Poltroon General Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of the General Staff believes his job is to instill his belief in an afterlife into his men so that they may go into battle fighting the heathen Islamic infidel unafraid of death and sure God will reward their fine Christian endeavour with eternal joy. He is quoted as saying
“In my business, asking people to risk their lives is part of the job, but doing so without giving them the chance to understand that there is a life after death is something of a betrayal”
Like policeman one doesn’t expect soldiers to possess a massive intellect and a sharper mind might question whether thrusting such views on equally dim young men whose main fun is mutilating civilians or hanging them off forklift trucks was likely be effective even were it desirable.
But of course loony evangelical hypocrites, like General Sir Richard Dimwit, love to kill and preach in the name of God to help themselves gain a place in heaven. And being criticized for giving testament, as he rightly now is, merely assures it.
Bernard Shaw said the fool of the family was dumped on the Church but General Sir Dimwit would surely have given him pause for thought. When a 7.62 round goes through some dumb squaddie’s head, and turns his newly emptied skull into a cool beer mug, he’s all done. There is no God, no Heaven, no afterlife. It’s all just a big void.
He’d be doing them more of a favour if told them to keep their heads down, or better still desert.
Well said. It is difficult to think of anything more immoral than deceiving young men and women into risking their lives on the basis of a lie. I’m sure General Sir Dimwit completely misses the irony that this is of course precisely what his enemy is doing.
Cobblers. The General was simply contemplating death and the possibility that there is nothing else, and suggesting that it was not so. Ultimately this is a question of belief and you either do or you don’t. On the basis that people secure ion their views are generally tolerant of opposing views, it seems that both contributors above might profitably contemplate their current view - just in case, you understand.
However, what the General certainly never said was that people should be deceived into risking their lives, or that the deception included a fraudluant promise of eternal reward for sticking it to the heathen. His premise was that, given that they are often frightened and lonely, it may help to know that not everyone is as certain that only what they can themselves perceive as existing actually exists as Richard Dawkins, John Bolch and Geeklawyer. Personally speaking, in a legal career that now exceeds 21 years I have been wrong often enough not to think that I know everything. Perhaps Gen Dannatt finds himself in the same position.
Religion, God and the afterlife may be a lie. Certainly that is a possibility. But to assert it as fact is to confuse being able to identify how the grass grows, with why the grass grows. It’s a debate.
“It’s a debate”? Yes, just like it’s a debate whether the world is flat, the earth is the centre of the universe, or a teapot orbits Uranus!
You can’t just postulate something for which there is no evidence, and say “it’s a debate”!
I do not believe in a God - for one very simple and entirely pragmatic reason: Conflict. Religion and religious division and intolerance has been at the root of much human conflict for centuries. Sadly, it still is. Frankly, it is a disgrace to the human condition that religion is still playing a part in social control and indoctrination. It is very difficult to take issue with this last statement, given the war on terror and other wars going on the world where religion is used to inspire.
I do not, however say there is or is not a God. People are free, at least in our country, to follow many faiths and beliefs. That is their right, privilege and, I hope, pleasure.
For my part, I can see no harm in General Dannatt trying to educate or persuade soldiers to consider God. I do not believe that it is compulsory in the British Armed Forces to believe in God(s).
I do, however, prefer reason in my real or normal life (I show little of this, at times, when writing qua Charon - but even then, reason involves quite complex philosophical tenets, which I am, thankfully, still coming to terms with.
Perhaps a way of life, not formalised by the apparatus and baubles of traditional religion, is more suited to my way of thinking - but as I do not seek to be Messianic, or even persuade others, it really does matter what i believe in or think about.
I feel no need to promote reason or deny religion. I prefer to fall on the reason side myself - but, at the end of the day, provided those in authority do not misuse their authority and misuse religion to indoctrinate, it is perfectly reasonable for a seasoned and respected soldier or leader to give of his view, experience and belief in the hope that it helps others. Even if it only gives comfort to a very few in their hour of need or difficulty, he / she will have achieved something.
There is, of course, an alternative proposition. It is this. There is no god, there is no after life, make the most of what you have now, use your skill to avoid being killed and, as you have chosen to join the army, do your best - and, hopefully your training and courage will see you through. Is that not so?
Of course, possessing no religion belief or faith, those of a religious persuasion may take the view that my views are flawed for that very reason
Bl;oddoy hell.. not evewn pissed and still typing badly.
I did mean, of course …. “it really does NOT matter what I believe in or think about’ - para 5 above
But.. By God… after writing that… I feel like a bit of Wine… Vicar!… what is that wine you are scuttling out of the Church with like? I’ll have a large one.
Simon: were the general merely contemplating the possibility of life beyond death I’d have no problem. He isn’t, he is maintaining an evangelical zeal towards his men in encouraging them to believe in a Christian afterlife. He is by his own admission an evangelical Christian and, by the definition of this that they would accept themselves, their mission is to perpetuate their own faith.
This was not some mere moment of religious debate. To the point: what fucking business is it of General Dimwit to administer pastoral care? Is that not the function of the army chaplains? what business is it of some general to engage skewed debate on these issues? Should he not confine himself, Hague-like, to saying “over the top my boys - to death and honour haste ye well”?
The General was clearly - by his own words - saying that there was an eternal life after death; he was not merely positing the comforting safety blanket of a potential afterlife. By extension it was implicit that those “fighting the good fight” and adopting Christian values could reach the afterlife: why else promote Christian dogma?
