Now, I've been in the
Foxhole. In fact, to be particular about it, I remember having twice or thrice visited an adult entertainment lounge -- ie a
strip club -- called "The Foxhole" out in
Zanesville Ohio of all places. And, strangely enough, I recall having met some folks there who, I discovered once our discussion waxed
philosophical, were indeed
atheists. But I'm sure this recounting will be met with
stern protestations to the effect that, no, we mean
real foxholes. Naturally, and so I promise to restrict my
consideration to incidences of atheists in real, honest-to-goodness literal foxholes.
The proposition, really, then requires that we first set down what it means to be an "atheist" -- for there are different schools of thought on this question and it turns out it is vital to the inquiry into this old
saw. Some would
class all who lack a "
religion" as atheists, even the
spiritualists who believe in some
metaphysical property to our
Universe other than a standard-issue
theistic puppet-
master sort of
deity, and even the
agnostics who
doubt the
question to be
answerable at all, the ignostics who deny knowing the answer on present
information, and the
apatheists who simply do not care. But, others would title anyone who simply lacks a theistic
faith as a non-theist, saving the appellation of atheist for the ones who harbor an active and forward-pressed
belief in the nonexistence of
deity, not simple doubt but a certitude that the
absence of a
god is a fact, possibly even one susceptible to final
proof.
And this, this is why I agree that there are no honest-to-goodness literal atheists in honest-to-goodness literal foxholes. For, you see, such a foxhole is, quite obviously, a hole inhabited by a fox. Why else would you call it one? Now, I'm not oblivious to the fact that people in wartime colloquially refer to trenches, bunkers, and other dug-out defenses against incoming fire as "foxholes" but this does not make the hole housing the fox into something else. And, verily, having agreed at the outset to dispose of my Zanesville tale, I must abide by my own restriction and view only the quandary of whether true atheists inhabit true foxholes.
So, it is the
fox's own
haven which must retain first claim to the title of "foxhole," and anyone familiar with the fox must understand that this Vulpine creature has a home too small for humans to typically crawl into. And putting aside fictional foxes, like
the Fantastic Mr. Fox, B'rer Fox, and the
Fox who befriended the Hound (which ought not count for any real-world analysis), human experience teaches us that foxes lack the
cognitive capacity to consider
conundrums such as those orbiting the existence or non-existence of deities. Certainly, no member of the species has the capability of deciding, on the basis of whatever proof presents itself, that there is
definitively no such thing as an immensely powerful entity responsible for the creation of our Universe and its current contents. Nor, naturally, can the fox conceive of the possibility that there definitively does exist such an entity, or that the
truth lies on
any of the points mapped out between these extremes. And if we grant that a human
baby or a very small
child just might be able to squeeze itself into a foxhole, a person small enough to make that fit would have little more ability to cast any kind of cognizable thought toward ponderings of the metaphysical.
And so, in sum, it must be
fairly concluded that foxholes are exclusively occupied by the genetically nontheistic, and not at all by either theists or atheists.