Posted on 07/17/2009 5:37:12 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Well I must say, I had a great time reading the comments, critiques and insults that came in after my last post with its modest attempt to define "atheism". In particular, many self-described atheists took umbrage to my claim that atheism is denial of the proposition that God exists. (Apparently my smarmy attitude was also ripe for verbal assault.)
One of my most spirited opponents drew comparisons between belief in God and unicorns as he/she asked: "do you believe in unicorns? Can you disprove the existence of unicorns?" The idea, presumably, is that belief in unicorns and God are equivalent. Thus, if belief in unicorns is irrational then so is belief in God (bad news for the theist). And if disbelief in unicorns is the rational position for the average person on the street then so is disbelief in God (good news for the atheist).
This is an important comparison to consider, but in doing so I am going to switch from unicorns to Santa Claus since the latter (being a concrete individual rather than a type of thing) is a closer parallel to God. So the question: is belief in Santa Claus like belief in God?
First, let's begin to address the question in the manner of Thomas Aquinas, by giving our opponent as fair a shake as possible:
So here we go. Picture yourself a manager at Walmart interviewing a potential employee to work in the warehouse. "Alfred" seems to be a well-adjusted intelligent twenty-five year old who has solid work experience and references, Thus you are inclined to hire him. Then you notice his Rolex watch and you offer a compliment. "Nice watch Alfred."
"Thanks," he replies, "Santa gave it to me." You pause, wait for the punchline, and then slowly, with growing trepidation, you realize that he is deathly serious.
You swallow nervously as Alfred watches you intently. "Santa?" you ask in a futile attempt to sound nonchalant. A bead of sweat rolls down your brow.
"Yes," Alfred replies. "I was very good last year. Santa loves me, and he watches everything we do. So you can trust me Mr. Manager."
Okay, would you hire Alfred even after he confessed belief in Santa Claus? At the very least wouldn't you be at least be less inclined to hire him in light of that belief? You might concede Alfred's point that believing Santa is watching over him will make him more likely to be honest and hard working. But would that potential positive byproduct of his belief be sufficient to allay your concerns?
With that in mind, let's replay the last exchange:
"Nice watch Alfred."
"Thanks. The Lord provided it as an answer to prayer."
Many people would view the invocation of God as much less threatening or epistemologically questionable than invocation of Santa Claus. Indeed, many would be positively encouraged to hear the invocation of God. But if it appears irrational to ascribe the acquisition of the watch to Santa Claus, why is it not equally irrational to ascribe it to God? In short, what makes the Christian any more rational than Alfred?
I’m really not sure how they got “SANTA” from Saint Nicholas...
But I do know that if you simply move the “N” in Santa to the end, you get a different name.
I believe in God because of personal revelation. Given that experience, it would be irrational for me not to believe.
thanks for posting the story. I feel bad that my brother continues to lie to his daughter (age 5 or 4?) about the existence of Santa. He shushes us (relatives) and tells us we mustn’t undeceive her. I’m sure when she gets older, she will be angry with her parents for lying about Santa.
you said: “I believe in God because of personal revelation. Given that experience, it would be irrational for me not to believe.”
Dittos. I am not good at explaining or defending my position; but according to existentialism, at least I could be “allowed” to continue to believe as I do. This might be all I could say (in a hypothetical scenario) to someone who seems more interested in proving me wrong than in really seeking for the truth. In the meantime, I’m gratefully enjoying benefits and freedoms that they don’t have.
“You will find Me, when you seek for Me with _all_ of your heart.” - Jeremiah 29:13
I think if choosing I’d go with the fellow that said the Lord answered a prayer since sometimes for our own good He says no in answer. And He forgives our failings.
But Santa Claus has his enemies list and he doesn’t forgive.
Plus he’s so tight fisted that even the “nice” have to wait all year for their trinkets knowing that’s all they can ever expect even if they’re perfect.
Now if the kind of god a person believes in is a reflection of the person and the rational mind is the one in touch with reality, I must go with first fellow.
God’s existence is not dependent on our belief.
My Jewish and Black friends are more concerned about the ‘Christians’ who are in charge of the conservative movement than they are of the Libs.
Just off the top of my head they would say conservatism is fiscal restraint (smaller government) and rule of law. My black friends (who are Christian) associate the Christians in the Conservative movement with the KKK, denial of freedoms and general oppression. My Jewish friends think that the Christians support Israel just so that Israel can be destroyed and usher in the return of Christ. Their problem with Christians in the conservative movement is that the Christians put Christianity first and laws and rights second, that scares them.
