Before I
wade into this, I’ll begin with a disclaimer. I don’t have a personal stake in
the Santa Claus tradition. If some Christian parents choose to opt out of that
tradition, that’s their prerogative. It’s not as if they have a duty to
maintain that tradition.
The
primary reason to celebrate Christmas is to celebrate the birth of Christ. That
should be central. At the same time, there’s nothing inherently wrong with
having fun.
And I’m
not going to rehash my position on the Christmas holiday.
The natural law tells us, and the Church has always taught, that lying is intrinsically wrong. There is no clause that says “…but it is OK when you’re lying to your kids about Santa!”
i) Of
course, natural law doesn’t tells us that lying is intrinsically wrong.
Sometimes lying is acceptable if it leads to good consequences.
But
because Feser’s denomination says that, he tries to retroactively validate that
teaching by concocting a natural law defense.
ii) And
because his denomination’s teaching is unreasonable, it creates loopholes in
the form of “mental reservations.” Like the Catholic prohibition against
divorce, which has the loophole of annulment, the Catholic prohibition against
lying has the loophole of mental reservations. What at first sounds very
high-minded quickly becomes sophistical and devious.
iii)
BTW, isn’t Santa Claus a tradition in traditionally Roman Catholic countries?
If this is so unethical, shouldn’t the Vatican tell Catholic parents to stop
“lying” to their kids about old St. Nick? Why does this bother Feser more than
it seems to bother the Magisterium?
What do the figures at left all have in common? None of them exists. Nor would any parent ever tell his child that Superman or Batman is real. Yet some parents tell their children that Santa Claus is real. Perhaps some also tell them that the Easter bunny or the tooth fairy is real.They shouldn’t. These are lies. Parents who do this certainly mean well, but they do not do well, because lying is always wrong. Not always gravely wrong, to be sure, but still wrong. That is bad enough. But there is also the bad lesson that children are apt to derive from this practice, even if the parents do not intend to teach it – namely, the immoral principle that lying is acceptable if it leads to good consequences. There is also the damage done to a child’s trust in his parents’ word. “What else might they be lying about? What about all this religion stuff?”I would urge them to stop. A child is completely dependent on his parents’ word for his knowledge of the world, of right and wrong, and of God and religious matters generally. He looks up to them as the closest thing he knows to an infallible authority. What must it do to a child’s spirit when he finds out that something his parents insisted was true – something not only important to him but integrally tied to his religion insofar as it is related to Christmas and his observance of it – was a lie? Especially if the parents repeated the lie over the course of several years, took pains to make it convincing (eating the cookies left out for “Santa” etc.), and (as some parents do) reassured the child of its truth after he first expressed doubts? How important, how comforting, it is for a child to be able to believe: Whatever other people do, Mom and Dad will never lie to me. How heartbreaking for him to find out he was wrong!
The
problem with this argument is that it proves too much. Should children have
unquestioning faith in whatever their Hindu, Muslim, atheist, or Neonazi
parents tell them is true? Isn’t part of maturation to scrutinize what your
parents taught you?
That
doesn’t mean you reject it. Rather, you evaluate it to determine if it’s true
or false.
Surely
doubting your childhood indoctrination as a Muslim is a good thing. Surely
there are situations in which implicit faith in parental wisdom is misplaced.
Surely there are situations in which becoming disillusioned with parental
instruction, or simply coming to the realization that your parents aren’t
infallible after all, is a necessary step in intellectual maturation.
If
Richard Dawkins is your dad, and he teaches you that faith in God is delusive,
then cultivating mistrust in his wisdom is a positively good development.
Feser’s
argument cuts both ways. Yes, if kids discover that their parents were “lying”
about Santa, they might possibly react by telling themselves, “What else might
they be lying about? What about all this religion stuff?”
But, of
course, that would work in reverse. If their dad is Richard Dawkins, that could
lead them to question all this irreligion stuff. Lead them to doubt or
disbelieve atheism.
Does
Christian faith come down to having faith in your parents? That was fine when
you were 4 years old, but when you get above a certain age, don’t you need more
to go by than your parents’ word? Shouldn’t your adult faith in Christianity be
grounded in something deeper, something independent of, trusting your parents?
In fact,
don’t some kids lose their faith because that’s all they were given growing up?
“Take our word for it. Father knows best.”
Now
there may be other, better arguments against the traditional of Santa Claus.
But Feser’s argument is strikingly bad for a smart philosopher.
Oh, and just speaking for myself, I wasn't "heartbroken" when, at an early age, I outgrew my childish belief in Santa.
