How do we know Santa Claus doesn't exist?

[mama2one]

I just stumbled across BigV's thread, found it interesting, and answered a post in it.

what I quoted sounds like what thread starter would say

"I presented an exercise" and "I asked Christians to do just that: disprove Santa"

 

[2PhiloVoid]

what I quoted sounds like what thread starter would say

"I presented an exercise" and "I asked Christians to do just that: disprove Santa"

Sister Christine, what might be going on here is that while it is true that Interest Atheist sounds a lot like Big V, what has happened is that they've both bought tickets to ride on the same epistemological train (of thought) and so the individual questions and sarcastic responses they each give us sound quite a bit alike.

But, then again, what with all of the various troll activity that is bound to run about during Halloween time, I guess you could be right? One never knows for sure about what drives atheists these days.

 

[mama2one]

ok, sorry
my mistake

 

[InterestedAtheist]

That's fine. I wasn't expecting you to buy it since I was humoring you, and besides that, one wouldn't have to simply read his book since there's a whole bevy of sources our there in this big wide world by which to become better educated about epistemology. And don't just take it from me, you can put this to the test by finding your own sources on epistemology and see that what I'm saying is an empirical truism---but only of the 1st order.

Thanks, Philo. That's all fair enough. Epistomology sounds like interesting stuff, though a bit weighty.

The first thing to perhaps recognize, and it is debatable, is that as Baergen affirms "...it may be impossible to work out a tenable theory of knowledge" (p. 129). And what does he mean by this? He means that none of the theories of knowledge available out there, or frameworks like Foundationalism, will ever fully or adequately enable us to "justify" all of our claims in a firm and substantial manner where the word "justified" is "proven" to the extent that anyone would be knocked flat by understanding some justification of explanation about some Fact "X".

That's reasonable enough.

Third, in regard to Jesus, other than empirical prayer which is subject to our various hermeneutical processes, not only do the two points above apply, but the fact that Jesus as entity that we even can affirm is a historical figure

He was probably a historical figure, yes. Although there is a vital difference between saying "A Jewish preacher named Yeshua existed about 2000 years ago" and going on to say "and he was the son of God who worked miracles and rose from the grave".

"Lastly," there are also the Existential problems that Pascal and Kierkegaard point out, not the least of which was asserted by the latter of these two gentlemen when positing that Gotthold Lessing's "Ditch" involving deeply seated human pathos would be difficult to cross EVEN IF ANY OF US HAD ALL OF THE BEST, JUSTIFIED, PROVEN AND TRUE DATA THAT ANY OF US COULD HAVE FROM THE PAST ABOUT JESUS. Why? It's because no one can have a relationship with a sentence that says, "Jesus lives and loves you!" No, I think we can all say that it takes more than a simple true statement for any of us to not only believe but to also find genuine faith in Christ.

That's all true enough, and I think I'd agree with Lessing here. You may find this little article of interest: How Christians teleport across Lessing's ditch.

Of course, that leads to the sixth and very final point, which is really a question or two: Does one "seek" Jesus, truly? Does one also apply the above considerations when thinking about dear ol' "Santa"?

Consider the situation with Jesus and Santa (stepping out of character for a moment, but still looking forward to having someone disprove Santa for me).
As children grow up, they are told many things which are not true. They are told that the tooth fairy gives them coins. They are told that Santa brings them presents. They are told that Jesus loves them and is always watching them (I was once in a school where I heard a teacher warning her class to behave with this implied threat). There's no real difference between the way these are presented to children.
But as they grow older, children naturally begin to seek the truth (to comment on your question about seeking Jesus and Santa). They begin to expose inconsistencies in the story. They find flaws in it. They begin to work it out. And with regards to Santa, the adults watch all of this, waiting for the right time to let the children in on the joke they've been playing on them.
It is of course completely different with Christian parents and children. Here, any questions about the reality of Christianity will be met with a well-practised army of responses designed to shut questioning down. Imagine if it was the same for Santa. Imagine if you could threaten a child with punishment, or actually punish a child, or have books and arguments and preachers and websites to persuade your child that Santa actually did exist.
So no, people don't have the same considerations when thinking about Santa; but they could, quite easily. So you see, Santa and Jesus are very closely comparable in terms of believability; the difference is that a huge amount of effort on multiple levels has been put into presenting them differently to children.

p.s. Here's a little something extra for your further consideration, if you haven't already seen it:

Thank you. Most interesting.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Sister Christine, what might be going on here is that while it is true that Interest Atheist sounds a lot like Big V, what has happened is that they've both bought tickets to ride on the same epistemological train (of thought) and so the individual questions and sarcastic responses they each give us sound quite a bit alike.

