Question for Christians

[catalyst]

As the "silly season" is fast looming, I thought I would pop this question up for opinion.

Do any of the Christians on this site believe in Santa Claus.

If no, why not and if so, why YES?

[Skyler]

No. The concept of Santa Claus is inconsistent with my worldview.

For one thing, Santa Claus distinguishes between "naughty" and "nice". According to my worldview, "all have sinned" and therefore all would be "naughty". There would be no one left to deliver his goods to.

Secondly, the concept of a Santa Claus is in violation of Occam's Razor, which stipulates that one should not multiply causes beyond necessity. There is no need for a "Santa Claus" to explain anything in my worldview.

Skyler

[catalyst]

No. The concept of Santa Claus is inconsistent with my worldview.

For one thing, Santa Claus distinguishes between "naughty" and "nice". According to my worldview, "all have sinned" and therefore all would be "naughty". There would be no one left to deliver his goods to.

Secondly, the concept of a Santa Claus is in violation of Occam's Razor, which stipulates that one should not multiply causes beyond necessity. There is no need for a "Santa Claus" to explain anything in my worldview.

Skyler

Hi Skyler,

Interesting reply and thank you, but I do have a few comments and questions in reply.

As to your naughty/nice comment. I have a fairly good idea what your world view is, given a previous interaction we had. I appreciate you see things as "all have sinned" but does that mean they continue to do so their entire lifetimes? Cannot one go from being naughty to nice and as a result, be rewarded for this effort and change? Change from "evil" deeds to "good? What if belief in Santa helped promote the good, which apparently it does as not too many kids get coal in their stockings.

Re Ockams Razor. Well like a vast majority of things in life, Ockams Razor is just an individuals point of view, which you have taken on as (part of) your own world view. Perhaps in his view, belief in Santa Claus is the sole cause of determining the option between naughty/nice and nothing else was needed to determine it as it is the simplest explanation. If that were the case, then belief In Santa would not be in violation of Ockam's Razor. If that were the case, how would you feel about Santa Claus, considering you have referenced it here as viable reasoning for your stance?

Admittedly Skyler, you took my questions where I didn't even contemplate someone would, but you have peaked my interest now, so I look forward to your reply.

[Skyler]

*snip*

Hi Skyler,

Interesting reply and thank you, but I do have a few comments and questions in reply.

As to your naughty/nice comment. I have a fairly good idea what your world view is, given a previous interaction we had. I appreciate you see things as "all have sinned" but does that mean they continue to do so their entire lifetimes? Cannot one go from being naughty to nice and as a result, be rewarded for this effort and change? Change from "evil" deeds to "good? What if belief in Santa helped promote the good, which apparently it does as not too many kids get coal in their stockings.

Well, because of verses like Isaiah 64:6: "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags...", I don't think any unregenerated person can do a genuinely "good" deed. As Paul says, "For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit." Romans 8:5.

Re Ockams Razor. Well like a vast majority of things in life, Ockams Razor is just an individuals point of view, which you have taken on as (part of) your own world view. Perhaps in his view, belief in Santa Claus is the sole cause of determining the option between naughty/nice and nothing else was needed to determine it as it is the simplest explanation. If that were the case, then belief In Santa would not be in violation of Ockam's Razor. If that were the case, how would you feel about Santa Claus, considering you have referenced it here as viable reasoning for your stance?

First of all, you're correct, Occam's Razor is something I have taken on as part of my worldview. That's what I'm talking about right now, is my worldview.

Secondly, I still think that given your suggestions, there is still no "effect" which requires an explanation of Santa Claus.

Admittedly Skyler, you took my questions where I didn't even contemplate someone would, but you have peaked my interest now, so I look forward to your reply.

Likewise, your reply was unusually civil and thoughtful for the general tone I'd come to expect from such a post. Thank you.

Skyler

[edited for formatting]

[catalyst]

Well, because of verses like Isaiah 64:6: "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags...", I don't think any unregenerated person can do a genuinely "good" deed. As Paul says, "For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit." Romans 8:5.

