Thoughts on the "No atheists in foxholes" argument

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yeah, ... and he'll probably have had to do time in purgatory for that too. Too bad Luther invented antisemitism and genocide. Without those two ideas, there'd have been no WWII, eh?

Luther didn't invent antisemitism, but Hitler was definitely inspired by Luther.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Not all those who use this analogy are using it to substantiate God's existence. In fact, almost none of them are. They are using it to exemplify the human need for something greater and more powerful than themselves to trust in when we lack sufficient ability to control/contain a significant threat. Whether or not God actually exists or would mitigate the threat even if it did is not the point of the scenario.

I see, so what you're saying is that I am missing out on all those times when theists say it to one another with a wink and a nod. I don't doubt that happens.

But when it is targeted at an atheist, it is definitely about trying to convince someone of the existence of God. A way to try and get someone to admit that they might turn to God in a moment of desperation, and that therefore that somehow means that even that otherwise atheist person, in that moment of desperation, still "believes." When the reality is, no matter who admits at any time that they "believe" in God for ANY, this does not, in any way, substantiate His existence. The reasons for the belief might be able to do that. But not the belief itself. And this is a mistake that theists often make. Thinking that belief itself is some kind of evidence. It isn't - it's supposed to be what comes AFTER you gather/find/come-across the evidence.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Only atheists and fools think this is the argument under consideration.

The argument to consider is whether to trust in the presumed existence of a benevolent God, or to choose not to. And when people find themselves faced with this choice, it's very often because they find themselves in threatening circumstances that are beyond their own ability to control. Which is what the saying about there being no atheists in foxholes is really about: the fear and loss of control that drives us to seek help beyond ourselves. It's not about the actual existence of God. But the choice to trust in the proposed existence of God.

But, the likelihood of trusting in the proposed existence of a being is irrelevant to whether or not the being actually exists.

 

[PureX]

I see, so what you're saying is that I am missing out on all those times when theists say it to one another with a wink and a nod. I don't doubt that happens.

What I'm saying is that you are misunderstanding their intent because it serves your own bias. The nature or existence of God is not something ANY OF US can know or logically debate as true or false. So the disagreement, here, is NOT about the nature or existence of God. It's about what god-concept we choose to place our hope and trust in, and why ... or why we choose not to. Those smug theists you're referring to are simply pointing out that atheism tends to be a 'fair-weather' choice that's held onto when it's easy, and when one feels safe and in control of their life's circumstances through the power of one's own will and knowledge. But when that safety and control are taken away from them, their atheism tends to succumb to the same need for some greater power from outside the self that theists have been acknowledging and surrendering to all along.

And they are right about that, even if they are being annoyingly smug about it.

 

[PureX]

But, the likelihood of trusting in the proposed existence of a being is irrelevant to whether or not the being actually exists.

It is if we cannot possibly know one way or the other. As we cannot. In that instance, we must make our choice based on some other criteria than our knowledge. And for most humans, that alternative criteria becomes need/desire, and the results that follow.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

What I'm saying is that you are misunderstanding their intent because it serves your own bias.

How could I be misunderstanding their intent to say that they are arguing for Gods existence when the only times that "argument" (again, I loathe to call it that, because that is NOT what it is) has been presented to me in a personal situation is when I am telling the other person that I don't believe in God? Is that not some lame attempt to try and show me that somewhere deep in the recesses of my crap-filled colon I DO acknowledge God's existence? Isn't that what it is about? How could it not be? Never is the "fox-holes" phrase used with me in a conversation merely about "the powers we turn to when we feel powerless." Never. I've never even had that conversation. So how could I be misconstruing their intent when the argument is about whether or not it is warranted to believe in God? You still haven't explained this. You just keep making your same assertions and telling me what I should think about personal conversations I have had with theists that YOU WERE NOT A PART OF.

The nature or existence of God is not something ANY OF US can know or logically debate as true or false. So the disagreement, here, is NOT about the nature or existence of God. It's about what god-concept we choose to place our hope and trust in, and why ... or why we choose not to. Those smug theists you're referring to are simply pointing out that atheism tends to be a 'fair-weather' choice that's held onto when it's easy, and when one feels safe and in control of their life's circumstances through the power of one's own will and knowledge. But when that safety and control are taken away from them, their atheism tends to succumb to the same need for some greater power from outside the self that theists have been acknowledging and surrendering to all along.

And they are right about that, even if they are being annoyingly smug about it.

