Believing in God V Believing in Santa Claus (believe, debate, Jesus)

[LearnMe]

From another thread I got inspired to consider this Santa Claus analogy that is often used by atheists to compare to religious beliefs, belief in God. Thought to look into the subject and immediately found some interesting reading...

"The "Jesus = Santa Claus" Analogy"

https://medium.com/@igrolvr/the-jesu...y-869a9070c8c5

As noted in the other thread, I've often thought the Santa Claus analogy is old, tired and not altogether a good one, because most adults who are religious don't believe in Santa Claus. Accordingly the analogy doesn't work too well for all concerned. I suspect there's got to be a better one all considered.

Whether you are religious or not, you've probably got an opinion about this particular analogy. What is it?

If also so inclined, any thoughts on what might make for a better analogy? Something I thought I might work on for a bit, and any help will be much appreciated (and no doubt somewhat interesting).

Thanks!

[TRANSPONDER]

I reckon the Santa analogy is perfectly fine and has some handy knock ons, like people believe it as widely as some religions - but only up to age 8 or around. That is a perfect analogy of what Christianity - and a few other religions that aren't such a problem - could become in the end.

That doesn't mean that we tear down and complain about Santa at Christmas. Nobody minds it as a seasonal thing - no more than the star and manger nonsense.

I recall some newspaper article back in my pre - online days when some clergyman (whom I now suspect had lost his faith) wrote that people should believe in Jesus or God like they believe in Santa 'Yes, just up to age 6' I thought at the time. That really sold me on validity of the Santa analogy.

Some attempts to debunk it make it look even handier. One poster of course tried the fallacy that God was greater than Santa. Well, how do we know? That he is a fellow in a red suit who comes down chimneys (1) is merely 'Omnis' based on human lack of education and mystical revelation. Santa is not to blame for the limitations of human 'Beliefs'. Santa no more lives at the north pole than God sits on a neonlight throne on top of the sky -dome or walks through the jungle shouting out for Adam as he can't see where he's hiding.

That is all man -made failure to understand that Santa made everything, is the size of the universe, keeps everything running (like it couldn't do it on its own) and knows everything including I suppose what it's like to screw a chimpanzee and exactly whether you've been naughty or not, though it's hard to say which he approves, knowing the pros and cons of primate sex, as he does. He has his Plan, and some kind of penal system if not a celestial furnace, and knows better than us that sending epidemics is Good for us as we need to be taught some lesson or other.

Yep, Santa works perfectly well in showing up the false apologetics of religion. I like him Especially since the peddlars of religious apologetics don't. That's always gotta count in His favor.

(1) I rather liked how the film got over this problem of feasibility by the good old 'making stuff up' apologetic. He turned into a little spark that could float down the 10 cm flue pipe and reinflate on the the living room carpet. Any problem with Bible - credibility - make something up.

[Irkle Berserkle]

The points I made on the other thread, and that you presumably saw, were basically:

• We don't disbelieve in Santa Claus in a vacuum. Most of us at some point did believe, but we shifted to disbelief and have continued in disbelief.
• There are reasons for our disbelief. Our disbelief has a foundation. That foundation might be based on assurances from authority figures that Santa doesn't exist or on our own study, observation and experience. Because the vast majority of sane and intelligent people over the age of five or so don't believe in Santa, we're very confident in our disbelief.
• Theoretically, and unlikely as it might seem in the case of Santa, our disbelief could be shaken by new evidence. We might even be persuaded Santa does exist. Unless he actually appeared, however, we could never be certain; we could only have some level of conviction.
• We likewise can never be certain Santa doesn't exist. We can have only a high level of conviction (in this case near-certainty) that he doesn't.
• Given the current state of the positive evidence (none), the negative evidence (lots) and the overwhelming disbelief on the part of sane and intelligent people, an insistence that Santa exists would be deemed irrational and even pathological.
• The situation isn't at all the same for theism. Billions of people, including many of the best philosophers, scientists, academics and professionals who laugh at the idea of Santa nevertheless believe in a theistic God. They can't reasonably be dismissed as irrational or pathological.
• However, a substantial minority of other sane and intelligent people don't believe in any God. They likewise can't be dismissed.
• The fact is, the state of the evidence is such that where one comes out on the question of God depends on what evidence, inferences and arguments each individual deems most relevant and compelling.
• As with Santa, we can never be certain God exists unless he appears. Some believers are convinced he has revealed himself in history, but this is likewise a matter of the evidence and arguments an individual finds compelling; sane and intelligent people may disagree. Other believers insist God has appeared to them, but again this is subject to legitimate debate and possible alternative explanations.
• As with Santa, we can never be certain God doesn't exist. We can only have a level of conviction one way or the other depending on our assessment of the evidence, inferences and arguments.

