Thus far in this thread, no one has answered the question posed by the author :
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 (who invoked Santa as the one who gave him his watch)?
The bible doesn’t claim that the rational man believes in God. In fact the opposite is true. The rational man lacks the spirit and without the Spirit, that man is blind. In your example, the man with the watch can “see” more than the manager. The manager’s blindness to his true surroundings does not make the existence of God false. It simply means the manager is not equipped to see God’s hand in the world.
1 Corinthians 2:14
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Here’s my problem. A person gets in a serious car wreck. She barely escapes with her life. But she thanks God that she lived and only has a broken back. Excuse me, serious question here. If God was looking out for her why did he let her get in a car wreck at all? It makes no sense.
Oh people might say, God let you be in the wreck so you can learn something from it. Really? Would you let your child get 3rd degree burns all over his body, so he learn something from it? No of course not!!
I don’t think anyone really knows one thing about God or God’s motives. He always seems far less than Godlike and loving than God would really be, if there is a God.
well here’s my short answer: it is unequally rational - Santa is a cultural icon and God is the object and subject of 3 major religious belief systems(Christianity,Judaism and Islam) with milliions of believers throughout the world.
Personally, i think the posting is immature and your questions somehow weirdly juvenile .
It is not a good question.Children believe in Santa Claus.The question posed by the author is silly.
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 (who invoked Santa as the one who gave him his watch)?
OK, I'll take the bait. It is really quite simple. In the first instance, the writer makes it very clear that the interviewer is of the understanding that the adult person who says Santa Claus gave him the watch literally believes that some guy in a red suit came down his chimney and left the watch under the tree. So, of course the interviewer thinks the guy is crazy - who wouldn't.
But within the context of modern human society, adults of normal intelligence understand that people often thank the Lord, or explain that something they achieved was a result of prayer, or inspiration from some spiritual process. If the interviewer were to actually think that the person who says his watch was a result of praying for it, or the Lord's grace, was stating that the watch literally came from the Lord -- as in it was handed to him by God or Jesus himself -- then the interviewer would be more crazy than the fellow who believes in Santa Claus.
The person who relates his possession of the watch to his spiritual activities is making a statement about himself and his beliefs in the context of well understood shared aspects and norms of our culture. That isn't irrational at all.
So the hypothetical is really about a much different question than the author purports it to be. It is just one of many attempts to use clever wording and shallow logic to attempt to avoid facing the reality and power of spirituality.
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.
Santa means saint
and Claus is a last name of Saint Nicholas,
so yes I believe in Santa Claus, he was a very real man that lived a life so filled with the love of God that it touched the lives of other in miracles even after his death.
I guess the next question should be who do the children of atheists believe in and from what source do they find the power to do godly things.
In short it is the the life, death and resurrection of the very real Jesus Christ.