"Believing in God is like believing in Santa Clause and/or the Tooth Fairy"

[PathDiagnosis]

Let me preface this by stating that I am in no way one anti-Catholic or anti-religion/theist.

Richard Dawkin’s states that belief in God is akin to belief in Santa Clause and/or the Tooth Fairy. I disagree with this and am familiar with some of the writings of Prof. Alister McGrath (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alister_mcgrath), who also disagrees with this.

What do you think about this? Please share your thoughts.

I figured this would be a good section to post this question for religious and non-religious people.

Peace

 

[Tony888]

Let me preface this by stating that I am in no way one anti-Catholic or anti-religion/theist.

Richard Dawkin’s states that belief in God is akin to belief in Santa Clause and/or the Tooth Fairy. I disagree with this and am familiar with some of the writings of Prof. Alister McGrath (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alister_mcgrath), who also disagrees with this.

What do you think about this? Please share your thoughts.

I figured this would be a good section to post this question for religious and non-religious people.

Peace

For someone with the mental or spiritual maturity of a five year old, the statement is probably accurate. God is just another imaginary being looking over their shoulder, judging them, and accomplishing the magical.

As one matures, growing in faith and knowledge, they start to receive the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Having ‘his’ presence in your life changes the game

 

[Georgia]

For someone with the mental or spiritual maturity of a five year old, the statement is probably accurate. God is just another imaginary being looking over their shoulder, judging them, and accomplishing the magical.

As one matures, growing in faith and knowledge, they start to receive the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Having ‘his’ presence in your life changes the game

This reply moved me in a powerful way. Thank you.

 

[JonNC]

Let me preface this by stating that I am in no way one anti-Catholic or anti-religion/theist.

Richard Dawkin’s states that belief in God is akin to belief in Santa Clause and/or the Tooth Fairy. I disagree with this and am familiar with some of the writings of Prof. Alister McGrath (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alister_mcgrath), who also disagrees with this.

What do you think about this? Please share your thoughts.

I figured this would be a good section to post this question for religious and non-religious people.

Peace

The overt difference is, of course, that no mature person believes inthe existence of either Santa claus or the Tooth Fairy. These are intentionally contrived fantasy individuals for the sake of children.
God, OTOH, is seriously believed in by billions around the world, including some of the most brilliant minds.
To make the comparison is, in my opinion, intellectually dishonest.

Jon

 

[Marie_Gregg]

I have a great deal of trouble taking anything Dawkins has to say seriously. He is just too belligerent and insulting.

That being said, I’m not surprised he said it. And of course I disagree. I am persuaded of God’s existence based on the available historical data, miracles witnessed (a topic for another thread) and humanity’s basic psychological needs and questions. Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy, while lovely stories, have no such things going for them.

 

[Sample]

Let me preface this by stating that I am in no way one anti-Catholic or anti-religion/theist.

Richard Dawkin’s states that belief in God is akin to belief in Santa Clause and/or the Tooth Fairy. I disagree with this and am familiar with some of the writings of Prof. Alister McGrath (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alister_mcgrath), who also disagrees with this.

What do you think about this? Please share your thoughts.

Peace

Hello,

Well this is an apt subject considering the calendar. Thank you for it.

The Father Christmas analogy is used in Prof. Dawkins’ third to last book to date, The God Delusion. I have yet to finish it having been sidetracked by the Magic of Reality and Steven Pinker’s book, The Better Angels of Our Nature.

What do I think about it? The take away point in the analogy (and it is an analogy) is that otherwise rational adults accept claims for the existence of Yahweh not unlike youngsters accepting claims for the existence of the jolly old elf. Both are faith claims.

In the case of children, and in the context of evolution by natural selection, they are safer and will live longer if they obey their adult caregivers. Pathologies aside, children are hard-wired to believe adults.

Modern parenting takes advantage (it could be said) of this evolutionary trust and uses it, in this case, to propel the myth of elves and Naughty Lists ostensibly to effect not only obedience, but also to stoke traditional culture which happily binds the family and society together. I’m not necessarily against stoking a child’s imagination but I can absolutely see how the Santa Claus myth can be a gateway drug to deities.

And that’s because adults don’t collectively accept the existence of a Santa Claus so the myth ends when the child discovers this. We all remember that day we found out! I recall riding my bike and thinking, “of course! how did I ever fall for that?” Now I know: I trusted those closest to me and culture played along. I didn’t stand a chance.

So why don’t kids outgrow Yahweh? Well some do. But it’s likely because, unlike Santa Claus, adults (and of course families), maintain the collective belief in the relevant God of the culture, in this case, Yahweh, right to the casket. There are heavy penalties for not believing what people of faith teach: ostracization for one, eternal pain for another.