I thus see the Santa Claus analogy as a weak and flawed one because the evidence, inferences and arguments for Santa are nowhere near as strong as they are for God and billions of completely sane and intelligent people don't believe in Santa.

A valid analogy would require something where (1) the truth can't be established with certainty, and (2) the evidence, inferences and arguments are strong enough on each side that a substantial number of sane and intelligent people may be found on both sides.

All these attempts to make religious belief appear silly always boil down to two things:

1. "I disagree with the type of evidence, inferences and arguments you are using to reach your convictions."
2. "I disagree with your assessment of the evidence, inferences and arguments."

Anyone - believer or nonbeliever - can say this with perfect sincerity. We each must decide for ourselves what evidence, inferences and arguments are most relevant and compelling.

[TRANSPONDER]

That's a rather poor and flawed argument, some of which I touched on, and other points rather support the equivalence, but I will go through in detail if you really want to.

The main point and a somewhat valid one was reasons to not believe in the Santa figure (though, as I said, freeing Santa from human myths about Him is another thing) but the point is the credibility of the God/Jesus claim.

This looks valid because it has been peddled as a credible belief for so long. But the Bible has come increasingly under question. The gospels have been taken almost without query as substantially a reliable record of what Jesus said and did by people who were there at the time. The OT was rather less taken as a reliable record, but it really doesn't matter as for Christianity (the main problem) the gospels (and specifically the resurrection -claim) is what matters and the only thing that really matters.

It astonishes me now that the gospels are considered eyewitness. But at one time I accepted that and even after I'd seen that the gospels tell a different story to the one generally taught, I thought the details were reliable. I now know for sure they are not, in all reason (the unreasonable may deny it if they wish) and I believe even more than my faith in humanity that one day, it will be understood that the gospels are as much a tall story as the stuff about Santa.

Even if Jesus is based on a real person, so was St Nicholas. Of Smyrna, I believe.

You're still not buying it? I know. How we have been taught to think and respond with an educated instinct to Santa on the one side and Jesus on the other is a hard conditioning to break out of.

[badlander]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

That's a rather poor and flawed argument, some of which I touched on, and other points rather support the equivalence, but I will go through in detail if you really want to.

The main point and a somewhat valid one was reasons to not believe in the Santa figure (though, as I said, freeing Santa from human myths about Him is another thing) but the point is the credibility of the God/Jesus claim.

This looks valid because it has been peddled as a credible belief for so long. But the Bible has come increasingly under question. The gospels have been taken almost without query as substantially a reliable record of what Jesus said and did by people who were there at the time. The OT was rather less taken as a reliable record, but it really doesn't matter as for Christianity (the main problem) the gospels (and specifically the resurrection -claim) is what matters and the only thing that really matters.

It astonishes me now that the gospels are considered eyewitness. But at one time I accepted that and even after I'd seen that the gospels tell a different story to the one generally taught, I thought the details were reliable. I now know for sure they are not, in all reason (the unreasonable may deny it if they wish) and I believe even more than my faith in humanity that one day, it will be understood that the gospels are as much a tall story as the stuff about Santa.

Even if Jesus is based on a real person, so was St Nicholas. Of Smyrna, I believe.

You're still not buying it? I know. How we have been taught to think and respond with an educated instinct to Santa on the one side and Jesus on the other is a hard conditioning to break out of.

I grew up in a family that had no known Christians in the family tree and in a small town of mostly Christians. My classmates believed in both Santa Claus and Jesus because they were taught that by their families. I believe that they started not believing in Santa based on observations and being told by others, probably older children . As they grew older some of stopped believing in Jesus again based on their observations, new knowledge and contradicting evidence. Some of them may be even more religious in the years since high school.

It is easier to see evidence against Santa than Jesus because it is so much more obvious plus the parents never strongly fought their child's new formed disbelief. As long as the parents were religious belief in Jesus or whomever was being continue renforced which probably explains why children usually have the same religion as their parents.

I was never taught about either Santa or Jesus at home nor was I taught about most religions.