I don't remember which English philosopher (Ross?) said that certain things, such as lying, come with a "black mark" against them. There may be extreme circumstances where it is okay to lie, but the rule to be followed is that you don't. Telling children that there is a Santa Claus strikes me as wrong.
ReplyDelete-SJ
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with this argument is that it proves too much. Should children have unquestioning faith in whatever their Hindu, Muslim, atheist, or Neonazi parents tell them is true?
ReplyDeleteBut presumably these are Christian parents whose duty is to teach their children the truth about the world (both natural and supernatural). I think it's okay to tell children "Santa doesn't really exist but let's pretend he does" in order to have some Christmas fun. I think it would make it even more fun since it's mutual play between parents and kids for an entire season. Moreover, they get to enjoy the Christmas season AND be told the truth about God, the incarnation and the cross.
Feser said...
There is also the damage done to a child’s trust in his parents’ word. “What else might they be lying about? What about all this religion stuff?”
The wonder, awe and expectation that some children have towards Santa should be aimed toward God, rather than a non-existent creature. It's God, not Santa who watches everyone to see who's naughty and nice and who will reward the good and not reward the naughty. Of course, as they grow they can be further taught doctrines like total depravity, and necessity of grace, the error of Pelagian and semi-Pelagian rewards, of justification by faith alone, of eternal punishment et cetera.
But it's precisely because Santa Claus is a God substitute (like the Catholic Marian dogmas are a Christ substitute) that when children realize Santa doesn't exist, that they sometimes (often?) conclude that God doesn't exist either.
It's not uncommon for atheists to say words to the effect that, "I first realized God didn't exist when I realized (or found out) Santa Claus didn't exist either." Or, "I realized my parents lied to me about God when I found out they lied to me about Santa Claus." God ordains both ends and means, and the means of some people turning atheists is because their parents lied to them about Santa. Nevertheless, those parents will be held accountable for their teachings/examples which led their children astray. Whether it be a superstitious mother who takes Horoscope predictions seriously; or a father who has a cashe of pornographic material etc.
Also, children are much more intelligent and philosophical than we give them credit. They think deeper about the realities of life than we realize (and remember). That's why sometimes deaths in the family hit them harder. The child's insight about the finality of death is more sober than that of parents who have already gotten used to to the fact that they will eventually die and so have gotten used to "accepting the inevitable".
Children usually find out that Santa doesn't exist before their teens. But those years (say 1-13) are the very years that are crucial for parents to pattern the love and truth of God to their children. After that time (past aprox. 10 years old) is usually when they eventually realize the fallibility and sinfulness of their parents (as good as they might be) and when, hopefully, they turn their trust away from their parents (and earthly father) toward God (their heavenly father). The "magic" of Christmas should be associated with Christ, not Santa Claus. Just as the real Mary (not the Catholic Mary) would point to Christ as the true Mediator, so Saint Nicholas (who possibly attended the Council of Nicaea) would point to Christ and not himself as the true Rewarder (Rev. 22:12).
Steve, I agree with almost all of your theological, philosophical, political positions (as you've revealed them on this blog). But, this is one of those few instances where I disagree with your position. :´^(
ReplyDeleteExcept that you're burning a straw man. I wasn't evaluating the merits of this Christmas tradition. Rather, I was evaluating the merits of Feser's argument. Try to keep your eye on the ball, rather than commandeering my post as a pretext to ride your hobby horse, then fault me of saying things I didn't say.
DeleteAs a father of six, I have some amazing memories of working with small kids to set traps to catch Santa, and watching their faces light up as they open their presents with glee. It's not a lie; it's play-acting, and it's a very happy tradition.
ReplyDeleteAnd in some ways, celebrations of Santa at Christmas may be seen as a type or foreshadowing of the second Advent of Christ, when we'll all marvel, seeing for the first time the wonders He has held in store for us all these years.
It's not a lie; it's play-acting, and it's a very happy tradition.
DeleteNo, it's a lie. It may be a lie you think is justifiable, or benign, or anything else. But it's a lie. I mean, it's a textbook definition of a lie - that's non-controversial.
As for the glee, no one is saying 'you can't give presents on Christmas'.
Is not a lie, it is a fiction. I'm sure you read fiction. More, it is a way to immerse yourself into that fiction. Ever play a video game? Why lie to yourself like that?
DeleteNo, it is a happy, immersive fiction that enables parents to show their children how to look to something larger than ourselves.