But, then again, what with all of the various troll activity that is bound to run about during Halloween time, I guess you could be right? One never knows for sure about what drives atheists these days.

Thank you, Philo.
@christine40 , quite natural. But Philo and I have known each other for a little while. He can vouch for me, in a sense.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thanks, Philo. That's all fair enough. Epistomology sounds like interesting stuff, though a bit weighty.

Oh yes! Epistemology, like Metaphysics and Axiology, and then all of those "applied" auxiliary fields that have been derived from these bastions of philosophy (like, say, 'Political Science' or 'Philosophy of Science,' etc.) are indeed interesting. They could be said to be weighty, but I find the word 'complex' to be more apt than weighty.

But then again, I think it kind of goes without saying since Reality is complex, and if we're really and truly gong to wrestle with the bear of reality, we'd best do so by not assuming it'll be an easy task. I do realize, however, that there are those who seem to think that with some weakly asserted notion of 'science' (i.e. scientism), we might just as well "believe" we are indeed Hercules when dealing with the bear. If that could really be so, it would be so much the better. However, there's a problem: Every time I yell out "S.H.A.Z.A.M."! or better yet, "S.C.I.E.N.T.I.S.M"!.................................... nothing happens. But the bear of complexity is still there and staring at me.

He was probably a historical figure, yes. Although there is a vital difference between saying "A Jewish preacher named Yeshua existed about 2000 years ago" and going on to say "and he was the son of God who worked miracles and rose from the grave".

That's a true statement, AI. But to simply say that there is a vital difference between possible historical truth J and metaphysical potentiality J isn't to really say a whole lot and doesn't suffice to end the conversation. Again, that ugly bear of complexity roars at us.

That's all true enough, and I think I'd agree with Lessing here. You may find this little article of interest: How Christians teleport across Lessing's ditch.

Thanks for making the effort to find a useful article for all of us to ponder over, but in reading it, I've found it to be not only of mild usefulness, but it also doesn't address the additional, deeper epistemological complexities that actually exist, and it also too briefly assesses and dismisses various issues by weasling its way in and around a few things. Do you really want me to take it apart paragraph by paragraph?

Consider the situation with Jesus and Santa (stepping out of character for a moment, but still looking forward to having someone disprove Santa for me).
As children grow up, they are told many things which are not true. They are told that the tooth fairy gives them coins. They are told that Santa brings them presents. They are told that Jesus loves them and is always watching them (I was once in a school where I heard a teacher warning her class to behave with this implied threat). There's no real difference between the way these are presented to children.
But as they grow older, children naturally begin to seek the truth (to comment on your question about seeking Jesus and Santa). They begin to expose inconsistencies in the story. They find flaws in it. They begin to work it out. And with regards to Santa, the adults watch all of this, waiting for the right time to let the children in on the joke they've been playing on them.
It is of course completely different with Christian parents and children. Here, any questions about the reality of Christianity will be met with a well-practised army of responses designed to shut questioning down. Imagine if it was the same for Santa. Imagine if you could threaten a child with punishment, or actually punish a child, or have books and arguments and preachers and websites to persuade your child that Santa actually did exist.
So no, people don't have the same considerations when thinking about Santa; but they could, quite easily. So you see, Santa and Jesus are very closely comparable in terms of believability; the difference is that a huge amount of effort on multiple levels has been put into presenting them differently to children.

... hark, what is that growling sound I hear in yonder woods, AI?

Thank you. Most interesting.

You're welcome!

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Oh yes! Epistemology, like Metaphysics and Axiology, and then all of those "applied" auxiliary fields that have been derived from these bastions of philosophy (like, say, 'Political Science' or 'Philosophy of Science,' etc.) are indeed interesting. They could be said to be weighty, but I find the word 'complex' to be more apt than weighty.

But then again, I think it kind of goes without saying since Reality is complex, and if we're really and truly gong to wrestle with the bear of reality, we'd best do so by not assuming it'll be an easy task. I do realize, however, that there are those who seem to think that with some weakly asserted notion of 'science' (i.e. scientism), we might just as well "believe" we are indeed Hercules when dealing with the bear. If that could really be so, it would be so much the better. However, there's a problem: Every time I yell out "S.H.A.Z.A.M."! or better yet, "S.C.I.E.N.T.I.S.M"!.................................... nothing happens. But the bear of complexity is still there and staring at me.