Good stuff!
The proof of life after death is the Resurrection — the pivotal point of Christianity. With no Resurrection — there is no proof of life after death. That was the second point of the Resurrection that Christ was to show us the promise of our future glorified bodies when we are all resurrected.
As for the Eastern Religions, coming from an Eastern Background originally — I can tell you that most of the Eastern Religions are self centered spirituality and are heavily works based (on your self).
You see in Christianity, after accepting Christ (and not in a superficial way) — your salvation is secure. Which then frees you up to follow the example of your Savior and pursue the lost.
However in Buddhism, Hinduism, etc... you have to continuously work on *yourself*, meditate — etc. It also opens up the “I’m more spiritual than that person” mentality. I think you can see that in the East with the misery that abounds there. What great and noble organization like the Salvation Army or the Red Cross (originally anyway) have they produced? Who sends missionaries to the armpits of the world in order to bring the Word of God — putting their lives on the line so that others may have eternal salvation — if not clean drinking water?
It’s not the Buddhist. In fact, there is no good basis for the claims of the Buddha other than to “trust him”. No miracles, no testimony that was even written in the generation in which he lived.
No one predicted the coming of the Buddha either. Whereas Christ is predicted in the Old Testament — and not in a superficial Nostradamus like way.
Also, the Buddhist concept of the Universe doesn’t even jive with reality — unlike Christianity / Judaism which tells us that time had a beginning (just as scientists tell us now) and that there was a moment of Creation (just as scientists tell us), and that the universe is subject to entropy (just as scientists tell us). In fact, the Bible even tells us that the Universe is expanding (which science tells us)! What would provoke men living hundreds or thousands of years before Christ to even think such things unless it was the Spirit of God?
Buddhism in contrast teaches us that the entire Universe is Eternal (impossible thanks to the 2nd law of thermodynamics) and is basically an illusion. Okay. Then you have that reincarnation thing — where you keep coming back even though you have no clue what you did wrong in your last life. That’s kind of messed up.
In Christianity, we are all equal Children of God. The Apostle Paul will tell us, “Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God.” (Romans 15:7)
I am not feeling good right now and realize that this post is all over the place :), but please continue to run hard after the Truth. I think ultimately it points squarely at Jesus of Nazareth :) I am of the opinion that science shows us the glory of the Creator just as the book of Romans says. It makes us appreciate how mighty indeed He is.
...and look what happens if you reverse the d and g in dog!!!!
Quite true, but an awful lot of joy and grief throughout history certainly is.
There is no proof of resurrection, other than very old stories and eye witnesses.
Saint Nicholas in Dutch, the original language of Nieuw Amsterdam (New York), is Sinterklaas. English speakers heard this as 'Santa Claus'. Simple.
We get most of our info of the KKK from the movies. Reality, they were against a lot of things. I remember my Dad telling me a story that he came home late one night the they were burning a cross on my grandfathers farm which was on a hill by the town and could be easily seen. I asked my Dad why they did that, there were no blacks in town but he say “Yah, but there were catholics”. Different times and things have changed but some people don't change with them.
Regarding the Jewish perspective, that is a new one on me.
Lots things to reflect on but some people are going to hear what they want to hear. True of conservatives also.
The comparison between God and Santa Clause is superficial at best. The difference is that the “big questions”, the ones that have been stumping smart people for thousands of years, force you to consider the possibility of God, but not of Santa Clause. God is an unavoidable philosophical problem. Santa is strictly optional.
“only one that doesn’t require me to be a good person”
Huh? What? Where in the bible is that?
I hear ya. I spent most of my adult life as an agnostic too, and my motto was also, “I’ve been fooled before”. It’s a hard spot to keep yourself in philosophically.
LOL. I bet you wish you asked this in post number 1, but I bet you figured, before the pain of experience, that wasn’t gonna be a need. Our fellow man often needs guidance to know where to go. However, we know there is a chance they’ll get annoyed like “I know, I’m not stupid you know,” and so we tend not to point out what instantly becomes obvious after we point it out.
You didn’t realize until post number 7 that you actually had to prompt people, even FReepers, to think about the question.
I’ll point out now that there are various implications which proceed from the hypothetical. That worth discussing too.
We all can use guidance from time to time.
I was searching this thread for someone to say something like you just said. Bravo. I may add a bit more if anyone cares.
I’m glad that the thread originator (SeekAndFind) prompted you to answer in comment number 7.
Why do you think they burned Crosses?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.