Usually people know up front when they begin reading fiction that it's not real. I'm for telling kids it's make believe and enjoying Santa as a game. But teaching kids Santa actually is real and carrying out elaborate plans to convince them it's true can be setting them up for a real disappointment. In both in their parents and most especially in believing in a benevolent being who watches our behavior and rewards us for good and to whom we can communicate (via letter or sitting on His lap) to receive things we may desire [which mirrors God's attributes]). Kids can place faith in Santa like they do God.
DeleteSure, some people after having read The Da Vinci Code have later been convinced that there are serious factual errors in that fictional book. But by then they had already bought into Dan Brown's claim of accurate history and lost their faith in between the time they started reading the book and discovering it's errors. So, the discovery ends up being too late.
There are many similarities between Santa and a false substitute for God (i.e. false gods). I don't understand why people who would not hesitate to argue that the Catholic conception of Mary mimics, parallels and diminishes Jesus' role as mediator (etc.) would not argue for how Santa (like Allah) does a similar thing for an all-seeing and rewarding God. If it's wrong to teach kids that Mary really is Co-Mediator because they may continue to believe it in adulthood, why would it be okay to teach children Santa is real if by it they may conclude that God doesn't exist when they find out the truth?
Good parents (like you and Beth/Bethany) can usually offset any negative impact the realization that Santa is false. But not all parent are that good. For myself, if only 5% of kids could possibly lose their faith in God because of the discovery, then I wouldn't do it in light of Jesus statement "[W]hosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea."(Mark 9:42; Luke 17:2).
FYI, I don't recall ever believing in Santa though I know I wanted to believe it. If I did, it was very temporary. I did believe in the toothfairy for like a day. Admittedly the discovery she didn't exist didn't hurt me. But I can imagine a hurting child who's crying out for truth to become so disillusioned that she concludes God doesn't exist either.
ANNOYED PINOY
Delete“Usually people know up front when they begin reading fiction that it's not real.”
Actually, we often criticize a movie because it’s unbelievable. It has so many plot holes, so many coincidental events, the characters say and do such unrealistic things, that it keeps reminding us that we’re just watching a movie. It prevents us from suspending belief.
Generally speaking, we like a film that’s so engrossing that we forget we’re watching a movie. We resent movies which contain so many distracting flaws that we can’t forget for a moment that it’s imaginary.
“I'm for telling kids it's make believe and enjoying Santa as a game. But teaching kids Santa actually is real and carrying out elaborate plans to convince them it's true can be setting them up for a real disappointment. In both in their parents and most especially in believing in a benevolent being who watches our behavior and rewards us for good and to whom we can communicate (via letter or sitting on His lap) to receive things we may desire [which mirrors God's attributes]). Kids can place faith in Santa like they do God.”
Yes, I keep hearing that canned narrative, but it doesn’t square with my common observation. At best, it strikes me as a hasty generalization.
Hi Annoyed, I appreciate your concern. We've been doing this sort of thing for more than 20 years. Our youngest is probably at the end point, and she believes in God just fine. More than anything, it's just a cultural thing. We have lots of happy family memories because of it.
DeleteI said kids can and do place faith in Santa like they do or should do in God. Some even place their faith, hope and love towards Santa on par with, or above, or in place of God. So, these kids could actually be set up for believing in atheism or in an all-altrusistic universalistic theism. I don't see how this kind of faith kids are being indoctrinated into is different from idolatry. There are instances of children entering the occult by playing with and speaking to "invisible friends". For example here.
DeleteThat's why I take the following verse not only literally, but woodenly literally.
"Little children, keep yourselves from idols." (1 John 5:21)
Oh, i didn't know you responded right before my last post. This will be my last post on the topic. You have better things to do than respond this issue. I do admit that for most children it probably doesn't affect them negatively. But for me, the question is not merely whether there are no or very little ill effects, but whether it's actually Biblicallly permissible (regardless of effect). I'm glad your kids turned out good. I'd ascribe it to you and Beth and God's grace. :-)) ciao
DeleteI didn't realize Steve also responded. I didn't scroll up until later.
DeleteTo Steve:
Actually, we often criticize a movie because it’s unbelievable.
But kids get empirical evidence for Santa's existence year after year with by half eaten cookies, by the culture around them affirming it, by sitting on his lap, by answered letter requests for certain toys etc. How is that comparable?
