving the reader a sharper analytic tool for the fumi-e argument.
• QUESTION: The believer/nonbeliever asymmetry is a testable prediction worth checking against Big God literature and against Rodrigues’s own crisis of belief.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 159