Santa, do Christians believe in him? If not, why not.

[dangerdan]

Ok, you're probably wondering what Santa has to do with Christianity? bear with me here....

The topic of Santa was brought up in the thread "Everyone should be agnostic?, and with it brought some interesting topics to do with belief systems, well worthy of a new thread.

Now why is this in a Christianity forum? I think it has some rich insights into Christian epistemology - why they believe in some things and not others. I was pondering putting this in the philosophy sub-forum, but I feel it’s more relating to pure Christian thought (though if moderators feel otherwise then that's ok).

So, let the debate begin! I do not intend the question to be demeaning or disrespectful, but merely a candid enquiry. So with no further ado - Do Christians believe in Santa? If not, why not.

[potwalloper.]

Irrationality would not be the winner over rationality. I think we can safely assume that most all the participants here on this forum are rational.

I would argue that any belief in God that is not supported by objective evidence is, by definition, irrational.

When challenged by the use of logic and consideration of scientific evidence the classic religious response is either that God is unaffected by physical laws or that he is beyond our understanding and scientific principles therefore do not apply.

I do not currently have any rigid belief - I have an understanding of the world that I alter as new evidence comes to light. This could probably be applied to most scientists.

In my experience most people who believe in god do have rigid belief systems and no matter how much logic indicates that there is no god they will not be diverted from their belief.

Throughout history there are numerous occasions where those who have dared to challenge the beliefs of those who apply religious dogma have been murdered or imprisoned by "believers" and this still goes on within countries that are dominated by religious fundamentalism.

Religion is an irrational construct that is not supported by any physical evidence and fails when examined objectively. Those who believe in religions are therefore also irrational, although they are unlikely to perceive themselves as such. Religious belief becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and no matter what I or others say in any debate those whose beliefs have a religous base will not alter their basic tenet that there is a god even though there has never been any proof of this.

This is why I say that an irrational approach will always win over logic. Logic can bang its head against the irrational wall of religion from here to eternity - all that will ever happen is that logic will get a major headache...

[otseng]

When challenged by the use of logic and consideration of scientific evidence the classic religious response is either that God is unaffected by physical laws or that he is beyond our understanding and scientific principles therefore do not apply.

It is quite unfortunate that responses by Christians, when pressed into an explanation for the support of their beliefs, fails to satisfy the mind of an unbeliever. But, it does not demonstrate that rational explanations do not exist. It could be simply that they have not taken the time to probe deeper, or are too lazy to probe deeper, or are satisfied with their level of understanding.

In my experience most people who believe in god do have rigid belief systems and no matter how much logic indicates that there is no god they will not be diverted from their belief.

Sure. And the same can be said of people of almost any belief (or non-belief) system.

Religion is an irrational construct that is not supported by any physical evidence and fails when examined objectively.

Interesting assertion. Perhaps you can start a thread to debate this topic.

[dangerdan]

The thread does have some entertainment value, I grant that. But of having any epistemological value, I find little.

I find his surprising that you would say that otseng.

Surely you would see the themes about belief systems and rationalization. How unverifiable statements are worthless. And how only falsifiable arguments are truly rational.

I believe we can all agree that using blind faith to support an argument is an unreasonable position. No matter what position one takes, using an appeal to faith does not do much to support one's position.

Yes, but there is more…

As soon as one starts to appeal to the “supernatural”, then they remove themselves from the world of the rational, and are only limited by their imagination. Any arguments that follow lack any credibility and worth.

I disagree. Several arguments have already been given against Santa's existence. Whereas the counterarguments have been an appeal to faith.

Not really, they gave quite rational arguments….to a point, before finally appealing to supernatural arguments.

I would like to comment that I hope that this exercise in the Santa discussion would encourage future discussions to rely on logic and reason on both sides of the aisle and not to base positions on blind faith.

Or any kind of appeal to supernatural solutions in an argument. In fact, next time I catch someone doing so, I’ll refer to potwalloper’s 8 points. Be warned….