Oh, I think I understand what you mean. Santa's abilities are unbelievable. Not for kids since he's associated with the omnipotent God. I didn't initially reject the wof Santa Claus because what he did was unbelievable. In fact, I recall believing they were possible precisely because he's a servant of God. I was partially Catholic and believed in the past existences of the saints including St. Nick. I just wasn't sure whether the saints had such powers. The difference was that St. Nick superpowers were "better" and grander than some of the others. But I eventually figured out from the rudimentary knowledge I had from my Catholic and Seventh Day Adventist training that it's unlikely that God would actually empower Saint Nick that way.
DeleteIt seems to me that the combination of the fact that Santa Claus is associated with God, and the fact that it's part of Catholic superstition should lead consistent Protestants not to engage in deceiving their children about Saint Nick. Rather we should teach them about the real St. Nick and all the good he did REALLY do. Then enjoy the Santa tradition knowing it's make-believe.
BTW, what I meant was I wouldn't respond anymore to John (B.). That was before I knew Steve had posted something. I'll leave it at that unless Steve posts something which I interpret he wants me to respond to. If I'm expected to respond, I'll have to do it past midnight Eastern Standard Time. Otherwise, I leave the last word to both John and Steve (if they post anything else).
DeleteClarification: I do believe that some of the Catholic Saints may have performed some of the miracles attributed to them. But some of them are more/less plausible than others. The major difference between the past miracles of dead saints, or the alleged (modern) answered prayers by saints in heaven and that of the Saint Nick of Santa Claus myth is that (at least for kids) there's plenty of empirical evidence for his existence. Besides, he's believed to exist by Christians, non-Christians, and even some atheists (in the perception of those children who believe in him).
DeleteANNOYED PINOY
Delete"But kids get empirical evidence for Santa's existence year after year with by half eaten cookies, by the culture around them affirming it, by sitting on his lap, by answered letter requests for certain toys etc. How is that comparable?"
That's another hasty generalization. You're fabricating a uniform narrative about how families observes the Santa custom. I see critics of Santa just pulling this out of their hat. They don't cite any sociological studies. They either mention a few anecdotes, which they proceed to universalize, or they just hypothesize a worst-case scenario.
ANNOYED PINOY
Delete"There are many similarities between Santa and a false substitute for God (i.e. false gods)."
Sounds suspiciously like something a very self-conscious adult would say, not at all how children think.
And as far as that goes, I think little kids are far more likely to deify their parents. Dad is omniscient and omnipotent. Perfectly good.
Hi Annoyed Pinoy,
DeleteJust out of curiosity, would this also mean you'd be against kids reading, say, The Chronicles of Narnia because they might put their faith in Aslan?
rockingwithhawking, not of they were read *as* fiction. As I said above, I like the idea of parents playing pretend with their kids about Santa so long as the parents make it clear that Santa (with all his thaumaturgical powers)doesn't really exist even though it's based on a real historical Christian.
DeleteSteve I said that from the perspective of an adult.
DeleteAnd as far as that goes, I think little kids are far more likely to deify their parents. Dad is omniscient and omnipotent. Perfectly good.
An observant child (even in the early years like 4 or 5) can tell that mom and dad aren't perfect. Yes, parents are to pattern God's fatherhood, but they always do so imperfectly. On the other hand Santa is presented as someone who can (virtually) infallibly tell which kids are good or bad (with the assumption that Santa is righteous enough to be able to justly mete out toys). Sounds like a god to me (whether finite or infinite) and so would constitute a violation of the first and second commandment.
I'm sure you'd agree parents should warn children about the dangers of playing the Quija board EVEN if the kids DON'T think/believe it's real because it may open up a spiritual door to demons. Then why allow the Santa myth to be believed by kids. There are cases where children fall into the occult by playing with invisible friends (or what adults would call "spirit guides" etc.). I'll repost the example I gave above. HERE'S ONE EXAMPLE.
Believing in Santa can potentially lead to being influenced by demons who will try to lead them to atheism or an all-altruistic universalistic theism or at the very least economic materialism/consumerism.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI see critics of Santa just pulling this out of their hat. They don't cite any sociological studies.
Delete1. If what I and others have said about the violation of Biblical laws and principles regarding the normative practice of the Santa tradition is true, then it would be wrong irrespective whether any child gets hurt.
2. For myself, I can't believe that every instance of an atheist using Santa as a gateway to their atheism is false. Especially since this is the testimony of people who have come back to the faith. It's not like only non-Christians have doubts.
3. As one of your quotes point out, some kids are really "Big on truth" especially the really rational ones. Is it any wonder that some of these kids grow up to be scientists AND atheists (i.e. there might be a correlation).