Sometimes, Philo, simple matters can be made complex by over-analysing them. Case in point: you may say "Of course Santa Claus doesn't exist; why would anyone bother saying that he does?" But as we have found out on this thread, if you apply the same arguments that Christians have developed over the centuries to defend the existence of God to the task of defending Santa, disproving Santa becomes a tediously difficult job - as more than one person on this thread has already found.
This is, of course, to make a serious point: it is possible to use "logic and reason" to defend the ridiculous, and doing so for Santa exposes the shallowness of the arguments for Christianity.

That's a true statement, AI. But to simply say that there is a vital difference between possible historical truth J and metaphysical potentiality J isn't to really say a whole lot and doesn't suffice to end the conversation. Again, that ugly bear of complexity roars at us.

Not necessarily, Philo. It could just be that education doesn't always help people to understand the truth better. Sometimes it just enables them to defend their irrational beliefs with more subtlety.

... hark, what is that growling sound I hear in yonder woods, AI?

It's the sound of Philo warming up his apologetics machine. Duck! Low-flying arguments!

Thanks for making the effort to find a useful article for all of us to ponder over, but in reading it, I've found it to be not only of mild usefulness, but it also doesn't address the additional, deeper epistemological complexities that actually exist, and it also too briefly assesses and dismisses various issues by weasling its way in and around a few things. Do you really want me to take it apart paragraph by paragraph?

I would be interested to see that, Philo. Yes, please do take it apart.

 

[mama2one]

It is of course completely different with Christian parents and children. Here, any questions about the reality of Christianity will be met with a well-practised army of responses designed to shut questioning down.

we did not do Santa & and told family members we weren't so as not to perpetuate
many parents of adopted children do not do Santa since it's important to tell the truth to children who have had trauma in their lives & need to feel safe

we never shut down questioning & have always told our child she can ask us anything & that we're here for her

she has asked questions about God and I did not have a pat answer
often I have to research questions she does ask as don't want to give wrong answers

wrong once on helping with homework & she still reminds me of that!

 

[InterestedAtheist]

we did not do Santa & and told family members we weren't so as not to perpetuate
many parents of adopted children do not do Santa since it's important to tell the truth to children who have had trauma in their lives & need to feel safe

we never shut down questioning & have always told our child she can ask us anything & that we're here for her

she has asked questions about God and I did not have a pat answer
often I have to research on questions she does ask as don't want to give wrong answers

wrong once on helping with homework & she still reminds me of that!

But when she did ask questions that you couldn't answer, there was a whole huge subculture you could access dedicated to helping her to answer doubts about the existence of God, and assuring you that it was important her doubts were answered - isn't that so?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

By the way, @2PhiloVoid - in the interests of full disclosure, I should mention that article was the second of a pair. The first is here:
How Do You Decide What to Believe?

 

[mama2one]

But when she did ask questions that you couldn't answer, there was a whole huge subculture you could access dedicated to helping her to answer doubts about the existence of God

this is one she asked:
elementary child asked "who created God"

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Thank you for sharing that, Christine. I think we might tweak the question a little to make it more effective: why does God exist? And I think the answer is, nobody knows.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sometimes, Philo, simple matters can be made complex by over-analysing them.

Some may matters may suffer the structural accumulation of barnacles, true enough, but for you to simply say this can be the case, even though it can indeed be at times, isn't to actually take show that you or I have then taken the bear by the ears and grappled with the complexity of actions and analyses that must be attempted in an exhaustive fashion to then "justify knowledge" on even a 2nd order. [Remember that little thing I said above about some things being of only the 1st order?] But all of this is beside the point, have you ever wrestled a hungry Grizzly Bear, let alone done so successfully? ............................neither have I, and for good reason.

Case in point: you may say "Of course Santa Claus doesn't exist; why would anyone bother saying that he does?" But as we have found out on this thread, if you apply the same arguments that Christians have developed over the centuries to defend the existence of God to the task of defending Santa, disproving Santa becomes a tediously difficult job - as more than one person on this thread has already found.

Before the "Santa" issue begins to become too ridiculous from an epistemic angle, I'll just have to assert here a big "NO" to your assertion that S = J. No, they do not. And as @Silmarien has already stated above in another post, your reduction of this whole comparison between Santa and Jesus is becoming freighted with a bunch of just so statements on your part and is essentially both an epistemological equivocation on your part as well as a metaphysical one.