[chrispalasz]

The difference.

Alright. I've got a car in the garage. I don't have the car keys.

If I look around for the car keys and don't find them, do I assume they don't exist?

Well... I could look for the car keys and not find them and then give up and come up with theories as to how the car is run.

If I look around for the car keys and I find them, do I keep looking for them?

I can show my keys to my neighbor... but they won't run his car. He has to find his own. I can tell him where his keys are... but he never wants to listen or believe me, so he won't even look.

That's Christianity. Everyone wants to know the mysteries of life. Some people find the answer. That's Christianity. Why would Christians need to listen seriously contemplate a neighbor's theory on where the car keys might be located if the Christian already has them.

Please don't take my metaphor off the wall, here. There are obvious flaws in it that don't need to be pointed out such as: God is not a set of car keys. God controls us, not the other way around. God finds us through our searching for Him... we don't find Him.

Now: You can have your belief in Santa.

Do you TRULY believe in Santa? I'm sure the answer is no.
Christians truly know that Jesus Christ is God.

Using the 8 points of reasoning, do you truly know in your heart and mind that Santa exists? I'm sure the answer is no.
By faith and God's own wisdom, I truly know in my heart and mind that God exists as Jesus Christ.

Is it at all necessary to believe in Santa? No.
Is it at all necessary to believe in God? Yes. Everyone that does not have faith in Jesus Christ will suffer eternally in Hell. it is absolutely necessary for anyone that wants to be good. Every human being deserves this fate, not just some - but because of God's mercy, nobody must suffer it. Only those that choose this fate by rejecting God's mercy in jesus Christ must suffer it.

Why do I care about Santa? I don't care about presents. You can have them. Why do you care about God? Don't you want to go to heaven? Do you even care? Don't you want salvation? Immeasurable and infallible protection, love, joy and perfection?

You can have your argument of Santa. But it holds no practical reality because nobody cares. There's a lot more on the line with God.

[/b]

[Gaunt]

Do you TRULY believe in Santa? I'm sure the answer is no.

I might not, but you can be sure that 4 year old down the street does, and for the same reason they might believe in God: their parents told them so.

Christians truly know that Jesus Christ is God.

There you go using that word "know" again. You might certainly believe that Jesus is God, but that does not make it knowledge.

Is it at all necessary to believe in God?

In the hunter-gatherer sense of the word? No. Millions of people survive every day without any sort of god belief, and billions go through life without belief in Jesus. The only reason you answer yes is because you believe it to be true, not because it necessarily is.

Buddhists everywhere know, according to your use of the word, that hell does not exist. Muslims know that Jesus was just a prophet and that Muhammad is the means by which god will save everyone. Why does your "knowledge" invalidate theirs?

There's a lot more on the line with God.

Only because you believe there is.

[otseng]

I find his surprising that you would say that otseng.

Surely you would see the themes about belief systems and rationalization. How unverifiable statements are worthless.

Surprising? For those familiar with my posts on this forum, I hope that it can be seen that I value logic and reason (and try to even use it myself). To me, unverifiable/unsupportable statements being worthless is a given.

As soon as one starts to appeal to the “supernatural”, then they remove themselves from the world of the rational, and are only limited by their imagination. Any arguments that follow lack any credibility and worth.

I would agree that simply saying "God did it" is not an intellectually satisfying answer. For me, that is also a given.

Or any kind of appeal to supernatural solutions in an argument.

Are you saying that if a solution has a supernatural component that it is outrightly dismissed? Even if alternative solutions are less plausible?

In fact, next time I catch someone doing so, I’ll refer to potwalloper’s 8 points. Be warned….

Potwalloper's 8 points? How would it be relevant to future discussions?

[chrispalasz]

Buddhists everywhere know, according to your use of the word, that hell does not exist. Muslims know that Jesus was just a prophet and that Muhammad is the means by which god will save everyone. Why does your "knowledge" invalidate theirs?