Anyway, I think it’s a good analogy, certainly not all encompassing but it’s not meant to be. It’s meant to display the equality of evidence between any faith claim. And I think it does it very well, with cultural characters we all know. The fact we are discussing it speaks to the effectiveness of the construction.

Cheers!

Mike

 

[Gertabelle]

Good morning, Mike. Thanks for your thoughtful contribution to this thread.

Hello,

In the case of children, and in the context of evolution by natural selection, they are safer and will live longer if they obey their adult caregivers. Pathologies aside, children are hard-wired to believe adults.

Modern parenting takes advantage (it could be said) of this evolutionary trust and uses it, in this case, to propel the myth of elves and Naughty Lists ostensibly to effect not only obedience, but also to stoke traditional culture which happily binds the family and society together. I’m not necessarily against stoking a child’s imagination but I can absolutely see how the Santa Claus myth can be a gateway drug to deities.

“Gateway drug to deities!” Too funny!

As a Catholic parent, I have worked very hard to draw distinctions between belief in Santa and belief in God. I know several Catholic families that do not allow the Santa story to be part of their children’s Christmas experience in order to avoid gift emphasis and Santa/God confusion, among other things.

We have Santa as a part of Christmas in my family. My son is in second grade, so he still believes in Santa. But in our family Santa does not punish, does not see everything we do (or don’t do), and he only brings one little gift and a few trinkets in a stocking. See, as a Christian, Santa is not the end-all and be-all of Christmas, so we (my family) don’t need all the hype, all the control tactics.

Of course, other Catholic families may choose a different tack, but we’re pretty typical among our friends with the treatment of the Santa story.

And we also put a pretty heavy focus on St. Nicholas on Dec. 6 – day of surprises and service.

So why don’t kids outgrow Yahweh? Well some do. But it’s likely because, unlike Santa Claus, adults (and of course families), maintain the collective belief in the relevant God of the culture, in this case, Yahweh, right to the casket. There are heavy penalties for not believing what people of faith teach: ostracization for one, eternal pain for another.

Cheers!

Mike

Well, I’m not sure about the validity of using cultural pressure as the source of people’s faith. It doesn’t really account for converts and “reverts” who are not supported through their culture of family and friends. You could argue that they trade family/friend culture for a new church culture, but even that does not account for the intense suffering some people endure in order to follow their faith (by participating in any religion).

Switch participation in Christianity for participation in New Age beliefs like manifesting what you desire, or participation, if you will, in atheism. If the driving force for our religious choices is cultural acceptance, why do some people go against family and leave their “traditional” religions?

As for the fear of eternal pain, it has been my experience that most people who have that fear are not the strongest in the practice of their faith. Rather, the people who are most fervent in the practice of their faith are those who are most hopeful for eternal joy. Again, this would be my circle of friends – just one circle of the 7 billion available.

Again, thanks for your post.

Gertie

 

[vsedriver]

So why don’t kids outgrow Yahweh? Well some do.

an interesting choice of words… it seems to imply that those who don’t outgrow ‘Yahweh’ haven’t grown up.

But it’s likely because, unlike Santa Claus, adults (and of course families), maintain the collective belief in the relevant God of the culture, in this case, Yahweh, right to the casket.

this presupposes that a person can’t rationally come to a belief in God and that organized religion is nothing more than a peer pressure group. Yet, with the exception of a few weird cults people move freely into and out of belief systems.

There are heavy penalties for not believing what people of faith teach: ostracization for one, eternal pain for another.

People are ostracized for many reasons, religion is only one. Although some small Christian sects do practice ‘shunning’ none of the mainstream Christian religions do. So the experience of being shunned would be remote on the majority of people and so not have a real influence on their choice to believe or not.

Yes, Christianity does teach the risk of eternal pain and there are two ways to understand this concept. One is a child’s way which is fire, torture and everything awful. The other is the adult way, which is that we are given a choice to have a relationship with God or to reject Him. God respects our choice and for those that have a relationship with Him they will experience the beatific vision for all eternity. For those who chose to not have a relationship with God will also have their desire granted, but I can’t imagine a greater torture than to have stood in the presence of God and then be denied the experience for the rest of eternity. It gives a whole new meaning to ‘burning for eternity’.

Anyway, I think it’s a good analogy, certainly not all encompassing but it’s not meant to be. It’s meant to display the equality of evidence between any faith claim. And I think it does it very well, with cultural characters we all know. The fact we are discussing it speaks to the effectiveness of the construction.