4. Personally, I wouldn't want to be party to the spiritual abortion of a child's infantile faith (Matt. 12:20 in conjunction with Mark 9:42).
Annoyed Pinoy said:
Delete"rockingwithhawking, not of they were read *as* fiction. As I said above, I like the idea of parents playing pretend with their kids about Santa so long as the parents make it clear that Santa (with all his thaumaturgical powers)doesn't really exist even though it's based on a real historical Christian."
Thanks for the reply.
Of course, much of this just goes back to the points Steve made above in response to what you've said.
By the way, there are children who believe fictional characters like Aslan are real despite what parents say (and despite what authors say). I bet you could probably Google for this and find some stories. In fact, if I recall correctly, C.S. Lewis once responded to a letter from a concerned parent about their son who believed in Aslan. So much so that the little boy thought he loved Aslan more than Jesus. I think it was in his Letters to Children book.
Annoyed Pinoy said:
Delete"Believing in Santa can potentially lead to being influenced by demons..."
Hm, but so can a lot of other things. I would think other factors besides a child's belief in Santa would be more significant in demonic influence. Say if a child was raised in an occultic environment and also had a belief in Santa. How do you separate and distinguish the one from the other as the cause? I could be wrong but I think this is the sort of thing Steve has in mind when he talks about sociological studies.
Also, we're talking about the commonly held belief about Santa that most kids in America have. Our mainstream cultural beliefs about Santa. But heck I guess it's possible some kid could believe in Santa in the same way he believes Catholic statues allegedly bleed tears or whatever. But if a kid believed Santa had these sorts of powers, then I doubt we're talking about the same Santa that most kids here happen to believe. Plus if a kid had these sorts of beliefs about Santa then I would think there'd again be other influences on the kid. Like maybe he is the sort of kid who has dabbled in the occult or somesuch.
Annoyed Pinoy said:
Delete"Personally, I wouldn't want to be party to the spiritual abortion of a child's infantile faith (Matt. 12:20 in conjunction with Mark 9:42)."
Wow, "spiritual abortion"? I respect you, AP. But in this case I think you might really be overdoing it with such cataclysmic language. Are the stakes really this high? Is belief in Santa really as threatening as aborting babies?
Imagine if Christian parents were to issue such dire language with their kids on other topics. If you don't eat your broccoli, then you'll rot and eventually die of malnutrition just like millions of starving African children!
. I would think other factors besides a child's belief in Santa would be more significant in demonic influence.
DeleteOf course. That goes without saying. That's why I used the word "potential".
... I doubt we're talking about the same Santa that most kids here happen to believe.
I believe my description *is* the common beliefs taught to children in the American and Western cultures where parents tell their kids Santa is real and gives presents to those who are good. For example, I have no problem with momentarily scaring children about the Bogeyman for ours and their fun's sake (not to mention to toughen them up emotionally). But if we persisted in continuing to do so all the while insisting that he's real, all that intense fear could open them up to demonic influence. That's why even though we may repeatedly try to scare them about the Bogeyman (often in response to their happy goading) we usually tell them in the end that he's not real. Santa belief shouldn't get a free pass merely because it's "positive" (which is itself begging the question).
I said that some kids may love or have faith/trust/hope in Santa more than God. Even you said that some kids love Aslan more than Jesus. Don't you think that's spiritually dangerous???? At least those parent TRIED to convince their kids Aslan wasn't real (unlike some do for Santa belief).
By God's design as well as a result of the Fall children are naturally religious and superstitious. I suspect the psychological dynamics are not only similar but related. I suspect that part of the reason Western Christians don't see more miracles in their lives is because that natural tendency has been repressed by the pervasive and subtle influence of secularism on all aspects of life and thought (including the church). Instead, we should be harnessing it for the glory of God and the good of men.
Wow, "spiritual abortion"? I respect you, AP. But in this case I think you might really be overdoing it with such cataclysmic language.
DeleteLike I said above, I suspect the majority of children aren't noticeably affected in a negative way by the Santa myth. But they *might* be be affected in subtle ways we don't see because we live in our culture. Often it takes someone outside a culture to see just how embedded and influential an idea is. For example, many objections to Christianity are based on ethical intuitions of "goodness" and "fairness" that resemble a Santa-like worldview more than Christ-like worldview. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a correlation between the rise of Santa belief in the early 20th century in America and the rise of Liberal Christianity at the same time (both re-enforcing each other in a spiral way).
A child's faith in God isn't illegitimate merely because she hasn't familiarized herself with all the argument for and against the existence of God. That's not to say it doesn't need to be cultivated and nurtured. But the sad thing is that that child-like faith in God could be wasted on Santa.
