My response (below) to the internet atheist cliche: “Believing God exists is like believing Santa Claus exists.”
This claim from the internet atheist is not strictly dedicated to ‘Santa Claus,’ it could be any number of things like, ‘The Tooth Fairy,’ or ‘The Easter Bunny’ etc...
This cliche is obviously meant as a polemic implying belief in God to be irrational. I think the point which is trying to be made by the internet atheist is that belief in God is held inconstantly and with some kind of special allowance; since the Theist would not hold belief in Santa Claus existing because it is irrational, yet belief in God suffers from all the same reasoned/rational/evidential problems (apparently).
The problem is that this is just an arbitrary and vacuous statement/cliche, unless the internet atheist adds some context. In order for this statement to have any weight as some kind of an argument which shows belief in God to be irrational, the internet atheist would have to show two things:
FIRSTLY: Show that there are rational reasons to think the proposition ‘Santa Clause does not exist’ is true or more likely true than the proposition ‘Santa Clause does exist.’
SECONDLY: Show that the same rational reasons for believing the proposition ‘Santa Claus does not exist,’ and the lack of rational reasons for believing the proposition ‘Santa Claus does exist,’ apply in the same way to the proposition ‘God does not exist,’ and to the proposition ‘God does exist.’
Until the internet atheist does that, their claim is arbitrary and vacuous, since there is no criteria to show that a proposition like: “believing God exists is like believing the earth exists,” is anymore or less accurate than their cliche.
Also these kind of baseless accusations cut both ways, since the Theist could equally accuse the positive atheist of irrationality by stating “believing the proposition ‘God does not exist’ is like believing the proposition ‘the sun does not exist.’” As you can see these kind of statements are pointless, they consist of being nothing more than an empty rhetorical jab.
I have a separate article which articulates how belief in a proposition can be shown to be rationally justified over its negation/opposite. Here is the link:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/atheist-answers/how-belief-in-a-propositi...
POSSIBLE ATHEIST OBJECTION: “Are you telling me you don’t think there are rational/good reasons to believe the proposition ‘Santa Claus does not exist’ is true, or more likely true than false?”
ANSWER: Firstly, yes I believe there are rational reasons the proposition ‘Santa Claus does not exist,’ is true. However, my reasons may not be the same as the one stating the cliche. Secondly, it is the one stating the cliche who is making the positive knowledge claim, and thus has the burden of proof to prove that the cliche is true; I am not going to do any of the intellectual work for him/her.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Belief in Santa Claus is actually quite rational. As a child I was was told by my parents, who were infallible about everything else, that Santa Claus existed. I met Santa Claus several times and sat on his knee. I told him what I wanted for Christmas, and more often than not I got my wishes. I even have photographic evidence of these encounters.
In contrast, I never saw a breathing, talking god/Jesus. Like many others, I prayed for various things as a child. None of those prayers were ever answered for me or anyone else I knew, not once.
I never thought of it as the same in that they're both irrational, but that the concept is similar. A presumably fictitious character who cannot be seen, measured, or otherwise quantified, whose root purpose is to offer an incentive for being good, and a punishment/null incentive for being bad. The primary difference is that the incentive system is verifiable with one, but not the other. One can reflect upon their behavior and determine if they should receive coal or presents, or go to heaven or hell. If a child sneaks in and sees their parents placing presents or coal, the jig is up. But when you die, you can't observe that. There's no verification. So, one is a lie, and the other is lie whose creators were sneaky and threw in an ad hoc caveat.
Not comparable at all. Theism is a belief about the nature of Ultimate Reality; it is the belief Ultimate Reality is Personal (not to be confused with ‘Relational’) instead of Ultimate Reality being Impersonal (like a positive atheist would have to hold). So based on the logical law of excluded middle there are two possible positions:
(X) Ultimate Reality is Personal (i.e. God exists - Theism).
(-X) Ultimate Reality is Impersonal (i.e. God does not exist - Positive atheism).
IN MORE DETAIL: The term 'Reality' can be used as a reference about anything which exists. 'Ultimate Reality' is distinct in that it is talking about the fundamental nature of that existence itself; the very ground of existence (as philosophers would say).
So 'Ultimate Reality' is describing specifically the aspect of Reality (though distinct from Reality in general) which is:
(1) Metaphysically necessary (like the part which grounds logical and mathematical truths ect...).
(2) The part of Reality in which all other parts are not separate from (so for example, a hammer is separate from a screwdriver, but both are not separate from space; so Ultimate Reality is the most fundamental part of Reality in which all other parts are not separate from it).
(3) The part of reality all other parts supervene from.
If you want to say an Impersonal Ultimate Reality is more likely true than a Personal Ultimate Reality (i,e God), you are making a positive knowledge claim and have a burden of proof.