Like you I do not pretend to know all about everything, I however say merely that I know everything about some things. I know that there is no God or afterlife. You may disagree, you are wrong but I will accept your right to disagree. Unlike the Christian and Jewish dogmatists I will not burn you alive for denying my views and holding to your own. Atheism has no Dogmas and will not kill to compel those beliefs in the reluctant.
But… a simple question?… will you know when you are dead? After all, you don’t know when you are asleep… you know you have been asleep, because you wake. Ignore dreaming - that is a semi-conscious state.
Still Cobblers.
This debate about ‘knowing’ is silly. I have never seen a crocodile eat a human. I believe they do because people I respect tell me it is so. God is the same - it is simply a question of the weight a particular individual places on a particular source. John’s point precisely makes my case. The prevailing belief for years was that the earth was flat. The prevailing belief in this country used to be that God existed and was English. Now the prevailing belief in this country is that God does not exist. And for each belief, people ‘knew’ it. Which is simply a way of describing a belief which you hold as unchallengeable.
I have no problem with this. Atheists are fine providing they don’t stand too close to me during a thunderstorm
I certainly don’t argue that you should believe what I believe - largely because I don’t care and it’s none of my business.
I can however say that in good armies pastoral care comes from the top. Soldiers are willing to die for their mates and good leadership is about extending that definition as widely as possible. I didn’t read Dannatt as promoting Christianity so much as belief in God - the two are not synonymous. He was doing it in the way that he could - as I would expect.
As it strikes a personal note, I would be grateful for your references regarding the Jewish dogmatists of which you speak. I was unaware of that particular strain of Jewish belief and had rather thought that the risk you took in offending a right-wing Jew was that he talked at you a lot and possibly told your mother that you were a bad boy. Moreover, since almost all Jewish dogmatists are entirely disinterested in non-Jews this would not happen unless you yourself were Jewish. Consequently, it has come as a shock to learn that I could have been burning people alive - could I have some further details?
If, as I suspect you might mean right wing Israelis, then that is a political issue and those people have in the past 15 years numbered exactly two. Is that what you were talking about?
“Unlike the Christian and Jewish dogmatists I will not burn you alive for denying my views and holding to your own.”
Unlike Christians and Muslims, Jews do not believe that there is only one route to God. Indeed, according to Jewish belief, a righteous Jew has no more chance of getting into heaven than a righteous gentile.
Simon:
Strictly speaking, you are certainly correct about “knowing”. There is no certainty. There is only probability.
The likelihood is that crocodiles do eat people from time to time. This has been observed, and the people you so respect could surely produce appropriate evidence if prompted: indeed, the capability and willingness to provide such evidence is what engenders my respect for them. The likelihood of God existing is infinitesimally small. No credible evidence supporting God or an afterlife has emerged: the people who assert that God does exist are generally both unwilling and unable to produce evidence to support their claims. We cannot formally state that we “know” that God doesn’t exist. In the common parlance, however, “knowing” quite obviously equates with “staggeringly unlikely” and “almost certainly”.
You say it is merely a matter of the weight an individual places on a particular source, which is true enough, but you skim over the problem that religious sources are manifestly unreliable when considering whether propositions are true or false. Though they may have philosophical or historical value, determining the existence or non-existence of things is a task for which they are woefully inadequate.
Like Geeklawyer, I don’t insist that anyone agree with me, but I do get annoyed with people like this fuckwit of a general: brainwashing people with superstitious nonsense, such that they take less care with their lives in the almost certainly mistaken belief that there is eternal life, is vile behaviour.
I will concede that I may be on very shaky ground indeed in asserting that Jews ever burnt anyone to death for refusal to accept their faith. It may have happened in isolated incidents in the distant past - I don’t know - but I can’t justify it. It is also clear some Jewish readers are taking a measure of offence. I should also have included Islam which, does I believe, requires those reneging the faith to be killed.
I’m not picking on Judaism: I despite Christianity and Islam equally as much.
Harry,
I don’t understand the phrase ‘religious sources’. I think the distinction you are trying to draw is between observable evidence and anything else. I am perfectly happy that you privilege the former, but I think the result lacks nuance.
Generally, one believes one’s own senses and credible reports. However, there are plenty of occasions when that leaves a conflict between what is observable and one’s own feelings. The interpretation of evidence is something lawyers deal with every day. I think that the issue here is what is a credible report. If you limit it to what is observable then of course God does not exist.
Nor, of course, did the theory of relativity. Or the fact that the earth was round, or that the earth moved aroudn the sun. All these things required a diffreent perspective - a different way of interpreting the evidence. We now live in a world in which we agree that the physical world is made up of particles we cannot observe, which are themselves made up of particles which no one has yet observed but which must exist.
Why must they exist? Because the laws we postulate dictate their existence and because people we respect tell us that they have laboured mightily over the problem and can be sure that they exist. And that, give or take the identity of the people you respect, is religion. It is a question of perspective - one day God will ask you whether a perfect autumn day didn’t provide you with evidence that She exists and when you say that there was no evidence, She will say that is because you don’t know how to look.
GL: a measure of offence - nice. I think that linking burning and Jews needs just a leettle care. And if that’s why you despise Islam and Christianity then my boy, have I got a religion for you.
That’s not, or not mainly, why but anyway, do tell: Scientology?
Honestly, what is the point of sarcasm and irony if people are too stupid to understand it?
I couldn’t agree more Simon; it’s terrible if people don’t get it and say stupid things in reply.