Annoyed Pinoy said:
Delete"I believe my description *is* the common beliefs taught to children in the American and Western cultures where parents tell their kids Santa is real and gives presents to those who are good. For example, I have no problem with momentarily scaring children about the Bogeyman for ours and their fun's sake (not to mention to toughen them up emotionally). But if we persisted in continuing to do so all the while insisting that he's real, all that intense fear could open them up to demonic influence. That's why even though we may repeatedly try to scare them about the Bogeyman (often in response to their happy goading) we usually tell them in the end that he's not real."
1. Hm, on the one hand, you say this is indeed what's common. But on the other hand, your description is hardly what seems to be common! I don't know anyone who pushes Santa on kids as resolutely as you've described in your Bogeyman analogy. It's not as if parents hound their kids about believing in Santa.
2. Besides, even if some parents do pound Santa belief into their kids with such dogged tenacity, I don't see how this would likely open them up to demonic influence. Of course, you say "could" as if it's a possibility. Sure, I guess, anything is possible. But the better question here is whether it's likely. I don't think so. Why isn't it more likely the kid simply rejects Santa or thinks it's a dumb idea or whatever else if a parent is so persistent in repeatedly continuing to insist Santa is real to them?
"Santa belief shouldn't get a free pass merely because it's 'positive' (which is itself begging the question)."
1. Well, I don't know with whom you're shadow boxing, but I never claimed belief in Santa is "positive."
2. Speaking for myself, if I ever have kids, I wouldn't teach them about Santa. But that's besides the point. All I'm saying is I don't think belief in Santa is as fatal or malignant as you think it is.
"I said that some kids may love or have faith/trust/hope in Santa more than God. Even you said that some kids love Aslan more than Jesus. Don't you think that's spiritually dangerous???? At least those parent TRIED to convince their kids Aslan wasn't real (unlike some do for Santa belief)."
1. Actually, I didn't say that. Lewis said that.
2. But keep in mind this was in response to your argument that kids exposed to fiction is fine so long as parents tell their kids the fiction isn't real. I'm just saying one problem is it's possible some kids do think the fictional story is real or real to some degree despite all attempts to tell them otherwise.
3. However, just because some kids might think the fiction is real to some degree doesn't necessarily mean therefore kids in general shouldn't read or watch fiction. Plus, as far as I can tell most kids grow out of whatever degree of belief they might have in Narnia or Santa anyway. This probably included the kid who apparently loved Aslan more than Jesus.
4. Of course, I'm sure we can say almost anything can become dangerous to some minority of people to some degree. There's arguably nothing wrong with alcohol but obviously there are alcoholics.
DeleteThere's arguably nothing wrong with hanging out with the guys and watching this or that sport but obviously there are people who have lost their jobs and destroyed their marriages as a result of their sports fanaticism such as by placing losing bets after mortgaging their houses or something like that.
And, getting back to fiction, there's arguably nothing wrong with watching Star Trek or Harry Potter movies or books but obviously there are some extreme Trekkies and Harry Potterheads.
In other words, if someone's belief in this or that fictional world starts to interfere in significantly negative ways with their sleeping habits, eating patterns, social obligations, chores or work, relationships, and so on, then obviously it's dangerous. Or I suppose on the offchance their belief in a fictional entity like Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny somehow begins to open them to demonic influence, then obviously it's dangerous. But I hardly think this is commonplace with Santa.
"By God's design as well as a result of the Fall children are naturally religious and superstitious. I suspect the psychological dynamics are not only similar but related. I suspect that part of the reason Western Christians don't see more miracles in their lives is because that natural tendency has been repressed by the pervasive and subtle influence of secularism on all aspects of life and thought (including the church). Instead, we should be harnessing it for the glory of God and the good of men."
Okay, sure, amen and all that, but I don't see what any of this has to do with the topic at hand.
"Like I said above, I suspect the majority of children aren't noticeably affected in a negative way by the Santa myth. But they *might* be be affected in subtle ways we don't see because we live in our culture."
Well, there are a number of beliefs and myths which "might" affect children "in subtle ways." Take kids who read comics about superheroes. Or kids who watch cartoons with talking animals. What if a kid starts to believe a talking cartoon animal is real despite his or her parents saying otherwise? What if this kid starts to think of this talking animal in the same way he or she thinks of the serpent in Eden or Balaam's donkey? What if watching talking cartoon animals could open the kid to demonic influence because the kid starts trying to talk to animals at the local zoo? There's so much to be concerned about when it comes to letting kids watch cartoons with talking animals.