Interlocutor
What do you mean by ultimate reality? Are you saying that your god is ultimate reality? Metaphysics is not science, science can not test metaphysical claims. Please explain how metaphysics is like logic and math. Can you prove a god is real, what evidence do you have?
To me, whether they're rational or irrational isn't really all that relevant as to whether or not they exist.
There are some things that appear rational, like the earth being flat, that are wrong. And there are things that appear irrational, like time being relative, that are correct.
I don't not believe in Santa Claus because it's irrational, I don't believe in Santa Claus because of lack of evidence.
You said:
"I don't not believe in Santa Claus because it's irrational, I don't believe in Santa Claus because of lack of evidence."
Is that a rational reason not to believe in Santa Claus?
Should people believe irrational reasons make a claim more likely true than irrational reasons?
If there is no evidence for Santa Claus, then yes I'd say that's a good reason to not believe in him.
If evidence presents itself at a later time, then you reevaluate your position.
P.S. @LostLocke
You don't really understand the nature of rationality and evidence.
When it comes to believing some belief (A), you have two components:
(1) The REASON you believe (A).
(2) Is the REASON you believe (A) a RATIONAL REASON.
The rules of rational inference are based on the laws of logic, so to attack rationality is to attack logic. It is rational reasoning itself which tells you rational reasoning can only reason on the data it has, and so is susceptible to change if the data changes (yet rational reasoning also informs us that out of the list of all possible rational reasons based on limited data, they are far more likely to be true compared to all the possible irrational reasons).
Also, 'evidence' is not a thing, it has no ontology; 'evidence' is a concept grounded in rationality. Evidence is nothing more than a belief about a set of affairs (A) in reality which rationally infer to conclusion (X1) over (X2) about reality. So to to put conflict between rational reason VS evidence is totally self refuting.
Interlocutor
Is it reasonable or rational to believe in something when there is a lack of evidence? What evidence do you have that a god is real? If you could prove a god is real, then you have to prove which god it is that humans worship.
"evidence is not a thing"
So, should I believe in anything and everything, regardless of the "evidence"?
There is no "evidence" that Lolth, the queen of spiders and the Underworld, exists. Should I "believe" in her or not? Why or why not?
What's wrong with the comparison? Other than that when you reach a certain age people stop telling you that Santa Clause is real? In fact, Santa Clause might just have a verifiably factual origin to the myth. Saint Nicholas, from whom the myth is based, lived in the third and fourth century CE. Born in Turkey.
So, I think I agree that the cliche fails. Though, for quite the opposite reason. It's more based on actual events and a real human that once lived. While Santa and his magical flying reindeer is preposterous, it is a mythicized story from something for which there is evidence. God however falls far short of this. He's not even a person, but a being of unlimited power and knowledge that transcends time, creates universes, invents maths and physics and creatures designed for worship... And he does it all without ever being seen, heard or leaving any sort of impact on the world that could be unambiguously attributed to him or his doing.
Two very different claims indeed. I can't believe the audacity of internet atheists to compare god to Santa Clause. How unfairly they treat Santa.
I think there is even less evidence for gods than for santa
They are exactly the same although one is just to brainwash the young to believe the other. Both are irrational and childish.
*GENERAL RESPONSE*
I do not really have the spare time for these comments (they are rather silly as well), so I will answer generally.
Firstly, people stop believing in Santa Claus and no one gains a belief in Santa as an adult; so that should tell you there is some key distinction here (many adults come to belief in God).
Secondly, there a big distinction between some contingent being which exists in reality VS a belief about the nature of Ultimate Reality itself.
Thirdly, we do not merely not believe the proposition 'Santa Clause exists' and also merely not believe the proposition 'Santa Claus does not exist;' rather we positively believe the proposition 'Santa Claus does not exist;' and this is not merely based on a lack of evidence for the proposition 'Santa Claus exists', since that would not justify positively believing the negative claim (there is no evidence the claim 'the stars are even in number' is true, however, that is no justification to believe its negative 'the stars are uneven in number').
So unless someone is saying:
(1) They have rational reasons to believe the proposition 'God does not exist' is more likely true than the proposition 'God exists.'
--AND--
(2) These are the same rational reasons for rejecting belief in Santa Claus; then there is no case here (without even needing my other two points above).
Again, this silly claim is a two edge sword, the Theist could start making these types of comparison to the atheist (the comparison is meaningless, either the belief is rational or it is not); but most of us don't swoop that low.
Of course, YOUR statements are "silly" The Interlocutor because you failed to prove a god. Just because some "adults" believe in a god doesn't make it any more plausible. The belief in a god is just as unreasonable as the belief in Santa Clause.
