Thoughts on the claim "No atheists in foxholes"

[Rational Agnostic]

Many proponents of theism insist that there are no atheists in foxholes (a claim which is almost certainly inaccurate). But, suppose that they are correct. How can this possibly be considered a sound argument for the existence of God? It's probably true that people tend to turn toward their childhood religious beliefs when in life-threatening situations, but this is no surprise. The human brain has not evolved to be in a rational state at all times. In fact, quite the opposite. When under extreme duress, humans tend to be far more irrational than when in a calm state. So, why do theists consider to push the idea of their being "no atheists in foxholes" as an argument for the existence of God. If the best argument that you can come up with to defend the existence of the deity you believe in is pointing out the tendency of humans to return to irrational childhood beliefs when under duress, then why should I take any aspect of your faith seriously? Would I return to the beliefs that I was indoctrinated into as a child if my life was in danger? I don't know, but I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility. However, whether or not I would do such a thing has no bearing on reality.

Pointing out irrational psychological tendencies of human beings to believe in God or to fear the boogie man is an incredibly poor argument for the supernatural. In fact, we have evolved to believe in the irrational. If an ancient homo sapien heard a rustling in the bushes, it would be to his advantage to believe that it is a serious threat (even if this belief is inherently irrational). The reason is because in the one time out of 10 that it is an actual threat, he would survive, while more "rational" homo sapiens would perish. In the same way, the tendency for humans to return to irrational childhood beliefs is also likely a result of evolution, and the fact that believing irrational things when under duress leads to greater survival, and hence a greater probability of passing the "irrational under duress" genes onto the next generations.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

Pointing out irrational psychological tendencies of human beings to believe in God or to fear the boogie man is an incredibly poor argument for the supernatural. In fact, we have evolved to believe in the irrational. If an ancient homo sapien heard a rustling in the bushes, it would be to his advantage to believe that it is a serious threat (even if this belief is inherently irrational). The reason is because in the one time out of 10 that it is an actual threat, he would survive, while more "rational" homo sapiens would perish. In the same way, the tendency for humans to return to irrational childhood beliefs is also likely a result of evolution, and the fact that believing irrational things when under duress leads to greater survival, and hence a greater probability of passing the "irrational under duress" genes onto the next generations.

The problem with that explanation is that it ignores the fact that a rational (human) being would not willingly volunteer to go to war.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Really, I see that claim as nothing more than the height of theist arrogance, to assume that under duress everyone turns to their god. Offensive even, to assume their faith is solid and strong while an atheist stands on shaky ground that is quickly abandoned at the first signs of trouble.

The problem with that explanation is that it ignores the fact that a rational (human) being would not willingly volunteer to go to war.

The art of war is the survival of the state. Without a standing military, the state does not survive. Do you think it irrational to go to war to defend your nation?

 

[Valjean]

That depends on what constitutes rational. If self preservation, then avoiding war or hazardous situations is reasonable. But if you value preservation of your family or genetic material, altruism might be rational.

 

[Sapiens]

"There are no atheists in foxholes"

Sounds like an Islamic State slogan to me.

 

[Flame]

Being in a foxhole turned my great grandfather into an atheist.

 

[Valjean]

I'm suspicious of "nations." They're as inconstant as the wind. I value policies and principles.

 

[Mister Silver]

Many proponents of theism insist that there are no atheists in foxholes (a claim which is almost certainly inaccurate).

You really didn't need to explain anything past the bolded part.

 

[YmirGF]

You really didn't need to explain anything past the bolded part.

In essence,the idea demonstrates a deep need on the part of theists claiming they know the mind of atheists better than the atheists know themselves. In other words, when you have nowhere else to turn, you will turn to god, by golly. The idea is also from a time that foxholes in warfare were common and pretty well everyone unfortunate enough to be in one was probably a theist doing their bit for god and country.

 

[Mister Silver]

In essence,the idea demonstrates a deep need on the part of theists claiming they know the mind of atheists better than the atheists know themselves. In other words, when you have nowhere else to turn, you will turn to god, by golly. The idea is also from a time that foxholes in warfare were common and pretty well everyone unfortunate enough to be in one was probably a theist doing their bit for god and country.

An interesting turnabout is that the theist then claims, "you don't know what it's like to be religious" when in fact most atheists were raised into theistic beliefs before discarding it for reality.

