Santa ... When to Tell the Kids the Truth

[StuartJ]

I don't do analogies ... except when it suits me.

When should one tell the kids the truth about Santa ...?

One knows it's largely make-believe based on a possibly historical character with added magical abilities ... but one plays the game of Pretend for the sake of the kids.

The smarter and older kids catch on pretty quickly that it's just make-believe ... and - for various reasons - they too will continue to play Pretend.

But kids who turn into teenagers still genuinely believing in Santa are an embarrassment to themselves and can be subjected to mockery for their childish beliefs.

Forgone rewards notwithstanding, kids recover and adapt quickly when given the truth ... and the truth can be its own intellectual reward.

So ...

When should one pay the kids the courtesy of respecting their intelligence by informing them of the game of Pretend that has been played with them ...?

And if one knows it's largely make-believe, should one simply not play Pretend in the first place ...?

[bjs]

When should one pay the kids the courtesy of respecting their intelligence by informing them of the game of Pretend that has been played with them ...?

It depends on the child. Some parents teach their children that Santa is a pretend game from the start. Assuming a base level of intelligence, very few children make it to their teen years still thinking there is a Santa Clause.

And if one knows it's largely make-believe, should one simply not play Pretend in the first place ...?

This is a more interesting question to me. There is an old saying that goes, When you stop believing in Santa, you start getting underwear for Christmas. If that is true, abandoning belief in Santa at an earlier age seems provide no benefit.

Can a child write a letter to Santa, even if there is not Santa to receive it?
Can we still say, Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Clause?
https://www.nysun.com/editorials/yes-virginia/68502/

I am not entirely ready to say no.

Simplistic answers will not do here. The childish comparison between Santa Clause and God is not sufficient. That analogy is neither accurate nor meaningful.

On the other hand there is little evidence that holding on to childish whimsy a little longer will harm children, and at least as much evidence that it will do them some long-term good.

So again, it depends on the child.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 2 by bjs]

The childish comparison between Santa Clause and God is not sufficient.

The analogy does not refer to "God".

Looks to me like you are trying to put a Santa suit on Aunt Sally.

(Your special Christmas offer runs out real soon BTW.)

[EPH2:8]

[Replying to post 2 by bjs]

The childish comparison between Santa Clause and God is not sufficient.

The analogy does not refer to "God".

Looks to me like you are trying to put a Santa suit on Aunt Sally.

(Your special Christmas offer runs out real soon BTW.)

If the analogy does not refer to God, why are you posting it on a debate forum regarding God? This is not a debate forum regarding Santa Clause.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 2 by bjs]

The childish comparison between Santa Clause and God is not sufficient.

The analogy does not refer to "God".

Looks to me like you are trying to put a Santa suit on Aunt Sally.

(Your special Christmas offer runs out real soon BTW.)

If the analogy does not refer to God, why are you posting it on a debate forum regarding God? This is not a debate forum regarding Santa Clause.

Analogies lose their delightfully mysterious tingle if one has to explain them to folks who can't (or claim they can't) understand.

The possibly fictional (and definitely not "God") Jesus character in the Christian-Jewish propaganda is not written of as spelling his parables/analogies out in simple, literal detail.

I shall follow in Jesus' footsteps ...

And you shall be free to interpret the analogies as you choose.

Which, in my view, is often the intent of writers of analogies/parables.

They can be INTENTIONALLY ambiguous.

And writers of analogies/parables can often have a little chuckle at what some folks do with their fictional fables.

[Tart]

I don't do analogies ... except when it suits me.

When should one tell the kids the truth about Santa ...?

One knows it's largely make-believe based on a possibly historical character with added magical abilities ... but one plays the game of Pretend for the sake of the kids.

The smarter and older kids catch on pretty quickly that it's just make-believe ... and - for various reasons - they too will continue to play Pretend.

But kids who turn into teenagers still genuinely believing in Santa are an embarrassment to themselves and can be subjected to mockery for their childish beliefs.

Forgone rewards notwithstanding, kids recover and adapt quickly when given the truth ... and the truth can be its own intellectual reward.

So ...

When should one pay the kids the courtesy of respecting their intelligence by informing them of the game of Pretend that has been played with them ...?

And if one knows it's largely make-believe, should one simply not play Pretend in the first place ...?

I dont ever remember believing in Santa... I never knew Santa existed... I do remember finding out my parents would seek in the presents in the middle of the night, and i found out they hid them in the closet. But i never remember ever believing in Santa, or being told the truth that he doesnt exist...

That is becuase i think most of us start from default... I believe things that i know to be true, not things i dont know to be true.

[Tcg]

And if one knows it's largely make-believe, should one simply not play Pretend in the first place ...?

When it came to Santa, my parents never led us kids to believe that he was real. We always knew he was just a character from a story that made gift giving more fun. We still enjoyed it and never experienced the let down of knowing our parents had lied to us.

Sadly, they weren't as wise when it came to other mythological stories.

As far as Santa, I think their approach was best. My son's mother wanted him to believe in Santa and I went along with it. When he found out the truth at about age 7, he was very displeased to have been fooled.

[bjs]

[Replying to StuartJ]

I did not mean to suggest that was where you were going. I have seen the comparison made in the past on this site, and I was making a general statement about it. I was calling for more serious thought and less juvenile behavior in general. You have yet to tell us what your specific analogy is.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to StuartJ]

I did not mean to suggest that was where you were going. I have seen the comparison made in the past on this site, and I was making a general statement about it. I was calling for more serious thought and less juvenile behavior in general. You have yet to tell us what your specific analogy is.

Please read post 5.

My analogy is very serious.

I am of the opinion that no child should be taught that make-believe is real.

Otherwise the risk is that they may grow up to be adults who believe gods breeding with human virgins is reality ...

And don't recognise myth and fantasy when they see it.

And as for my behaviour being juvenile ...

If I wasn't so obviously setting myseld up to be smacked right here ...

I could play the "I've been offended" card.

However ...

I COULD be offended that you haven't posted on either of the topics I set up ... just for you.

Ttruscott has given us superb insight into the establishment of an evidence base for the existence of Yahweh ...

And of the biblical writings having emanated from Yahweh.

But it must be disappointing for Yahweh that certain of his adherents choose not to give ttruscott their backing.

Because Yahweh chooses not to do this himself.

Unless Yahweh is even less historically verifiable than Santa and you know who ...?

Because ...

According to "scripture", Yahweh himself has actually trod, several times, upon this Earth he created.

[bjs]

[Replying to StuartJ]

I genuinely have no idea why you would think to play the Ive been offended card.

I said the analogy between God and Santa Clause was juvenile.

As of the time of me writing that post you had not even made that analogy, at least not explicitly. I even specifically said that my statement was not aimed at you since you had not made that analogy.

What was there for you to be offended about?



As for the two threads you set up just for me: I did not ask you to do that. I asked you to support your claim that your atheism was evidence-based, or point me to posts where you have provided that evidence. As of yet you have done neither.