You are missing all my points. Let us keep this simple...
Firstly, between these two claims...
(X) Santa Clause exists.
(-X) Santa Claus does not exist.
...are you 50/50 or are you saying one claim is more likely true than the other?
Secondly, between these two claims...
(X) God exists (Ultimate Reality is Personal in nature).
(-X) God does not exist (Ultimate Reality is Impersonal in nature).
......are you 50/50 or are you saying one claim is more likely true than the other? And if you are saying the proposition 'God does not exist' is more likely true, is it for the same reasons as 'Santa does not exist?'
Also you are making a positive knowledge statement so you have a burden of proof to prove the proposition that 'God does not exist' is more likely true.
P.S. merely stating an absence of evidence does not justify belief in the negation of a proposition; it only justifies not positively believing a proposition. So you have to positively show the issues here to substantiate your cliche; you have a burden of proof to prove the cliche is true.
@The Interlocutor
Bullshit. The premise is false.
It is VERY important that there is empirical evidence. If you cannot prove a god then it is not rational at all to believe in a god. Therefore it is irrational to believe in a god or Santa Clause.
Your statement " merely stating an absence of evidence does not justify belief in the negation of a proposition; it only justifies not positively believing a proposition. So you have to positively show the issues here to substantiate your cliche; you have a burden of proof to prove the cliche is true."
I don't have ANY responsibility to disprove a god or that a god doesn't exist. That would be an exercise in stupidity. I can't and would not disprove unicorns, but I know that they don't exist.
I don't usually use sarcasm like that, but I believe you missed the point. I isn't say it was rationally justified to believe in Santa Clause and not in God. I didn't say it was rationally justified to believe in anything over any other thing. I pointed out that of the two; because "internet atheists" equate the two; Santa Clause is actually based more on verifiable evidence than God is. I see their point, that both are absurd, and I see you're point that neither negative claim holds any more weight than the claim that the number of stars is even or odd. I simply pointed out, albeit in a not so nice way, that of the two Santa is actually more reasonable. Another example is in order: Bigfoot versus fairies. Both are absurd claims. Neither can we rationally justify saying that they positively do not exist. But of the two, at least Bigfoot has a basis in reality in that apes do exist and that we don't exactly know every single species that walks the earth today. Would er have found and identified one by now if they existed, sure. But fairies are magical creatures that can be invisible and have no comparison to anything that we know to exist whatsoever. So of the two Bigfoot is at least possible.
Again they are not the same as god or Santa. But of the two, who has more supporting their existence? Technically I agree that the comparison is silly, but the reason that I think Santa shouldn't be compared to the god claim is very different. I'm sure you understood that.
Forgive the sarcasm.
I still want to talk to you in another format over your other post. You can send direct meshes on this website as well. That would work. I can't seem to start one, but if you start it I will answer.
Aposteriori Unum...
You seem a rational chap. However, a lot of what you said here is really missing the issue. I am looking after my son now, so I can't respond (I need to do a long reply, which is off putting since my time is so limited). Maybe, God willing later or another day I will get back to your response.
P.S.
I will say this quickly: Let us assume your claim is true -- that there is no verifiable evidence for Santa or God (the belief that Ultimate Reality is Personal)-- then belief that Ultimate Reality is Impersonal is equally like believing in Santa Claus (since there is no evidence for that either). The sword cuts both ways. However, there is loads of evidence for God (you might not find it convincing, but that is a different subject), non-for Santa.
What I said may be a mess because my son is screaming and I just typed it like a madman lol.
I'll be here. When your lad relaxes search my Facebook or message me on this site. If you didn't see my post, my Facebook is Esteban Rojas... A picture of a moon and bats, a profile picture that says:Lamb of god: new American gospel and stuff about heavy metal.
@The Interlocutor: "This cliche is obviously meant as a polemic implying belief in God to be irrational."
You're missing the point.
Santa Claus is used simply as an example of the infinite number of things that could exist but are extremely unlikely to exist, such as the Tooth Fairy, Superman, Thor, Zeus, and Amaterasu.
Theists seem to put their gods in a different class from these other unlikely things, but really gods are just part of an infinite spectrum of unreality. Can you give any reason why we should treat your gods as a special case?
Note that I have made "gods" plural deliberately.
Santa Claus, the Three Wise Men, the Tooth Fairy, Kali Goddess, etc. prove that any crazy idea is possible to be indoctrinated in a little child, whether it's presented as a fact.
Indoctrination of little children seems ingenous and well-intentioned, but it's a dangerous mistake. To some kids, this could mean the end of the questions, the death of curiosity.
P.S. Wonderful @Aposteriori's reflections on this topic.
@flamencabot, \m/ thanks.