Religion
Related: About this forumShould we Encourage Atheists to get into Foxholes?
Published February 16, 2012 | By Steve Clarke
‘There are no atheists in foxholes’, as the saying goes. This is of course an exaggeration. There have always been some atheists in foxholes. With millions of military personnel representing this or that country around the world it seems inconceivable that no atheists whatsoever would be occupying foxholes. The Richard Dawkins Foundation appears to like the idea of atheists in foxholes. So much so that they have been providing care packages to members of the Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers (MAAF) who request them. So far they have sent out over 150 care packages. These contain food items, supplies such as gloves, Dawkins Foundation pins and stickers and the occasional book. See http://richarddawkins.net/articles/644969-dawkins-foundation-care-packages-go-to-atheists-in-foxholes. Perhaps enough to encourage an atheist to remain in a foxhole for a while longer.
But should the Dawkins foundation be encouraging atheists into foxholes? One reason to be wary of sending atheists into foxholes is that, as the MAAF notes, atheists face widespread discrimination in most military organisations, particularly in the US armed forces. The MAAF Watch List recounts many ways in which atheists are discriminated against. See http://www.militaryatheists.org/watchlist.html. It is difficult to remain an atheist in a foxhole when one is subject to mandatory prayer, proselytising from senior military leaders, religiously oriented counseling, and when one is constantly being told that one’s lack of faith is detrimental to one’s ability to do one’s job. The US armed forces have policies in place to prevent discrimination against atheists but it seems that these are often not enforced. It is understandable that the Dawkins Foundation wishes to combat discrimination but it is worth asking whether encouraging atheist military personnel to remain in the field is really an appropriate way to do so. Unless military organizations change their ways atheists in the field will be faced with ongoing persecution.
In any case, there may be good reasons for the military to try to keep atheists out of foxholes In a paper entitled ‘The Virtues of Intolerance: Is Religion an Adaptation for War?’, which is forthcoming in a book that I am co-editing with Russell Powell, and Julian Savulescu (Religion, Intolerance and Conflict: a Scientific and Conceptual Investigation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming), Dominic Johnson and Zoey Reeve from the University of Edinburgh argue that it is no accident that atheists are discriminated against in military organizations. Like many other recent scholars, including Scott Atran, Pascal Boyer and Justin Barrett, Johnson and Reeve hold that human religion is an evolutionary adaptation. What is distinctive about their view is that they stress the dark side of adaptation, arguing that human religion evolved because, inter alia, religion better enabled us to fight effectively. This is not the place to go into the details of their views. However, they do appear to me to make a strong case. Religion promotes a number of qualities, including confidence, heroism and self-sacrifice, a propensity to cooperate, and the conviction that you doing the right thing; all qualities that help make a good soldier.
Military forces that cease to discriminate against atheists may have to pay a heavy price, which is that they cease to be as effective as they were when they did discriminate. Of course this price is also paid by the societies that the military protect. In free Western societies this price might be paid by the many atheists who are able to avoid religious indoctrination because they live in free societies that are protected by religious forces – protected from other religions forces representing societies that are not free and which might try to compel atheists to accept religion. The military is unlikely to stop discriminating against atheists when it has such good reasons to do so. For the above reasons it seems to me that it is unwise of the Dawkins foundation to encourage atheists to remain in foxholes.
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/02/should-we-encourage-atheists-to-get-into-foxholes/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)We should be encouraging everyone to get out of them. I know this is difficult, because just about everyone ok everyone I know that was in the military was only in it because they needed a job and/or they wanted the money for college.
stopbush
(24,396 posts)is the idea that atheists would abandon their non-believing principles if they came under fire.
It could more-rightly be said that "there are no true Christians in foxholes," but to do so would cause people to get up in arms (pun intended) and to react with a wrath that they would never muster (pun again) for the "no atheists in foxholes" bromide.
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)The meaning of the quote is that one prays to survive their stay in said foxhole regardless of religious persuasion. I presume the ignorance is feigned.
stopbush
(24,396 posts)After all, why would a true believer even need to pray to be kept safe? Shouldn't they be willing to walk into direct fire, knowing their god will be defending them in the valley of the shadow of death? Oh, they of little faith who believe otherwise!
Of course, the people who love to say that there are no atheists in foxholes are the same people who remind us that we've been fighting "godless communism" for decades. One would assume that the communist foxholes were manned by those godless hordes. If not, I guess we were fighting our fellow (mostly) Xians for all those years, correct?
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)And will continue to do so if they feel their job (being in the military) is worthwhile. I doubt fighting a religious war would be deemed worthwhile, however.
It must also be remembered than a (large?) % of those who act out religious norms don't actually believe them, but sometimes it's just easier to go with the flow. These would be those who don't shout from the roof tops how religious they are or join every extra-curricula religious activity, but they might keep their belief personal. Then there's always those who, as Daniel Dennett puts it, "believe in belief". Those who don't fall for the magical mumbo jumbo or salvation or an afterlife and stuff, but think participating in something as socially strong as a religion is good for everyone all 'round. Y'know, people who go to church and maybe say grace but don't give religion another thought as they go about their daily business.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Discrimination doesn't cut it
onager
(9,356 posts)Germany, 1945:
Pvt. Keith Lance of the 84th Division was that rare creature, an atheist in a foxhole. His buddy was 'a good Catholic boy from upstate NY.' They were being shelled and the buddy "Hailed Mary" all night.
"After taking so many hours of that," Lance commented, he had had enough, so he dashed out of the foxhole to "check on the guys."
As he threw himself into the next hole, Lance heard an explosion. He looked, aghast--it had hit his old hole. His buddy was badly wounded.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)of being pinned down in a hole while being shelled AND having to listen to someone spout off hail mary's all night?
The horror! The humanity! Sounds like a true hell to me.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)Last edited Sat Feb 18, 2012, 07:09 PM - Edit history (1)
First, the Dawkins foundation is not "encouraging atheists into foxholes" through their care package campaign. That in itself is such a ridiculous leap that the rest of the article really doesn't even need to be read. How stupid can one person be if they think that sending care packages to actively serving soldiers is actually encouraging anyone into foxholes? Care packages are not a recruitment tool, and they don't encourage anyone to fight. If they encourage anything, it's the desire to come home alive.
Second, if we were to rewind several decades and change "atheists" in this article to "colored people", you'd see just how ridiculous the claim is that widespread discrimination should be a discouragement to atheists serving at all if they desire to do so.
Third, it is ridiculous to claim that removing religious discrimination will lead to a lack of cohesiveness and effectiveness, and it's important to note that the author doesn't limit the scope of this claim to the military, but lets it encompass the entire country as well. The author clearly has no grasp whatsoever on the divisiveness of religion, having gone out of his way to ignore it.
I've read more intelligent statements on celebrity gossip sites.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)Lies all lies.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)He experienced I don't know how many run-ins with IEDs.