Nope. Not right. I don't "turn to God" for anything, no matter how dire the circumstances, or how "out of my hands" the situation. It wouldn't even cross my mind anymore. There was a time when I was "trying things out" perhaps, and I may have requested this or that sign, or asked a question to "God" (whatever the hell that is supposed to be), but I most certainly outgrew it. Especially given those exact same experiences within which NOTHING ANSWERED BACK AND NOTHING HAPPENED. It became all too easy to see that I was, like I truly believe everyone else is, on my own. Save for the actual people in my life, there is nothing out there with my best interests in mind - and I am not so naive to even contemplate that there might be any longer.

And here you are, accusing me of being "smug" when your above paragraphs are you telling me what I, as an atheist, think. But, obviously, you can't see that. Too much "theism" clouding your judgment. Just know that your opinion means absolutely nothing to me. Nothing. In my personal mental Rolodex of who's who - you're in the section unceremoniously headed "Incorrigibles"

 

[QuestioningMind]

One of the popular arguments used by Christians is that "there are no atheists in foxholes." I recall a man in my childhood church who was fond of using this statement. Now, I think it is highly unlikely that this statement is true. While many people probably do call out to a childhood deity in times of personal crisis, I highly doubt that everyone does. But, for the sake of argument, let's suppose the statement is true, and that everyone who is in a foxhole believes in God. How could this possibly be used as a legitimate argument for the existence of God? Do the Christians who are so fond of making this claim really think that a person in a foxhole is in the best frame of mind to rationally weigh the evidence for and against the existence of God and come to a logical decision? If anything, I would think that people are less rational and more driven toward erroneous and superstitious beliefs when their lives are in danger. Thus, if anything, I would say that the "no atheists in foxholes" argument is a better argument against the existence of God then for it, because people in immediate danger are obviously not going to be thinking as carefully about evidence as people who are in an environment where they have time to rationally and calmly consider arguments for and against the existence of God.

Yeah...such a claim is about as moronic as claiming: All theists at night in bed with nothing but their own thoughts are nonbelievers filled with doubt.

 

[Audie]

One of the popular arguments used by Christians is that "there are no atheists in foxholes." I recall a man in my childhood church who was fond of using this statement. Now, I think it is highly unlikely that this statement is true. While many people probably do call out to a childhood deity in times of personal crisis, I highly doubt that everyone does. But, for the sake of argument, let's suppose the statement is true, and that everyone who is in a foxhole believes in God. How could this possibly be used as a legitimate argument for the existence of God? Do the Christians who are so fond of making this claim really think that a person in a foxhole is in the best frame of mind to rationally weigh the evidence for and against the existence of God and come to a logical decision? If anything, I would think that people are less rational and more driven toward erroneous and superstitious beliefs when their lives are in danger. Thus, if anything, I would say that the "no atheists in foxholes" argument is a better argument against the existence of God then for it, because people in immediate danger are obviously not going to be thinking as carefully about evidence as people who are in an environment where they have time to rationally and calmly consider arguments for and against the existence of God.

It is the other way around. What "christian"
sees the tanks coming and is overjoyed -
"Glory be, I am about to receive eternal life!"

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The statement, "there are no atheists in foxholes" is the reverse of what would be (or should be) true. An atheist does not depend upon praying to an invisible deity to keep him safe. He would depend upon rationally assessing the situation and taking action to protect himself (hide in a foxhole). The theist, on the other hand, should be able to pray to his god for protection and march forth unafraid, if he really believes his god can protect him from bullets and bombs.

Dunno. Twice I've been in real fear for my life (both times through violence) and I can say two things for certain;
1) God never crossed my mind.
2) My thoughts processes were not entirely rational.

Indeed there have been some studies suggesting overly rational thought in some situations is irrational (in so far as an instinctive reaction is more like to lead to a positive outcome than a rational one).

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yeah, ... and he'll probably have had to do time in purgatory for that too. Too bad Luther invented antisemitism and genocide. Without those two ideas, there'd have been no WWII, eh?

Nah. I don't think that's true. If you said 'without WWI there'd be no WWII', I think it would be closer to the truth, but things are generally more complicated than that.
And Luther didn't invent genocide.

Still, perhaps you didn't mean your post as literally true, but more just a quip.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

What I'm saying is that you are misunderstanding their intent because it serves your own bias. The nature or existence of God is not something ANY OF US can know or logically debate as true or false. So the disagreement, here, is NOT about the nature or existence of God. It's about what god-concept we choose to place our hope and trust in, and why ... or why we choose not to. Those smug theists you're referring to are simply pointing out that atheism tends to be a 'fair-weather' choice that's held onto when it's easy, and when one feels safe and in control of their life's circumstances through the power of one's own will and knowledge. But when that safety and control are taken away from them, their atheism tends to succumb to the same need for some greater power from outside the self that theists have been acknowledging and surrendering to all along.