I guess I would have to disagree. The evidence is far from equal.

 

[Sample]

all the hype, all the control tactics.

Well, I’m not sure about the validity of using cultural pressure as the source of people’s faith. It doesn’t really account for converts and “reverts” who are not supported through their culture of family and friends. You could argue that they trade family/friend culture for a new church culture, but even that does not account for the intense suffering some people endure in order to follow their faith (by participating in any religion).

Though a case could also be made for the existence of cultural pressure as a source of people’s faith that really wasn’t my emphasis here. Thank you for allowing me to clarify. I focused on the source of belief coming from parental authority coupled with a brief evolutionary explanation for this. You make a good point about the plausibility of trading one’s biological family for a new faith culture. I agree. As far as suffering, the reward of martyrdom alone suffices to answer the point you raise about endurance.

Switch participation in Christianity for participation in New Age beliefs like manifesting what you desire, or participation, if you will, in atheism. If the driving force for our religious choices is cultural acceptance, why do some people go against family and leave their “traditional” religions?

First if you are going to claim atheism is a belief, you must also claim that not collecting stamps is a hobby. Atheism is not a belief. Again, though a case can be made about cultural acceptance being a driving force for religious choices, my focus was parental authority with culture helping to maintain the “addiction”, if you will. You asked, why do people leave their traditional religions? I suspect some prefer truth Gertabelle.

Cheers!

Mike

 

[Newsy]

What do I think about it? The take away point in the analogy (and it is an analogy) is that otherwise rational adults accept claims for the existence of Yahweh not unlike youngsters accepting claims for the existence of the jolly old elf. Both are faith claims.

The problem is it takes faith to believe evolution. You say belief in Yahweh is false, but there is no hard evidence for evolution. To prove the point, please show me one transitional form. IF, everything mutated out of one single celled organism, there should be billions of transitional forms documented in the fossil record. We have found all kinds of fossils from hundreds of millions of years ago, but we are still looking for the “missing link”.

So why don’t kids outgrow Yahweh? Well some do. But it’s likely because, unlike Santa Claus, adults (and of course families), maintain the collective belief in the relevant God of the culture, in this case, Yahweh, right to the casket. There are heavy penalties for not believing what people of faith teach: ostracization for one, eternal pain for another.

Really? Heavy penalties for not believing? I would offer the opposite idea, that people of faith are under more attack in this country and certainly in Europe. If your thought process is correct, why would people who live far from any family have any religious leanings? Or, why would someone who has no family go to church? A case could be made for companionship as the answer, but people can find companionship outside of a religious setting. It’s much easier to interact and make friends outside of church, just look at the local bar, there is always somebody looking for a friend. Maybe people continue to go to church out of habit, I am sure some do, but there are better things to do on Sunday morning if they think religion is untrue.

Let’s look at the “eternal pain” aspect. I would offer that there is less comfort in this life and more to be gained in the afterlife by someone who has faith in God. It’s not like the Christian life is a cake walk in most parts of the world. Martyrdom, oppression, prison and torture, man that sounds like fun! The Christian life calls people to do unnatural things, it calls us to love those who hate us and pray for those who persecute us. These are not natural tendencies.

Your claims have merit. In many cases your may be right concerning people with an immature understanding of God, or with an immature faith. But concerning those who have a mature faith in God or concerning Martyrs, your claims make no sense. It is much easier in China to be an Atheist than to be a Christian, the difference is prison. So why is the Church growing in China? What do these people see or experience that makes them step out and profess faith in God?

 

[Sample]

The problem is it takes faith to believe evolution.

Newsy, hello. The explanation of the theory of evolution by its mechanism, natural selection, really should go to the Science/Religion forum. Parental authority with Yahweh and Elves was the reason for my inclusion of the subject.

In point of fact, evolution isn’t taught in any meaningful way until post grad in many US colleges so my understanding, while probably sufficient to satisfy the main points, is best left for others. Incidentally, the Church not too long ago threw their proverbial miter into the ring regarding evolution (it’s quite ok to accept the claims). Plenty of Catholics can help you out there.

However, Newsy, I am very interested in why you say it takes faith to believe evolution. It’s a spectacularly faulty statement from my perspective and I’d like to know who taught you this and what you mean by it. If you feel up to talking about your thoughts on this so-called relationship between faith and evolution please, bring it on.

Cheers!

Mike

 

[Sample]

an interesting choice of words… it seems to imply that those who don’t outgrow ‘Yahweh’ haven’t grown up.