"Often it takes someone outside a culture to see just how embedded and influential an idea is."
That's true as far as it goes.
But aren't you American (Filipino)? As such, aren't you culturally inside American culture at least to some significant degree?
I'm one of those hyphenated American minorities. So I think I can relate to and understand my ethnic culture to some degree. But by and large I wouldn't say I'm someone who can stand outside mainstream American culture.
But maybe you'd say we don't have to stand entirely outside American culture to see a particular idea for what it is. I'd agree. But then that would seem to undercut your point at least somewhat.
"For example, many objections to Christianity are based on ethical intuitions of 'goodness' and 'fairness' that resemble a Santa-like worldview more than Christ-like worldview. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a correlation between the rise of Santa belief in the early 20th century in America and the rise of Liberal Christianity at the same time (both re-enforcing each other in a spiral way)."
DeleteWell, that's a big argument that obviously needs to be supported with further evidence. And it'd take us on a different path than the one we're currently on.
"A child's faith in God isn't illegitimate merely because she hasn't familiarized herself with all the argument for and against the existence of God."
I never claimed otherwise.
"That's not to say it doesn't need to be cultivated and nurtured."
I never claimed otherwise.
"But the sad thing is that that child-like faith in God could be wasted on Santa."
For one thing, this assumes a "child-like faith" in Santa and a "child-like faith" in God are somehow mutually exclusive. What if a child believes God sent Santa to bring them gifts on Christmas?
"But the sad thing is that that child-like faith in God could be wasted on Santa."
DeleteA "child-like faith" in Santa vs. God isn't a zero-sum game.
A "child-like faith" in Santa would not be "wasted" if the kid grows out of his or her belief in Santa. Like most kids appear to do.
And even adult Christians can have a "child-like faith" in God.
Anyway, if I understand you correctly, you agree belief in Santa doesn't usually lead to spiritual hazards for kids (e.g. demonic influence, undermining their faith in God). Belief in Santa is benign for the majority of kids.
DeleteBut even in cases where belief in Santa might lead to spiritual harm, I would think it more likely there are confounding factors involved. Do you have good evidence which shows belief in Santa is the sole or at least leading cause of spiritual harm like undermining their faith in God or demonic influence?
If not, then why should we think belief in Santa is so spiritually malignant to kids?
Well, I personally think Santa Claus is probably the Antichrist, maybe even the Devil Incarnate. The red flannel is a dead giveaway, while reindeer hooves and antlers clearly symbolize the horns and clovenfeet of the Archfiend. What could be more obvious?
DeleteWhen AP dives this far off the deep end, I don't think I have a pole long enough to fish him out of the pool. Only the Coast Guard can rescue him.
DeleteHe definitely seems to be annoyed!
DeleteI don't have much time to respond so quickly...
DeleteI don't have much more new to say so I'll pretty much be repeating myself. After that, we can end the conversation if no one else wants to pick it up.
to Steve:
When AP dives this far off the deep end, I don't think I have a pole long enough to fish him out of the pool. Only the Coast Guard can rescue him.
I actually think my position of telling kids the truth about Santa and still having fun by pretending he exists is a moderate position. On the other hand...... "Santa" is an anagram of "Satan". *G*
to rockingwithhawking:
But on the other hand, your description is hardly what seems to be common!
I didn't mean to imply that parents hound their kids about believing in Santa. What's common is the description I gave of Santa. The comparison with the Bogeyman was to point out that we would deem it cruel to not reveal to them that he's not real and that belief in non-existence entities may affect a child spiritually in ways we don't realise.
But the better question here is whether it's likely.
How do you propose to gauge that likelihood? Since we're dealing with the eternal destiny of children don't you think siding on the error of caution is best? Catholic kids are taught that if you pray to St. Anthony, he'll help you find lost objects. St. Anthony might be in heaven now, but I doubt God allows him to help us find our missing keys. If anything supernatural ever does happen, it's more *likely* that demons "help" in finding those objects. Though the modern Santa myth comes from different streams of European tradition, it's similar to how Catholicism co-opted a pagan deities. I don't know enough about the different streams of origin but it also might be a holdover of Catholicism's superstition too.
1. Actually, I didn't say that. Lewis said that.
You're right. I meant to say even you cited how someone (Lewis) claimed a child loved Aslan more than Jesus.
But keep in mind this was in response to your argument that kids exposed to fiction is fine so long as parents tell their kids the fiction isn't real.