 

[Jumi]

The problem with that explanation is that it ignores the fact that a rational (human) being would not willingly volunteer to go to war.

All countries have throughout history found various coercive and less coercive ways to bypass that. Promise of wealth or afterlife, survival of state or way of life, or punishments real or imaginary.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

The art of war is the survival of the state. Without a standing military, the state does not survive.

That's nonsensical war propaganda. There have been countries that have not only survived, but also prospered for centuries without having a military and without getting involved in any wars.

List of countries without armed forces - Wikipedia

Do you think it irrational to go to war to defend your nation?

Yes. I believe that it is irrational to volunteer to fight to defend concepts and ideas instead of finding amiable solutions to solve the conflicts. Wars always have reasons behind them. Hardly any human (except some mentally ill ones) wants to attack people in other countries for fun. It's either religious motives (cases in which even the most extreme Muslims will offer the choices of conversion to their religion or the payment of Jizya as solutions for peace), or economical reasons (cases in which countries could negotiate to share resources equally) etc. My point is that there is almost always a solution no matter what the conflict is, and instead of fighting like idiots cause "muh country needs me and I get to use guns, yeehaaa!", we would be better off sending our leaders to debate on how we can obtain peace through reaching compromises.

 

[Mister Silver]

That's nonsensical war propaganda. There have been countries that have not only survived, but also prospered for centuries without having a military and without getting involved in any wars.

List of countries without armed forces - Wikipedia

To be honest, that's only because those countries are insignificant.

When one is considered a "powerful" country, war is what one does to maintain that power against other countries rising to power.

I don't agree with war or that mentality I described above, but that's how it is.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Many proponents of theism insist that there are no atheists in foxholes (a claim which is almost certainly inaccurate). But, suppose that they are correct. How can this possibly be considered a sound argument for the existence of God? It's probably true that people tend to turn toward their childhood religious beliefs when in life-threatening situations, but this is no surprise. The human brain has not evolved to be in a rational state at all times. In fact, quite the opposite. When under extreme duress, humans tend to be far more irrational than when in a calm state. So, why do theists consider to push the idea of their being "no atheists in foxholes" as an argument for the existence of God. If the best argument that you can come up with to defend the existence of the deity you believe in is pointing out the tendency of humans to return to irrational childhood beliefs when under duress, then why should I take any aspect of your faith seriously? Would I return to the beliefs that I was indoctrinated into as a child if my life was in danger? I don't know, but I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility. However, whether or not I would do such a thing has no bearing on reality.

Pointing out irrational psychological tendencies of human beings to believe in God or to fear the boogie man is an incredibly poor argument for the supernatural. In fact, we have evolved to believe in the irrational. If an ancient homo sapien heard a rustling in the bushes, it would be to his advantage to believe that it is a serious threat (even if this belief is inherently irrational). The reason is because in the one time out of 10 that it is an actual threat, he would survive, while more "rational" homo sapiens would perish. In the same way, the tendency for humans to return to irrational childhood beliefs is also likely a result of evolution, and the fact that believing irrational things when under duress leads to greater survival, and hence a greater probability of passing the "irrational under duress" genes onto the next generations.

I always viewed the claim as some sort of cross between seeing atheists as deniers of God who deep-down still believe, and the final chance to place a bet on Pascal's Wager.

I've never seen any reason to view it as anything other than self-serving and fictional.

Incidentally, you said 'almost certainly' in your OP. It should simply say 'certainly'.

 

[Kemosloby]

It means people tend to start praying in fox holes, in case they get killed. Except atheist don't matter, so they don't mention them.

 

[Mister Silver]

It means people tend to start praying in fox holes, in case they get killed. Except atheist don't matter, so they don't mention them.

I don't think Christians matter either.

 

[YmirGF]

An interesting turnabout is that the theist then claims, "you don't know what it's like to be religious" when in fact most atheists were raised into theistic beliefs before discarding it for reality.

Not me though, I come from a long line of knuckle-dragging atheists.

 

[Mister Silver]

Not me though, I come from a long line of knuckle-dragging atheists.

I'm surprised you're capable of denying gravity to raise those knuckles off the ground and onto a keyboard. That certainly doesn't seem like ape script you type.

 

[Kemosloby]

I don't think Christians matter either.

You don't have a cliche' for it though. When you get a cliche' start talking.

 

[Mister Silver]

You don't have a cliche' for it though. When you get a cliche' start talking.

Could you explain what you mean?