Fair enough. In a sense I suppose their ideas haven’t, so yes I’ll accept that. But vsedriver, can’t you just justify a child-like faith with holy writ? So, problem solved (for you).

this presupposes that a person can’t rationally come to a belief in God and that organized religion is nothing more than a peer pressure group. Yet, with the exception of a few weird cults people move freely into and out of belief systems.

I’m not a psychologist but I don’t think anyone can be rational in their belief of Yahweh, or Krishna, or Raven. A devotee may follow a tautological “reason of sorts” within a faith construct and among like-minded folk, but pointing that out is just me being generous. Ask a psychologist at your next opportunity why supernatural beliefs aren’t classified as delusions, if you press the doctor, they may very well squirm. There’s really no difference clinically, society is only slowly realizing this.

People are ostracized for many reasons, religion is only one.

Well yes, precisely.

Although some small Christian sects do practice ‘shunning’ none of the mainstream Christian religions do. So the experience of being shunned would be remote on the majority of people and so not have a real influence on their choice to believe or not.

The common priesthood of the faithful is part of Catholicism. Fear of apostasy is very real. It keeps not a few in line for many reasons. It is not a fun ride to dissent from the Magisterium, your common priesthood family, common priesthood friends, catholic co-workers, your nuns and brothers, and your prelates will and do play the guilt card. Fear is powerful, it is used and it is felt. I completely reject your answer.

Yes, Christianity does teach the risk of eternal pain and there are two ways to understand this concept. One is a child’s way which is fire, torture and everything awful.

For centuries this is the reality. And if one is still taught this today, it is taught to one too many.

The other is the adult way, which is that we are given a choice to have a relationship with God or to reject Him.

The choice, ah yes. Worship me or you will burn in a lake of fire. I’m speechless.

I guess I would have to disagree. The evidence is far from equal.

Well all you have to do is consider that Yahweh ultimately cannot be pleased without faith. Faith is belief without evidence. The playing field is equal. No evidence for Yahweh, no evidence for Santa.

Cheers!

Mike

 

[Newsy]

Hi Mike!

I say it takes faith to believe in the theory of evolution b/c we are missing pieces of the puzzle. There are no “missing links”, transitional forms would cement the idea of evolution into a reality. We should be able to find plenty of “half creatures”, like the missing link between man and chimp. The problem is that it makes no sense, what so ever, for a chimp to break it’s femur bones in order to walk upright. It would serve no advantage for a chimp to want to walk upright, it would limit their speed on the ground and make climbing much more difficult. IF, there was a transition or evolution phase from chimp to man, we should find many of these “missing links” in the fossil record as it would have taken so long to complete.

IF, everything on the big blue marble, started with one single celled organism, then why don’t we have any record of half plant/ half animals?

I have no problem accepting natural selection as a way animals have changed over time. The Church allows this view, but the Church does not allow for belief in true evolution. The Church teaches that God created everything, therefore it can accept natural selection but not true evolution. What I refer to as true evolution is the theory that all life on planet Earth started by accident, the circumstances were just right to create the first single cell organism. Then through time and proper environment, these single cell organisms multiplied and began to evolve. This is what I understand to be the root of the theory of evolution. I haven’t studied it, just picked up from conversations and reading a little.

There is a part of the scientific community that accepts “Divine Design”. They allow for natural selection, but see the hand of something greater involved in creation. I have heard a radio program that stated there was a growing following in the “Divine Design” school of thought, but I have not heard any solid numbers. It seems that one could believe in the “Big Bang”, as long as that bang was caused by God.

 

[Sample]

Hi Mike!

I say it takes faith to believe in the theory of evolution b/c we are missing pieces of the puzzle. There are no “missing links”, transitional forms would cement the idea of evolution into a reality. We should be able to find plenty of “half creatures”, like the missing link between man and chimp. The problem is that it makes no sense, what so ever, for a chimp to break it’s femur bones in order to walk upright. It would serve no advantage for a chimp to want to walk upright, it would limit their speed on the ground and make climbing much more difficult. IF, there was a transition or evolution phase from chimp to man, we should find many of these “missing links” in the fossil record as it would have taken so long to complete.

IF, everything on the big blue marble, started with one single celled organism, then why don’t we have any record of half plant/ half animals?

I have no problem accepting natural selection as a way animals have changed over time. The Church allows this view, but the Church does not allow for belief in true evolution. The Church teaches that God created everything, therefore it can accept natural selection but not true evolution. What I refer to as true evolution is the theory that all life on planet Earth started by accident, the circumstances were just right to create the first single cell organism. Then through time and proper environment, these single cell organisms multiplied and began to evolve. This is what I understand to be the root of the theory of evolution. I haven’t studied it, just picked up from conversations and reading a little.