I suppose it depends on what you deem by "good". Also, ungenerated.....( haven't accepted christianity's god = naughty) and one deemed (by your worldview) regenerated (someone who has accepted christianity's god =nice) therefore YOU would be able to get an excellent haul from old St Nich/santa/kris kringle.

Also I have to say that it appears you are a biblical literalist, by our interactions on the ther thread and also this here now.(Isaiah and Romans - partially clipped verses no less.) Are you? BTW that wasn't avoidance but it is obvious(to me) that both verses were referring to and about specific people at a specific time.

Also I appreciate that your dad is also a minister. When the concept of Santa was "out there" when you were a tacker (little kid), how did your dad explain the concept away to you?

First of all, you're correct, Occam's Razor is something I have taken on as part of my worldview. That's what I'm talking about right now, is my worldview.

Ok, but it would be interesting to know why, considering Ockam's Razor deals with simplicity and not plurality.

Secondly, I still think that given your suggestions, there is still no "effect" which requires an explanation of Santa Claus.

Presents miraculously appearing under a tree IS the effect and Santa Claus IS the simplest explanation.

Likewise, your reply was unusually civil and thoughtful for the general tone I'd come to expect from such a post. Thank you.

Skyler

Well thank you and the questions were asked from the view of a former christian. When I was a christian I did not have children myself at that point so the whole "believing' in santa scenario never came up, but I was interested to know HOW christians tackle it. FYI, even as an atheist, my family and I don't "do" santa either, but probably(or perhaps obviously) for vastly different reasons to you.

[justifyothers]

As the "silly season" is fast looming, I thought I would pop this question up for opinion.

Do any of the Christians on this site believe in Santa Claus.

If no, why not and if so, why YES?

Absolutely!!
This 'silly' tradition is based in truth :

http://www.stnicholascenter.org/Brix?pageID=35

Not only is it NOT 'silly' - but the origins represent the true meaning of 'giving'.
I suggest you look into it

[catalyst]

As the "silly season" is fast looming, I thought I would pop this question up for opinion.

Do any of the Christians on this site believe in Santa Claus.

If no, why not and if so, why YES?

Absolutely!!
This 'silly' tradition is based in truth :

http://www.stnicholascenter.org/Brix?pageID=35

Not only is it NOT 'silly' - but the origins represent the true meaning of 'giving'.
I suggest you look into it

Hi Justifyothers - Nice to meet you.

The "silly" is more known because people tend to spend far too much around that particular time of year, and more so to feed their own bellies than to give to others, and yes, I already knew of the story behind St Nich and then the "pop culture" version we know him to be today derived. I think it is excellent you posted it though for those who don't realise the origins.

The thing I would like to ask you thouh as to your last paragraph. Do you not think that people understood the true meaning of giving PRIOR to St Nich's life and his deeds?

[Skyler]

Well, because of verses like Isaiah 64:6: "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags...", I don't think any unregenerated person can do a genuinely "good" deed. As Paul says, "For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit." Romans 8:5.

I suppose it depends on what you deem by "good". Also, ungenerated.....( haven't accepted christianity's god = naughty) and one deemed (by your worldview) regenerated (someone who has accepted christianity's god =nice) therefore YOU would be able to get an excellent haul from old St Nich/santa/kris kringle.

I haven't yet. One more mark against Mr. Claus.

Also I have to say that it appears you are a biblical literalist, by our interactions on the ther thread and also this here now.(Isaiah and Romans - partially clipped verses no less.) Are you? BTW that wasn't avoidance but it is obvious(to me) that both verses were referring to and about specific people at a specific time.

I'm not a literalist in that I don't believe that every verse in the Bible was meant to be taken literally. However, I do think that the majority of the Bible is literal, and that the problems/situations faced by the ancient church haven't gone away. So the letters are still relevant today.

Also I appreciate that your dad is also a minister. When the concept of Santa was "out there" when you were a tacker (little kid), how did your dad explain the concept away to you?

catalyst, let me explain something to you. My "remember" routine is broken--it stores data and then forgets the address where it stored it. So I have almost no idea.

