Trying to understand

Good morning

I am a military chaplain with a background of medical chaplaincy. I am supportive of religious freedoms. I do support the atheist/humanist role as chaplain though we may disagree with why (I do view a atheist as having faith – perhaps in science or in mankind but something bigger then themselves and certainly have their views on how we got here, our purpose in being here, and what happens when we die – something similar with all faith whether rooted in Bible, Koran, or science). But certainly in CPE, a GOOD chaplain should be able to sit down with ANY faith and encourage their faith journey even if it is not shared by the chaplain. Though the chaplain will still have the ability to refer if unable to help (examples Buddhist funeral, Muslim wedding etc).

I also think that the other recent news article with the atheist couple who wanted to get married in a chapel and were ok with the permanent Christian fixtures should have been allowed to marry there as it is government property.

However I do not understand what your response is with the “Atheist in Foxholes” article. From reading the article, I see that he has made reference to a historic saying, does not state that there aren’t atheist in foxholes nor did he even state that faith was in religion or not for everyone. It seemed to simply encourage us from a historic perspective that in trying times to look at our lives and see if we have something to count on and to define faith for ourselves.

One hospital chaplain I knew at a staff meeting spoke on faith and he made a point of even stating that for those with no belief in God, still have a belief or faith in mankind. That is core of the atheist doctrine lately as they have been very good at helping others.

Please help me understand your view of why this particular article is troubling to you. As I stated I usually side with your views because of 1st Amendment freedoms, but I am unable to see your perspective on this particular article.

Thanks for your help.

(name withheld)

---

Dear (name withheld),

I appreciate your candor in talking about this. There’s certainly no need for disrespect in either direction, and if I’ve come across that way I apologize.

There are countless questions unanswered by science. For those questions which are truly unanswered, the majority of atheists will simply say, I don’t know the answer. Faith intervenes in these cases (with those who have it) to produce answers where none can be known. There are not several accepted theories of evolution. The only accepted theory of evolution is that of natural selection. While details about the origin of the first self-replicating life forms are still unknown, and will likely remain so because we cannot directly observe the past on that scale, the means and ends of evolution are irreffutably established in the scientific community. Of course, there are those that seek to argue against it, but they do so without passing peer review or by demonstrating unbiased scientific methods. The big bang theory is another example which is very well established as having occurred. I would recommend A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking. Again, those who argue against the big bang theory generally only understand it in a caricature like form. For instance, a few days ago a young earth creationist attempted to tell me my understanding of the big bang theory was absurd because it meant a giant space rock with indigestion exploded to form our universe. Arguing against something like that is easy, but attempting to dismantle the theory as it is explained by those that genuinely understand it is a serious undertaking that no one has been able to accomplish with academic integrity.

While those two theories (as with the theory of gravity, or germ theory) are satisfactorily proven, you are right in saying that we cannot know with certainty that there are other things in the universe at work. It could very well be the case that God is responsible for everything, and that he simply hasn’t taken the time to introduce himself to us in an observable manner. It is also possible that Vishnu is the creator and destroyer of everything. Our universe could be dangling from the collar of a cat in a super-universe (as depicted in Men In Black). There are infinite possibilities that could answer the questions we don’t have adequate answers for yet, but to assume one arbitrary solution without evidence is irrational. That irrationality is faith. It’s the acceptance that one answer is more true than others with no substantiating evidence. To a non-believer, there is no need for faith, because we are able to accept that there are things we don’t know. There’s nothing in an atheist’s life that equates to faith.

An atheist soldier does not need faith in their compatriots in arms. They do not need to create a definition of the reality around them without evidence. They can trust that their peers will be there for them, because they have trained together, lived together, fought together, and know that their reliance on one another is mutual. This understanding could be called trust, but faith would be misused. Similarly, there is no need for a non-believer to have faith in their country. Blind allegiance like that, nationalism for a better word, is a dangerous philosophy anyway. We can trust our leaders have our best interest in heart and mind, but having unquestioning faith is unnecessary. Some orders need to be questioned, but with faith none would be.