[normstad]

I've moved away from the Santa Claus analogy, and have transitioned to using Leprechauns. They and faeries (not viewed as being good!) to this day have a significant segment of the Irish populations firmly believing in them and their powers.

[TRANSPONDER]

They and pink unicorns, invisible elephants and garage -dragons are popular alternatives to Santa. The gold plated Porsche ain't bad, too. But I have a soft spot for Santa. He once brought me a calendar with bikini-models in Santa hats. That counts for something.

Originally Posted by badlander

I grew up in a family that had no known Christians in the family tree and in a small town of mostly Christians. My classmates believed in both Santa Claus and Jesus because they were taught that by their families. I believe that they started not believing in Santa based on observations and being told by others, probably older children . As they grew older some of stopped believing in Jesus again based on their observations, new knowledge and contradicting evidence. Some of them may be even more religious in the years since high school.

It is easier to see evidence against Santa than Jesus because it is so much more obvious plus the parents never strongly fought their child's new formed disbelief. As long as the parents were religious belief in Jesus or whomever was being continue renforced which probably explains why children usually have the same religion as their parents.

I was never taught about either Santa or Jesus at home nor was I taught about most religions.

Funny thing but I maybe believed in Santa longer than I believed in Jesus.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle

The points I made on the other thread, and that you presumably saw, were basically:

• We don't disbelieve in Santa Claus in a vacuum. Most of us at some point did believe, but we shifted to disbelief and have continued in disbelief.
• There are reasons for our disbelief. Our disbelief has a foundation. That foundation might be based on assurances from authority figures that Santa doesn't exist or on our own study, observation and experience. Because the vast majority of sane and intelligent people over the age of five or so don't believe in Santa, we're very confident in our disbelief.
• Theoretically, and unlikely as it might seem in the case of Santa, our disbelief could be shaken by new evidence. We might even be persuaded Santa does exist. Unless he actually appeared, however, we could never be certain; we could only have some level of conviction.
• We likewise can never be certain Santa doesn't exist. We can have only a high level of conviction (in this case near-certainty) that he doesn't.
• Given the current state of the positive evidence (none), the negative evidence (lots) and the overwhelming disbelief on the part of sane and intelligent people, an insistence that Santa exists would be deemed irrational and even pathological.
• The situation isn't at all the same for theism. Billions of people, including many of the best philosophers, scientists, academics and professionals who laugh at the idea of Santa nevertheless believe in a theistic God. They can't reasonably be dismissed as irrational or pathological.
• However, a substantial minority of other sane and intelligent people don't believe in any God. They likewise can't be dismissed.
• The fact is, the state of the evidence is such that where one comes out on the question of God depends on what evidence, inferences and arguments each individual deems most relevant and compelling.
• As with Santa, we can never be certain God exists unless he appears. Some believers are convinced he has revealed himself in history, but this is likewise a matter of the evidence and arguments an individual finds compelling; sane and intelligent people may disagree. Other believers insist God has appeared to them, but again this is subject to legitimate debate and possible alternative explanations.
• As with Santa, we can never be certain God doesn't exist. We can only have a level of conviction one way or the other depending on our assessment of the evidence, inferences and arguments.

I thus see the Santa Claus analogy as a weak and flawed one because the evidence, inferences and arguments for Santa are nowhere near as strong as they are for God and billions of completely sane and intelligent people don't believe in Santa.

A valid analogy would require something where (1) the truth can't be established with certainty, and (2) the evidence, inferences and arguments are strong enough on each side that a substantial number of sane and intelligent people may be found on both sides.

All these attempts to make religious belief appear silly always boil down to two things:

1. "I disagree with the type of evidence, inferences and arguments you are using to reach your convictions."
2. "I disagree with your assessment of the evidence, inferences and arguments."

Anyone - believer or nonbeliever - can say this with perfect sincerity. We each must decide for ourselves what evidence, inferences, and arguments are most relevant and compelling.

Well, done! Another excellent summation of the essential points that make further advancement of the Santa analogy pointless, IMO.

[Arach Angle]

it depends on what we are are calling god.

As the the type of god changes so does the compassions to Santa. Sometimes Santa just becomes far more unlikely and other times the god is less likely.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Well, done! Another excellent summation of the essential points that make further advancement of the Santa analogy pointless, IMO.

Well done Mystic - another thumbing up of someone who has not done a monumentally good job, just because you want to agree with him. Not the first time you have done that.