I do know that I vaguely remember him explaining that Santa didn't exist. So as far as I know, he didn't propose the Santa Claus concept. I know for a fact that he doesn't now.

First of all, you're correct, Occam's Razor is something I have taken on as part of my worldview. That's what I'm talking about right now, is my worldview.

Ok, but it would be interesting to know why, considering Ockam's Razor deals with simplicity and not plurality.

No, I think that's a common misconception. Occam's Razor simply stated that one should not multiply causes beyond necessity. A simpler explanation isn't necessarily better-one must also take into account things like how well the explanation explains the effect, how much it explains, etc. An explanation can be very simple but still fail to explain the effect.

Secondly, I still think that given your suggestions, there is still no "effect" which requires an explanation of Santa Claus.

Presents miraculously appearing under a tree IS the effect and Santa Claus IS the simplest explanation.

Not when I know that parents have a tendency to be sneaking around at night... lol.

Likewise, your reply was unusually civil and thoughtful for the general tone I'd come to expect from such a post. Thank you.

Skyler

Well thank you and the questions were asked from the view of a former christian. When I was a christian I did not have children myself at that point so the whole "believing' in santa scenario never came up, but I was interested to know HOW christians tackle it. FYI, even as an atheist, my family and I don't "do" santa either, but probably(or perhaps obviously) for vastly different reasons to you.

Well, as Christians, my family is somewhat more radical/conservative/whatever than most, so I don't know how "most" Christians would deal with the issue. But this is how I, as a Christian, would tackle the issue.

So thanks again for the question, and God bless you--whether or not he exists.

Skyler

[catalyst]

skyler wrote:

I haven't yet. One more mark against Mr. Claus.

You have already stated you don't believe in Santa, so perhaps that is why you've got NADA!


Skyler wrote:

I'm not a literalist in that I don't believe that every verse in the Bible was meant to be taken literally. However, I do think that the majority of the Bible is literal, and that the problems/situations faced by the ancient church haven't gone away. So the letters are still relevant today

So how is it you differentiate what should and what shouldn't be taken literally?

(Perhaps that could be a new thread..if one is not already out there)

Also the problems/situations faced by the church are problems of its own making, all based (supposedly) on "inerrant", divinely inspired writings. The letters therefore are strictly "belief in" based. So therefore, they have ZERO relevance to the majority of the world population who do not "believe" your specific (belief) take.

catalyst, let me explain something to you. My "remember" routine is broken--it stores data and then forgets the address where it stored it. So I have almost no idea.

I do know that I vaguely remember him explaining that Santa didn't exist. So as far as I know, he didn't propose the Santa Claus concept. I know for a fact that he doesn't now.

Oh as to your first paragraph, I am much the same, but I put mine down to the aging process...

As to your second paragraph...hmm...interesting. Someone whom obviously believes that certain unproven "entities" are real fobs another off as mere whimsy? Also, I can believe he would not have personally proposed Santa Claus, but he is too(like jesus) a taught concept, of "be good"(in the eyes of the "believed") and you will get rewarded...basically. I am failing here to see the difference in the two entities when it is simplified.

No, I think that's a common misconception. Occam's Razor simply stated that one should not multiply causes beyond necessity. A simpler explanation isn't necessarily better-one must also take into account things like how well the explanation explains the effect, how much it explains, etc. An explanation can be very simple but still fail to explain the effect

That is the point I was making- as the "miraculous" explanations for many things bible related, fail to viably explain the effect.

Not when I know that parents have a tendency to be sneaking around at night... lol.

I assume you are perhaps referring to your own parents in this "knowledge" and as such, it is not relevant here as you have already pointed out that your father told you Santa Claus does not exist.

Well, as Christians, my family is somewhat more radical/conservative/whatever than most, so I don't know how "most" Christians would deal with the issue. But this is how I, as a Christian, would tackle the issue.

So thanks again for the question, and God bless you--whether or not he exists.