About the article written by the atheist service member, I was also happy to see him able to speak his mind about his personal experience. What he did was a reflection of how he felt about the world and his experiences. He did not assign any attributes to others or use damning rhetoric. That is the key difference between his piece and CH Reyes’. Had CH Reyes simply discussed his personal feelings about his faith or described the benefits of being Christian in his life or the life of those he’s known, there would have been no issue. Articles like that are published continuously by chaplains throughout our military and we take no issue with them. The problem was that he stepped outside of his bounds and chose to give a negative assessment of others, while idolizing the man who coined a very hateful phrase. There is nothing wrong with the chaplain being fully Christian in the execution of his duties, unless he chooses to assault the dignity of others. Being proud of the invention of the lie that there are no atheists in foxholes is one thing, but using a position of authority to share that lie with glee is unacceptable.

I’m glad that you have been able to bond so well with your atheist soldier. Each of my mentors while at West Point and enlisted were deeply Christian, and it was never a point of contention between us. As far as that reading of hate mail goes, we were certainly making light of a serious situation. Sometimes public embarrassment can dissuade people from negative actions. It may not be the most rigid manner to deal with such things, but a bit of fun from time to time scarcely hurts anyone.

Cheers,

Blake A. Page
Military Religious Freedom Foundation
Special Assistant to the President
Director of West Point Affairs

---

Thank you so much for your dialogue. I try to understand perspectives because people come to me and ask me questions.

I certainly do not mean any disrespect and also there are many different kinds of atheists and humanist out there (a recent article had 6 kinds and one of the people in my units considers himself an atheist and believes that aliens brought our civilization to existence).

I understand that science has brought forth many measureable results but there also seems to be many questions not fully answered by science nor at least at this time being able to be tested. For example, science has produced several accepted theories of evolution and I don’t think that there is one that has been universally accepted within science. Even with the big bang theory (which is the prevailing model from my understanding) there are mixed theories with that one particular theory. Additionally even though it may be able to be observable from some levels, it would be impossible to prove the beginning or why exactly it happened. So at some level there is some unproven science.

The same could be said for when one dies, the biochemicals and electronic impulses cease to exist but there is nothing definitely proven one way or another that there isn’t a soul or spirit. Perhaps science may discover this in the future.

So my question is not necessarily to ask what you believe about that but what do you call the uncertain questions that haven’t been proven in science yet (or potentially ever)?

When an individual is in battle, would it be at least acceptable to say that they do have faith in the others with them? That is how they are trained (example base defense and its layout assumes that the overlap and that everyone does their job). What about faith in their country or ideals (freedom) which may have led them to serve their country in the first place?

I guess the ultimate question for you is if faith is the wrong word, what would be the right word for the unknown or with some of these thoughts?

Also on your definition of faith (Faith is the belief in something that a person has no way of knowing to be true), I am not sure that would be totally accurate because my religious beliefs is not without evidences and experiences that convince me that of this truth. Certainly there is a lot of mystery but there is a lot that speaks to me of this being true. I also don’t see any conflict between science and faith but acknowledge that there is much unknown (and no I am obviously not a fundamentalist, young earth creationist, etc)

I have recently read an article on a military site in which an military atheist spoke about spiritual health, though I disagree with some of his thoughts, I am very encouraged that he was able to do so. If anyone ever didn’t allow him to speak (or any other faith) (it was under a commentary type section), I would fight for their right to speak.

It is difficult for me because it was a historic quote but I do get that perhaps he should have emphasized that atheist are not weak willed and there are atheists in foxholes. Certainly we should always be in search for truth, consider our values, and why we do what we do. I always want to present spiritual health for all in the best light possible. At the same time I do know that I have a particular worldview which would probably be seen in some of my writings. Allowing all to be who they are (true tolerance) is something that is lacking and at times difficult. What I appreciate about my atheist in my unit is that he allows me to be fully Christian while I allow him to be fully atheist and we have great conversations. His wife though thinks that I think all religions are equal which is not the case, though I would still fight for anyone to serve their faith or no faith as they see fit.

Once again I thank you for the dialogue thus far and hope I am not coming off as demeaning or disrespectful. That is not my intention (I don’t want to be part of a lawsuit :) ) I do wish that more people could get in an actual dialogue then how some people disrespect each other without striving for understanding.

Peace
(name withheld)

PS your section on your website in which the female reads hatemail in various ridiculous accents kind of brings the seriousness of what you do to a childish level. If someone wants to be a jerk and obnoxious you shouldn’t have to stoop to their level.