And they are right about that, even if they are being annoyingly smug about it.

I've been in situations where my safety and control were taken away. My need for greater power outside myself was fulfilled by larger gentleman with rougher countenances than me, weapons, and a willingness to use them.

God...or some other mythical being...didn't enter into the equation. If you wish to think any talking about 'atheists and foxholes' are either being extremely figurative or are fools, then fair enough. That would simply mean the vast majority of people using the term are fools. I can live with that.

And sure, I agree that of the billions of theists, it's a subset that have these sort of beliefs.
But I think you should allow at some level for the disappointingly high number of people globally that have very simple and literal religious beliefs.

 

[Terry Sampson]

but more just a quip.

Yep.

 

[PureX]

And sure, I agree that of the billions of theists, it's a subset that have these sort of beliefs.
But I think you should allow at some level for the disappointingly high number of people globally that have very simple and literal religious beliefs.

And I think we should not respond to these fools by becoming fools, ourselves. For example: adopting a literalist's interpretation of scripture to debate with people who have adopted a literal interpretation of scripture. Or, to presume that some weak claim about there being no atheists in foxholes means that, literally, there are NO atheists in any foxholes, anywhere on the Earth, at any time in history, and that this somehow proves that God exists.

If we have to stoop to being idiots, to debate with idiots, we really are no smarter than they are.

 

[Augustus]

One of the popular arguments used by Christians is that "there are no atheists in foxholes." I recall a man in my childhood church who was fond of using this statement. Now, I think it is highly unlikely that this statement is true. While many people probably do call out to a childhood deity in times of personal crisis, I highly doubt that everyone does. But, for the sake of argument, let's suppose the statement is true, and that everyone who is in a foxhole believes in God. How could this possibly be used as a legitimate argument for the existence of God? Do the Christians who are so fond of making this claim really think that a person in a foxhole is in the best frame of mind to rationally weigh the evidence for and against the existence of God and come to a logical decision? If anything, I would think that people are less rational and more driven toward erroneous and superstitious beliefs when their lives are in danger. Thus, if anything, I would say that the "no atheists in foxholes" argument is a better argument against the existence of God then for it, because people in immediate danger are obviously not going to be thinking as carefully about evidence as people who are in an environment where they have time to rationally and calmly consider arguments for and against the existence of God.

Aphorisms aren't meant to be taken literally.

It shouldn't be used as an argument for god, against god, or taken as being 'wrong' because it's not literally true that everyone starts to believe in god at this point.

It should just be taken as meaning in times of great stress and uncertainty (i.e where we need a bit of luck) we become more superstitious (which is true).

 

[Phaedrus]

My understanding from personal interaction with theists, they enjoy their illogical arguments. The atheist in the foxhole is just one of those.

 

[Ouroboros]

It should just be taken as meaning in times of great stress and uncertainty (i.e where we need a bit of luck) we become more superstitious (which is true).

Not everyone, but sure, it's probably common. I've been in several situations of great stress and uncertainty, and while I was Christian I did turn to the superstitious side, thinking the devil had something to do with it, but now, in same kind of situations I don't. It's somehow related to how we think about reality deep down. What we've come to accept. I'm sure there are plenty of people who are "atheists" on the outside, just as there are Sunday Christians.

 

[Revoltingest]

2) My thoughts processes were not entirely rational.

Do you think they ever will be again?

 

[Revoltingest]

My understanding from personal interaction with theists, they enjoy their illogical arguments. The atheist in the foxhole is just one of those.

A fundie friend explained it to me this way once....
One cannot trust logic.
A claim's cromulence is determined by the authority of the one making it.
This is why everything in the Bible is true....it is the source of truth.

 

[PureX]

A fundie friend explained it to me this way once....
One cannot trust logic.
A claim's cromulence is determined by the authority of the one making it.
This is why everything in the Bible is true....it is the source of truth.

But keep in mind that you are viewing this from an unquestioned belief that logic is the fountain of knowledge and therefor worthy of near absolute trust. So of course you will view this other guy's response as being absurd. But it is really that absurd? Is logic really that trustworthy? Is superstition, intuition, or faith really that untrustworthy? When we look more honestly and closely, I think we'll see that they both have their flaws, and their advantages.

 

[Revoltingest]

But keep in mind that you are viewing this from an unquestioned belief that logic is the fountain of knowledge and therefor worthy of near absolute trust.

But I don't believe that.