There is a part of the scientific community that accepts “Divine Design”. They allow for natural selection, but see the hand of something greater involved in creation. I have heard a radio program that stated there was a growing following in the “Divine Design” school of thought, but I have not heard any solid numbers. It seems that one could believe in the “Big Bang”, as long as that bang was caused by God.

Hello Newsy,

Almost every sentence you wrote is incorrect about evolution. In fact upon carefully rereading your post, yes every jot and tittle is wrong. Just think about that. Do you think I am lying or 100% mistaken or just might you be a little askew in your own understanding?

Who taught you this stuff? Again, the Science/Religion forums can address your points. They aren’t germane to this discussion.

Cheers!

Mike

 

[Newsy]

Sample said, “No evidence for Yahweh, no evidence for Santa.”.

But please understand that Santa is based on an actual human being. He was St. Nicholas and he supplied money to save 3 girls from entering prostitution. You see, they needed to have a dowry in order to get married. Having no money, they would be forced to enter prostitution. Nicholas, paid their dowry, a debt he didn’t owe for the salvation of others. He mimicked Christ’s example. This morphed into the Santa we have today, through several hundred years and many cultures.

I once heard a man speak of proof of the existence of God by using the Nation of Israel. As he pointed out, Israel had no invincible armies and no technological marvels. They were a relatively small group, with no land. They rousted great victories against overwhelming odds. Interesting to think that a small group of otherwise insignificant people could last for 4000 years, 2500 years on a coveted piece of ground. I don’t do justice to his points, but you get the idea.

Also, keep in mind, we have never found an indigenous people, on the face of the Earth, that were atheists. People who live in the most barren places on Earth, still rely on something greater than themselves for their daily survival.

 

[Soulstorm]

First if you are going to claim atheism is a belief, you must also claim that not collecting stamps is a hobby

I’m not going into the bigger questions of the OP because spiritually I’m not qualified to give any good answer, but I will say that atheism is a belief when you decide to take a stance against those who think differently than you.

If someone went on a stamp collecting forum and told them all that they were idiots for collecting little bits of paper, that would be an anti-stamp collecting belief. An emotional feeling toward people who waste their money on sticky paper with images on them

So is the same with an atheist who comes on a Catholic forum and says that their faith in God is childish, immature, and something that intelligent people consider a delusion. Though actually I think the better word for it is that atheist becomes an anti-theist by using their opinion on a lack of a god in the universe to attack other peoples beliefs in a god or God.

So to make my point, yes atheism is not a belief. However once an atheist tries to make another person see things in their perspective (whether its a group of atheists or one individual) then they become an Anti-theist by revealing that they believe their own way of thinking is correct and that everyone else way of thinking is garbage.

Edit: Also using my own logic I’m freely admitting that it would make me an anti-muslim, anti-pagan, anti-atheist, ect. for I hold my own Catholic faith to be the God inspired Truth.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Also, keep in mind, we have never found an indigenous people, on the face of the Earth, that were atheists. People who live in the most barren places on Earth, still rely on something greater than themselves for their daily survival.

The theory of universal consent (which is the theory you are describing) is wrong in several areas. Perhaps most egregiously is the fact that the past doesn’t necessarily predict the future. Whilst in the past many societies believed in God (for sociological reasons beyond the scope of this thread), we are seeing today that many societies are abandoning the idea of God altogether. In the United Kingdom, for example, as much as 50% of the population profess to not believe in God. In the Western world, there is a significant drop in vocations, which has led to the rise of “Catholic megachurches” and the Pope to initiate the “New Evangelization”.

It is interesting that you use the example of indigenous people. Coincidentally, religious dedication is increasing in the developing world. This confirms that as societies grow in understanding of scientific knowledge, they are more likely to discard the belief of God altogether. In the next 30-40 years, ceteris paribus, the developing world is likely to follow the same path as the West by throwing away religious ideology.

 

[bearer]

Unlike Santa Claus or the tooth fairy, God can and does reveal Himself to us, and produces results.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Unlike Santa Claus or the tooth fairy, God can and does reveal Himself to us, and produces results.

Having been a former religious person (Catholic), I know that is not true.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

What? Santa Clause is not real?:bighanky:

Santa Clause is a real person, see here; stnicholascenter.org/pages/who-is-st-nicholas/

Patran saint for the tooth here; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Apollonia

I don’t think there are any atheist in hell? Not even demons are atheist’s.

Where do atheist’s come from? Could atheism be a belief system that **comes from the figment of the imagination **that man believes himself to be his own god?