Thoughts on the claim "No atheists in foxholes"

[YmirGF]

Could you explain what you mean?

#AllChristiansMatter

 

[Kemosloby]

Could you explain what you mean?

No, I keep it to myself.

 

[leibowde84]

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

Many have done so in order to protect the freedom of others.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

Yeah, so...I was going to say 'this is very Christian of you', but that's unfair to the bulk of Christians, so I'm not going to.

 

[Jumi]

Could you explain what you mean?

Probably that to certain people, only believers of same faith matter.

 

[Augustus]

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

It's an aphorism. Aphorisms are not supposed to be taken literally as 100% always true facts.

How can this possibly be considered a sound argument for the existence of God? I

It isn't supposed to be a proof of god, but a comment on a common human tendency which is probably pretty accurate if treated as an aphorism rather than a literal truth (most people in times of great stress resort to superstition).

If people do use it as a proof via some cobbled together 'it's hardwired into us by god' type argument then it isn't exactly compelling to anyone remotely sceptical.

 

[sayak83]

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.

The idea that there were no atheists in the USSR or Chinese military is quite hard to believe. They were very valiant armies as well, whatever other unsavory things you may think otherwise.

 

[viole]

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.

Well, that claim is self-defeating if we think about it. It is like saying "Yeah, yeah, wait until you are in trouble and the we'll see if you don't pray". Meaning: being in trouble is a good motivator to believe in God. Which does not look like a particular strong argument to me.

BTW: I think the reverse is true: there are only atheists in foxholes. If God has a plan for me, what am I doing in that stinking hole? It is obvious that if the plan is to die today, then the stinking hole does not help. If the plan is not to die today, then I better go out and enjoy some fresh air.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kemosloby]

Yeah, so...I was going to say 'this is very Christian of you', but that's unfair to the bulk of Christians, so I'm not going to.

As if that matters...

 

[lewisnotmiller]

As if that matters...

As opposed to your erudite musings?

 

[LuisDantas]

If people do use it as a proof via some cobbled together 'it's hardwired into us by god' type argument then it isn't exactly compelling to anyone remotely sceptical.

To say the least...

As sayings go, that one about foxholes is not destined to make the short list of theism's brightest.

 

[Valjean]

It isn't supposed to be a proof of god, but a comment on a common human tendency which is probably pretty accurate if treated as an aphorism rather than a literal truth (most people in times of great stress resort to superstition).

If people do use it as a proof via some cobbled together 'it's hardwired into us by god' type argument then it isn't exactly compelling to anyone remotely sceptical.

It strikes me as psychologically insecure individuals desperately grasping at whatever straws their cultures afford them.

 

[Polymath257]

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

Go down the list of such countries. First, none of them are large. Second, all are protected by some neighbor that guarantees defense.

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.

Are there *usually* alternatives? Yes. Are there *always* alternatives? No. History *does* show many people who wanted to attack their neighbors 'for the fun of it'. Usually, it was coupled with economic or religious aspects, but the 'fun' and 'glory' of war are also common motivators.

 

[Augustus]

It strikes me as psychologically insecure individuals desperately grasping at whatever straws their cultures afford them.

Superstition seems to be very normal in a psychological sense. It's perfectly natural and not being superstitious at all in any area of our life at any time requires effort to override the brain's natural tendencies.

It can also be beneficial as it is reassuring, lots of people have minor superstitions when playing sports for example. Sports psychologists often recommend people develop specific routines (which are basically superstitions) to focus the mind. You will also find people who are greatly affected by randomness tend to develop superstitions as a coping mechanism (sailors for example)

Saying they only relates to insecure individuals is a misconception.

 

[Quintessence]

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?

Part of it is because of how unfortunately shallow discussions about what "existence" entails typically are in my culture. In all the ways that matter, it makes for a very compelling argument for accepting their particular god-concept. The point of a god-concept isn't necessarily to "exist" on some superficial fashion anyway - it's the meaningfulness humans attach to it that is impactful. With respect to that, accepting that there is a benevolent deity that will look after a human when it dies is very, very relevant when a human feels its death is knocking on the door. That's the point of the story - the meaningfulness and the narratives that emerge from honoring a deity who will bring you into a peaceful afterlife upon death - is very, very compelling when faced with the real possibility of death. I think it's very hard to argue against that.

There are, of course, alternative paradigms or god-concepts that work just as well to bring that meaningfulness at death's door. While I see the argument as compelling, I don't see it as compelling for the Christian god, specifically. But, since Christian theology pretty much dominates in the West, that is what people are going to default to in this culture for meaningfulness. Whether or not their deity exists in some shallow sense it is a powerful cultural and ideological force that many stumble into during hard times. If that doesn't make it real in all the ways that matter, I'm not sure what does.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

To say the least...

As sayings go, that one about foxholes is not destined to make the short list of theism's brightest.

That damn Plato fellow has a lot to answer for. Or whomever attributed quotations to him does, one or the other...

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Superstition seems to be very normal in a psychological sense. It's perfectly natural and not being superstitious at all in any area of our life at any time requires effort to override the brain's natural tendencies.

It can also be beneficial as it is reassuring, lots of people have minor superstitions when playing sports for example. Sports psychologists often recommend people develop specific routines (which are basically superstitions) to focus the mind. You will also find people who are greatly affected by randomness tend to develop superstitions as a coping mechanism (sailors for example)

Saying they only relates to insecure individuals is a misconception.

I'm very secure, but have a couple of habits when playing tennis. To some extent, making a repeatable action (serving in tennis) identical every time is just good science.

But I've caught myself switching from one ball to another based on whether the ball had gone in on the previous point. It's not common, but I do it once or twice per 3 set match, I reckon.

I don't do this sort of crap when playing basketball, and my free throw routine, whilst one I always follow, is purely around a repeatable action.

I suspect the conditions and nature of the contest impact.

My brain is focusing on one thing and not others.

Anyway, since it causes no harm, and isn't noticeable to anyone else, I haven't bothered training myself out of it.

 

[Grandliseur]

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 have no experience with this. Why doesn't someone ask veterans who fought in Vietnam or Iraq?

As to WWI foxholes, they were brutal. Though Christian, I would surmise that many believers lost their faith during those horrible times, and even in the concentration camps of WWII, etc.

I am also certain that some atheists cried out for God in their last agonizing moment.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I was just thinking: "there are no atheists in foxholes" could also be taken about rampant church-state violations in the military: "there are no atheists in foxholes... because we make sure soldiers are indoctrinated in religion right from when they enlist."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am also certain that some atheists cried out for God in their last agonizing moment.

I'm sure many people - atheists and theists - also cried out for their mothers, but never rationally thought their mothers were actually with them in the French mudhole where they were laying.

... and we recognize that the ones who sincerely believed their mothers were with them were delusional.