I didn't mean that there was absolutely no danger. Only that 1. at least the parents are better fulfilling their charge by telling their kids the truth. 2. Children are responsible for properly integrating the truths their parents tell them. If they persistently refuse to believe that Santa doesn't exist even though they were corrected, then that's their fault.
Of course, I'm sure we can say almost anything can become dangerous to some minority of people to some degree.
Agreed. But we're dealing with children who don't know any better. They are often taught this lie as soon as possible. We're talking about innocent and vunerable children and not teenagers drinking who have pasted the age of discretion. FYI I'm not a teetotaler and enjoy Star Trek. I haven't read or watched the Potter books/movies.
There's so much to be concerned about when it comes to letting kids watch cartoons with talking animals.
DeleteSure, but unlike those cartoons, kids are specifically taught by word or deed Santa is real.
But aren't you American (Filipino)? As such, aren't you culturally inside American culture at least to some significant degree?
Yes. That's why I'm not dogmatic about the degree of danger Santa poses. But there's a fundamental difference when children are told Santa exists.
I never claimed otherwise.
I know, I just said those thingS to head off any possible future objections and to make clear what I do believe (which you might also believe as well).
For one thing, this assumes a "child-like faith" in Santa and a "child-like faith" in God are somehow mutually exclusive. What if a child believes God sent Santa to bring them gifts on Christmas?
That's precisely the root of the problem. It's the connection to God that makes it dangerous. A child may conclude that if one of God's purported servants doesn't exist, then maybe God HIMSELF might not exist. If we can ridicule the power of Santa (which may have been given to him by God), then why not God's powers as well?
A "child-like faith" in Santa would not be "wasted" if the kid grows out of his or her belief in Santa. Like most kids appear to do.
And along with the belief in God too (sadly). I'm not saying that the child might be regenerate and lose it. However, belief in God is possible even by the unregenerate. In which case, a belief in God which could have been a stepping stone to real saving faith might be removed from a child.
Do you have good evidence which shows belief in Santa is the sole or at least leading cause of spiritual harm like undermining their faith in God or demonic influence?
But I do have Scriptural commands to expose the hidden works of darkness, lies and errors. It's no accident that the Christian parents and children children should be people of truth who aren't deluded (even if only for a "few" years. Let's randomly say that kids lose their belief in Santa around the age of 8 and their are pretty conscious by the age of 3. That means for 5 WHOLE years they are indoctrinated into a false belief system.
to John:
He definitely seems to be annoyed!
I am annoyed. Annoyed by Manny Pacquiao getting careless and over confident so that Juan Manuel Marquez was able to knock him out. Up until the knockout, Pacquiao was winning all the punching stats (including the power punches). He make a rookie's mistake by walking into a punch.
And before someone mentions it, "Yes, I do think that watching boxing and MMA can (but not necessarily) have negative spiritual effects." *G*
Let's randomly say that kids lose their belief in Santa around the age of 8 and their are pretty conscious by the age of 3.
DeleteBy "[they] are pretty conscious" I meant that that's around the time they start really being aware of their surroundings and really start developing as a person. I think you know what I mean.
He make [made] a rookie's mistake by walking into a punch.
> " natural law doesn’t tells us that lying is intrinsically wrong. Sometimes lying is acceptable if it leads to good consequences. But because Feser’s denomination says that, he tries to retroactively validate that teaching by concocting a natural law defense."
ReplyDeleteI've been following Mark Shea's blog where he argues both that (a) Thou Shalit Not Lie (as distinct from Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbour, which is what the Bible says) is an absolute, cannot brook any exceptions, sell your soul to gain the whole world, do evil so that good may come, etc, even if the Nazis are waving guns at you, but (b) Thou Shalt Not Steal obviously permits exceptions like taking food to prevent starvation. (Mark insists that then it's not "stealing": to Catholics, the label you put on an action is extremely important.)
I suppose if you believe that we are saved by works as well as by faith - ie, not by grace - then the question "Shall we continue in sin so that grace may increase?" is meaningless. By default, Paul's reply - "let us not do evil so that good may come" - gets pressed into quite a different use, ie to justify the RCC's assertion that actively and directly bringing about a result is more (often) wrong than bringing about the same result indirectly or by inaction. To Protestants, Paul's rhetorical question answers the question "Why not keep sinning, then, if God likes forgiving us in His free grace?" but since there is no such thing as free grace in the Catholic system, the verse gets turned into a proof-text that overrides everything else the Bible says about ethics, with enormous weight placed in the word "do".