Skyler

To paragraph one: That being the case, condolences re the US elections to your family.

and to 2: Well thank you Skyler for your reply, but when it comes to "blessings", I prefer mine to be from pink polka-dotted wilderbeast. I obviously will not "bless" you in return as it is not my place to determine whether the wilderbeast deems you worth of being blessed, but I will say with all sincerity, that I hope you have a truly wonderful day.

[Skyler]

skyler wrote:

I haven't yet. One more mark against Mr. Claus.

You have already stated you don't believe in Santa, so perhaps that is why you've got NADA!

I thought we had agreed that regenerated/unregenerated was the criterion, not belief in Santa?

Skyler wrote:

I'm not a literalist in that I don't believe that every verse in the Bible was meant to be taken literally. However, I do think that the majority of the Bible is literal, and that the problems/situations faced by the ancient church haven't gone away. So the letters are still relevant today

So how is it you differentiate what should and what shouldn't be taken literally?

(Perhaps that could be a new thread..if one is not already out there)

There actually is one "out there." I've explained that I interpret passages as figurative in such a way as to construct a logically consistent worldview.

Also the problems/situations faced by the church are problems of its own making, all based (supposedly) on "inerrant", divinely inspired writings. The letters therefore are strictly "belief in" based. So therefore, they have ZERO relevance to the majority of the world population who do not "believe" your specific (belief) take.

Correct. For that we have to go back to the Gospels.

catalyst, let me explain something to you. My "remember" routine is broken--it stores data and then forgets the address where it stored it. So I have almost no idea.

I do know that I vaguely remember him explaining that Santa didn't exist. So as far as I know, he didn't propose the Santa Claus concept. I know for a fact that he doesn't now.

Oh as to your first paragraph, I am much the same, but I put mine down to the aging process...

As to your second paragraph...hmm...interesting. Someone whom obviously believes that certain unproven "entities" are real fobs another off as mere whimsy? Also, I can believe he would not have personally proposed Santa Claus, but he is too(like jesus) a taught concept, of "be good"(in the eyes of the "believed") and you will get rewarded...basically. I am failing here to see the difference in the two entities when it is simplified.

Me too. It's probably because you used a lossy simplification algorithm rather than a lossless one.

No, I think that's a common misconception. Occam's Razor simply stated that one should not multiply causes beyond necessity. A simpler explanation isn't necessarily better-one must also take into account things like how well the explanation explains the effect, how much it explains, etc. An explanation can be very simple but still fail to explain the effect

That is the point I was making- as the "miraculous" explanations for many things bible related, fail to viably explain the effect.

They explain it quite well given the existence of a God who is capable of performing such miracles, and in absence of any naturalistic explanation.

Not when I know that parents have a tendency to be sneaking around at night... lol.

I assume you are perhaps referring to your own parents in this "knowledge" and as such, it is not relevant here as you have already pointed out that your father told you Santa Claus does not exist.

Without knowing about the possible explanation of "Dad did it", the "Santa did it" may be the best explanation. However, if the possible explanation "Dad did it" is known, then the "Santa did it" explanation is clearly inferior because it requires positing additional entities to those already known to exist to explain a cause which could be as easily explained by an entity which is already known to exist.

Well, as Christians, my family is somewhat more radical/conservative/whatever than most, so I don't know how "most" Christians would deal with the issue. But this is how I, as a Christian, would tackle the issue.

So thanks again for the question, and God bless you--whether or not he exists.

Skyler

To paragraph one: That being the case, condolences re the US elections to your family.

My family wasn't really following the election. A friend of mine was, and I heard he got hit pretty hard. He's kind of fanatical about politics.

and to 2: Well thank you Skyler for your reply, but when it comes to "blessings", I prefer mine to be from pink polka-dotted wilderbeast. I obviously will not "bless" you in return as it is not my place to determine whether the wilderbeast deems you worth of being blessed, but I will say with all sincerity, that I hope you have a truly wonderful day.

I wonder, that wilderbeast wouldn't be related to Edwin Kagin's invisible unicorns, would it?