Furthermore, I'm not the Christian Apologist who sits in either Plantinga's hut of Reliablism nor in William Lane Craig's nuanced version of Evidentialism, so as I've said, I'm pretty sure that as the latest affirmations about Christian Apologetics could be made in many an Evangelical church, I'm not IN those camps, strictly speaking. They have their uses, but regardless, I'm under no false illusions that the Christian Faith can be had or arrived at simply by applying some nuanced forms of Foundationalism or Evidentialism, or even by using Coherentism or Pragmatism, even though all of these things may very well be interesting beginning points by which to travel what I see is a Existential form of Journey Epistemology.

You might realize that all of what I say here has less to do with "proving" or "demonstrating" the truths of Christianity or helping any one person to decisively achieve something that I believe ultimately remains in its finality in God's Providence. More so, the flip side of my approach to 'defending' the Christian Faith to deconstruct, sabotage, expose, deflate, curb, displace, corrode, dissolve or otherwise "tear a new hole" in the existential fibers of the epistemological assumptions that so many folks seem to rely on today. And by doing so, one might come to see that even if they can't find God's hand in the world, they'll be standing in the Deep Darkness of the Abyss just the same. ...So, as you can see, I'm not claiming to be the Christian Apologetic Superman ... even though I've got a red cape, too. No, I'm from a different league. Thus, this will go "differently."

This is, of course, to make a serious point: it is possible to use "logic and reason" to defend the ridiculous, and doing so for Santa exposes the shallowness of the arguments for Christianity.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Not necessarily, Philo. It could just be that education doesn't always help people to understand the truth better. Sometimes it just enables them to defend their irrational beliefs with more subtlety.

Ya think?

It's the sound of Philo warming up his apologetics machine. Duck! Low-flying arguments!

... the great thing about my position is that I can just keep coming back, time and time again. (Nietzsche, eat your heart out!)

I would be interested to see that, Philo. Yes, please do take it apart.

Yes, it would, wouldn't it.

 

[BigV]

But, then again, what with all of the various troll activity that is bound to run about during Halloween time, I guess you could be right? One never knows for sure about what drives atheists these days.

I'm BigV and the only one on these forums. Look at my post history, if you can, and going back to 2007 when I originally registered I was posting as a Christian, who was a Baptist. In fact, I needed to have the Mods change Baptist to Atheist. So that's the first point.

Second point it, it's funny how talking about Santa is trolling, but talking about Jesus is something very wise. If I'm trolling, it's only to show the level of religious discource. If you are being trolled by Atheists, then what do you think happens on Sundays during Church service?

 

[BigV]

Before the "Santa" issue begins to become too ridiculous from an epistemic angle, I'll just have to assert here a big "NO" to your assertion that S = J. No, they do not. And as @Silmarien has already stated above in another post, your reduction of this whole comparison between Santa and Jesus is becoming freighted with a bunch of just so statements on your part and is essentially both an epistemological equivocation on your part as well as a metaphysical one.

Santa and Jesus are claimed to do different tricks, but they are both imaginary. In other words, they act as imaginary beings even as different levels of power are ascribed to them.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm BigV and the only one on these forums. Look at my post history, if you can, and going back to 2007 when I originally registered I was posting as a Christian, who was a Baptist. In fact, I needed to have the Mods change Baptist to Atheist. So that's the first point.

Second point it, it's funny how talking about Santa is trolling, but talking about Jesus is something very wise. If I'm trolling, it's only to show the level of religious discource. If you are being trolled by Atheists, then what do you think happens on Sundays during Church service?

Why would you assume that I've fully and decisively identified you as a troll. I've done no such thing. Yet.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Santa and Jesus are claimed to do different tricks, but they are both imaginary. In other words, they act as imaginary beings even as different levels of power are ascribed to them.

Please review ALL of my points which I've thus far made post after post in this thread of yours, and if you'll do so, I might reconsider engaging you.

 

[BigV]

Why would you assume that I'm fully and decisively identified you as a troll. I've done no such thing. Yet.

My response was irrespective of whether you assumed I was a troll or not. You sounded like you were wavering. Makes no difference to me what you actually assumed.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My response was irrespective of whether you assumed I was a troll or not. You sounded like you were wavering. Makes no difference to me what you actually assumed.

Me, waver?

And it does make a difference to ME what it is that YOU assume. And you know what they say about "assuming," don't you?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Me, waver?

And it does make a difference to ME what it is that YOU assume. And you know what they say about "assuming," don't you?

I think he's saying you made one out of yourself, Philo.