Religion and the Military

[Darryl_P]

I think my post basically says that an ounce of solidarity is worth more than a pound of intelligence if that intelligence is coupled with instilling doubts about solidarity.

I read your opening post 3 times and I still think the above is relevant to what you're asking, unless you're referring to specific claims in the other thread (which I haven't read).

At the very least I have proven that there is at least one poster (me) for whom the following doesn't apply:

[ QUOTE ]
I'm noting that they have been completely ignored by those who try to put forth arguments in favor of religion in the military.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I think my post basically says that an ounce of solidarity is worth more than a pound of intelligence if that intelligence is coupled with instilling doubts about solidarity.

[/ QUOTE ]

An ounce of solidarity in the right direction, perhaps, but definitely not if in the wrong direction.

Of course, assuming that either the military, or the majority, is always right is a viewpoint. I definitely don't share that.

[RJT]

Aren’t you asking this: that given 2 top military tacticians (for example) everything being equal, except one is a believer and one is not; who is the more +EV?

If this is a different way to ask your question then I say neither is. There is no evidence to support either to be the better. Any benefit would seem to be a psychological (either way, not saying one more than the other) benefit to the individual person, not a rule.

Regarding those geniuses who do not choose military and could they be better at it than whomever. In any field there is going to be someone out there who could do better than some who are in the field now. Certainly there is always someone who could have been a better President than whoever is in Office at the time of the comparison.

P.s I don’t think your post is as clear as you think it is. It certainly isn’t to me, but I’ll take the blame. I found you talking about the more profitable and then those who don’t choose military. And then in the final paragraph you talk about “these alternatives”, and it wasn’t clear to me what alternatives you are talking about - so I responded to both issues that I heard.

[kbfc]

What I was trying to get across in my OP is that I'm more interested in the general failings in the arguments I had seen than further specific arguments about the military and religion.

Regarding your response, I'm not going to address your assertion about solidarity (I don't really agree with your assessment, but I'm not particularly interested in it either). I would like to know, however, how you feel it applies to the leaders and tacticians of a military. How important is solidarity when you're the one giving orders and making decisions? There was a significant focus on these people, as opposed to a few passing mentions of general infantry and others in that mold.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to know, however, how you feel it applies to the leaders and tacticians of a military. How important is solidarity when you're the one giving orders and making decisions?

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel it's important at all levels, including the tacticians, because of the various subconscious elements at work. Just as a poker player who has psychological issues (which run counter to the goal of winning) will be susceptible to going on tilt, I wouldn't want to have a top miltary tactician who might go on tilt because of his subconscious beliefs.

I suppose the difference between the higher-ups and the guys on the ground is that the higher-ups don't have to risk as much, but in some sense they are actually risking MORE. When you feel a strong sense of identity with the troops, ordering them to unnecessary death based on a mistake could be worse than death itself because you will live the rest of your life knowing that you're responsible for their death. I know if my son were the soldier and I were the commanding officer, those issues would certainly be there. And if you have solidarity and view the whole army as your extended family then the principle is the same IMO.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The level of discipline required to become a US military officer is extremely high. I have little doubt that these men and women are able to keep their faith from unduly influencing their decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps it's that attraction to be in an environment where the level of disicpline is extremely high that acts as one of the filters that gives validity to DS's statement. At the level of strategy rather than tactics the ability to think in unconventional ways is even more critical. Accepting and adhering to a religious doctrine is then an indicator not a cause. IOW, there are two ways of looking at this subject.

1. Becoming a follower of a religion could cloud your military judgement.
2. Being a follower of certain(any?) religion indicates a certain approach to problem solving that would be a handicap in military planning.

One, both or neither of those statements may true to varying degrees but they are totally different concepts. ( you could spin these out in other ways also).

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
What I was trying to get across in my OP is that I'm more interested in the general failings in the arguments I had seen than further specific arguments about the military and religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the other thing that confused me in your OP. You reference these general failing in the “arguments”, but don’t post what exactly you are referencing (perhaps, it is me just not getting what you are saying).

That is you don't give enough information on the other posts that you are referring to.

[purnell]

The pro-faith arguments in the other thread are rhetorical in nature, while DS is presenting a logical argument. Is this the point you are making, or am I still not getting it?

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Having thought about it for a couple days now, and I think my original reaction was a bit over the top (thank you mr obvious).

The level of discipline required to become a US military officer is extremely high. I have little doubt that these men and women are able to keep their faith from unduly influencing their decisions.

I know approximately nothing about military strategy, and it does not interest me, so I will happily leave it to the experts.

Ahem. I think I was wrong, so I'm changing my mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, I was in the army, and I've met hundreds of officers, and gotten to know some of them very personally. I wouldnt be so sure that it's hard.


[/ QUOTE ]

I was an enlisted man (really enlisted boy would be more accurate, as I joined at 17) and was trained in aircraft maintenance, so the officers I knew were pilots, and numbered in the dozens, not hundreds. While these men were of merely above-average intelligence, they all exhibited an extemely high level of discipline in their professional lives. I guess our experiences were a little different.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
The pro-faith arguments in the other thread are rhetorical in nature, while DS is presenting a logical argument. Is this the point you are making, or am I still not getting it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am glad you posted this, purnell. I thought it might have been only me not completly following. I have a hunch you and I are on the same page regarding both the referenced post and this one. Whether you and I agree or not is another thing (Although, I think we do agree on both counts from what I gather so far.)