The day Santa died

HEIDELBLOG SAID:

Steve,

The essence of a lie is the intent to deceive.

True. But words have connotations as well as denotations. You’re using the word “lie” because it has a pejorative connotation. That’s clear from the context of your discussion.

But should the intent to deceive carry a pejorative connotation? Are there morally innocent, permissible or even obligatory cases involving the intent to deceive?

Your argument seems to be that so long as the intent to deceive is for a good purpose (e.g., Santa) it's not a lie.

No, my position more qualified. However, I gave you a Scriptural example in the case of Nathan’s disguised parable.

Neither the Westminster Larger Catechism nor the Heidelberg Catechism address Santa under the heading of the ninth commandment but I think ‘intent to deceive’ is prohibited generally under the ninth commandment.

Well, therein lies one of the problems with your broad-brush treatment. For the ninth commandment prohibits slander and perjury. It doesn’t address deception in general.

There are times when lying may be necessary (although Mr Murray, as I recall, did not think so). I think of Rahab as an example. Mr Murray notes that she's not honored for her lie but if she hadn't lied we wouldn't know about her. But it seems like a stretch to equate the Santa myth with Rahab's lie if only because Santa is a myth and Rahab was defending the life of righteous, flesh and blood humans.

Take satire. Satire is a biblical genre. Satire involves hyperbole. Hyperbole is literally false. Stretching the truth. Comic exaggeration.

I doubt the whole project of defending the Santa myth as a way of defending the Christian faith.

Which is irrelevant to my argument.

The story, such as we know it, of the real figure behind the Santa myth is one thing but the Santa myth which people tell their children is something different. It's not historical. It's not factual. It's not true. Further, it's grounded in a terrible theology of rewards!

i) I don’t know why we must interpret Santa in theological terms.

ii) There are many cases in Scripture where obedience is rewarded and disobedience is punished. The “covenant of works.” The Mosaic covenant. That can operate even in divine/human transactions, not to mention transactions between two human parties.

Isn't this the difference between an understood convention and a lie that really brings disenchantment? Sometimes there is no harm when children learn that the Santa story is a lie but sometimes there is real harm. Sometimes it does create mistrust. Parents play a central role in the catechizing of children. When an "enchanted" child become disenchanted he can also become bitter and cynical. There's a real pedagogical issue here for parents who want to communicate the truth to their children. Should they risk the danger of cynicism for the sake of lying to their children about the Santa myth? Why? What's the pay off?

i) As I said at the outset of this thread, I’m not terribly interested in the specific case of Santa. I’m more interested in the generic principles you introduce to justify your position.

ii) I don’t agree with your straightlaced notions of parental pedagogy. For instance, there’s a scene in the Transformers where Sam Witwicky’s dad is going to buy Sam his first car. Ron plans to buy him a used car, but as a lark, he drives through the parking lot of a Porsche dealership on the way to the used car dealership to make Sam momentarily believe his dad is going to buy him a Porsche. Then there’s the big letdown at the end.

Sorry, but I don’t think humorous pranks between father and son are detrimental to their relationship. If anything, it’s a bonding experience.

iii) Finally, I don’t see that your armchair theory has a factual basis. For instance:

Just in time for Christmas, two Canadian researchers have put Santa Claus under a scholarly microscope-- and discovered it doesn't hurt kids psychologically when they find out Ol' Saint Nick doesn't exist.

Comparing an array of modern studies with the results of an 1896 U. S. survey in which 1,500 children were asked about the red-suited elf, Universite de Montreal Prof. Serge Larivee and the University of Ottawa's Carole Senechal found "not too much difference" over the past century in the gradual loss of belief in Santa Claus up to age 10, and the rapid loss thereafter.

They concluded that neither children's initial belief in Santa nor their eventual discovery of his fictional basis have posed any serious problems for youngsters over the generations since Saint Nick became a North American cultural icon.

The "constant outcome" of studies shows "children generally discovered through their own observations and experiences that Santa doesn't exist," Larivee stated in a summary of the research. "And their parents confirmed their discovery.

"Children ask their parents, for example, how Santa gets in the house if there's no chimney. Even if the parents say they leave the door unlocked, the child will figure out that Santa can't be everywhere at the same time and that reindeer can't be that fast."

Larivee, who teaches the psychology of education, said the study also found that "when they learn the truth, children accept the rules of the game and even go along with their parents in having younger children believe in Santa."

"It becomes a rite of passage in that they know they are no longer babies."

The study showed, as well, that more parents in modern times--about 40 per cent --tell their children the truth about Santa Claus, compared with their counterparts from the late 19th century, when just 25 per cent were likely to reveal Santa's mythic nature.

Nevertheless, even children who aren't told by their parents have typically stopped believing by age 10 because of what they learn from friends.

The study, yet to be published, is the first component of a two-part research project, which now moves to another touchy subject: how children's belief in Santa Claus compares with their belief in God.

"We wonder why people stop believing in Santa Claus but don't stop believing in God," said Senechal.

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=6ad665bf-db93-4af5-be6a-ee70b611a6d3

The aim of this article is to understand why, in spite of children attributing the same powers to Santa Claus and God, a loss of belief in the former does not lead to a loss of belief in the latter.

http://sir.sagepub.com/content/39/3/435.abstract

Disenchantment with Santa Claus is a rite of passage that usually signals the adoption of an adult-defined reality. The ethics of the custom, which has been described as misleading, have recently been debated and there are suggestions that it is less well maintained than in previous years. This short article explores some of the socio-cognitive benefits of promoting the Santa Claus tale and its associated customs. Sociological theories suggest benefits in family bonding and pro-social behaviour, including sharing. Cognitive theories describe enhanced fantastical thinking, expansion of the internal object world and purposeful play. Children may draw parallels between Santa Claus and God, although there is no current evidence that finding out he does not exist impairs their subsequent capacity for religious faith.

http://pb.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/28/12/455