Our knowledge invalidates theirs because ours comes from God. They can say the same thing... but we can't all be right. Correct? And the only way to find out is to seek. Go ahead... seek. Test those things out... and then appeal to Christianity by sincerely praying to Jesus Christ to forgive your sins and ask Him to show you the truth and to receive the Holy Spirit. Then you'll know that Christ is the only God.

You might certainly believe that Jesus is God, but that does not make it knowledge.

Wait... you're going to tell me that you don't have the answer, but that you know I don't? How does that work? Is it possible for a person to know something that you don't know? I've told you already, I think more than once, how you can come to this knowledge... but don't sit and call tell me what I know and don't know unless you know something to the contrary. If that is the case... we can discuss that instead.

Do you know what your favorite color is? Do you know what your favorite food is? Prove it... otherwise you just beleive that you have a certain favorite color or food.

[Gaunt]

but we can't all be right

True, but it is possible that everyone is wrong.

appeal to Christianity by sincerely praying to Jesus Christ to forgive your sins and ask Him to show you the truth and to receive the Holy Spirit. Then you'll know that Christ is the only God.

Appeal to Islam by sincerely praying to God to forgive your sins and ask Him to show you the truth. Then you'll know that there is not God but Allah, and Muhammad is His Prophet.

Wait... you're going to tell me that you don't have the answer, but that you know I don't? How does that work?

It works because knowledge is not knowledge due to a conviction of beliefs. if you cannot justify a belief, then you do know truly "know" you simply believe. It doesn't matter how much you believe, or how much you want your beliefs to be true, if you cannot justify those beliefs, they are not knowledge.

Is it possible for a person to know something that you don't know?

Of course it is. However, if they know it, then they can explain to me why they believe that, using objective evidence if the topic is something that exists objectively. If they are unable to do so, then they do not really "know" it, though they might believe it.

Do you know what your favorite color is? Do you know what your favorite food is?

Of course I know what my favorite color and food are. These are subjective values though, and do not exist outside of my judgement. You claim that god is objective, and therefore the situations are not analogous.

[dangerdan]

Surprising? For those familiar with my posts on this forum, I hope that it can be seen that I value logic and reason (and try to even use it myself). To me, unverifiable/unsupportable statements being worthless is a given.

Great. So then it must follow that you don’t think the bible contains terribly valuable information then, as much of what is said is totally unverifiable.

I would agree that simply saying "God did it" is not an intellectually satisfying answer. For me, that is also a given.

But why do you bother trying to determine a rational basis for Christianity, if at the end of the road, you mealy appeal to supernatural arguments? Surely this would render Christian thought a valueless truism? This I feel is a subject that cuts quite deep into issues of religious thought, these are no insignificant murmurs.

Are you saying that if a solution has a supernatural component that it is outrightly dismissed?

You must dismiss it from mature, rational thought. You can by all means discuss and think about it, make art about it, write imaginative books about it, etc, but it is important that one does not try to pass it off as rational.

Even if alternative solutions are less plausible?

How do you determine the “plausibility” of supernatural arguments? Is it more “plausible” that Santa feeds the reindeers a high carbohydrate diet due to vast amounts of kinetic energy they burn? Or does his miraculously sustain their dietary needs? Who can say? A word like “plausible” isn’t relevant for supernatural arguments.

Potwalloper's 8 points? How would it be relevant to future discussions?

If Christians agree that they show bad reasoning, next time I catch a Christian using similar arguments to defend their position, I’ll refer to them.

[chrispalasz]

You know, there's a good Santa joke that explains why Santa doesn't exist.

DEFINATELY check it out: http://www.markjoshi.com/Ashland/Jokes.html

It's the 3rd joke on the list. Also, there's another web board where they have been scientifically discussing if Santa exists.

http://slashdot.org/askslashdot/00/12/24/2021248.shtml

I don't care so much about this website... but definately check out the Santa Joke!