Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
Once again we find ourselves approaching that time of year, where those of us with younger children are expected to play along with the myth that is Christmas, with all its bells and whistles.
My youngest is now 6yrs old, the questions are beginning to be asked…
” Dad, you said the devil and angels were not real, but there are angels in the play about Jesus we are doing…” Ahh! ermm..
“how will Jesus save me Dad, it’s in the song we are singing…” Oh! well..ermm..
...and so on. Of course Mrs UK is watching me with arms folded waiting to see if I shatter one iota of his innocence or destroy any of the lies, I mean “Magic” of Xmas.
I know the image is funny, but I refuse to lie to him in a bare faced manner, we often have discussions about what is real and what is not….are dinosaurs real…yes but they are extinct…what about dragons…no they are fiction, myth…what about Freddy Crugger…Freddy what!! Who has been talking about him?...the other kids say he will get me…No son he is fiction…
I can see Mrs UK’s point, he is still innocent in many ways and he still believes in Santa to some degree although he is quite smart and gives us that sideways glance when we talk about which gifts we need to buy for whoever.
So what’s the consensus, keep up the deflection, which I’m getting good at now, or lie, not my favourite option, or tell the truth and shatter his perfect illusion forever. Time to use the phrase- Your damned if you do and your damned if you don’t…
Tough situation indeed. The thing is, you have to consider the ramifications of not just shattering his innocence, but of dealing with the peripheral fallout. You tell your son Santa is a lie and then he tells his friends and then his friends tell their parents and then you have angry parents blaming you for their kids unhappiness, etc., etc.
On the other hand, think of how much respect you’ll gain when your son is an adult and he can say that his dad valued truth and honesty above all else and never EVER lied to him and led him on a path of intellectual integrity, even when it wasn’t the popular thing to do. That is huge.
I’d go with Piaget. If he’s 6, he’s probably on the boundary between pre-operational and concrete operational and won’t understand any rationally argued presentation. So look around for some immediate, concrete analogy that you could use to explain that while this day celebrates the birth of a man who taught peace, but the various miracles and such are things people later said about him, not what might have actually taken place. Going with the Prince of Peace characterization allows for celebration as well as comments on how important things can get debased by commercialism and ignorant belief.
I appreciate all the advice, we stood today in a queue for 35 minutes in Fenwicks, a big UK department store, because Mrs UK wanted him to see Santa and ask him the usual requests. I said to her “have you asked if he wants to see Santa” she said for me to ask him. So I said, “son there is a man in there who is a Santa…” she went off it, but what more could I say to him? He waited in the line until we were three from the front and then announced ” I don’t want to see Santa…” so we left and Mrs UK aint too happy with me ....
Maybe for some people the fantasy around Xmas allows them to make false statements, in the spirit of the season I suppose, but I just can’t bring myself to do it. I can imagine some people will be furious with me for it, but it’s not like I sat him down or will sit him down and purposefully destroy his world, I just don’t want to be the person lying to him. It really is putting a strain on things.
I appreciate all the advice, we stood today in a queue for 35 minutes in Fenwicks, a big UK department store, because Mrs UK wanted him to see Santa and ask him the usual requests. I said to her “have you asked if he wants to see Santa” she said for me to ask him. So I said, “son there is a man in there who is a Santa…” she went off it, but what more could I say to him? He waited in the line until we were three from the front and then announced ” I don’t want to see Santa…” so we left and Mrs UK aint too happy with me ....
Maybe for some people the fantasy around Xmas allows them to make false statements, in the spirit of the season I suppose, but I just can’t bring myself to do it. I can imagine some people will be furious with me for it, but it’s not like I sat him down or will sit him down and purposefully destroy his world, I just don’t want to be the person lying to him. It really is putting a strain on things.
I say keep the Santa fantasy going. There will come a time when he will dispel it himself. That may be a good time to interject an analogy with the story of Jesus. You can emphasize the good qualities for which the characters are supposed to represent (eg, giving, compassion, love, etc) while reconfirming that the greatest love for him is and always will be contained within the hearts of Mr and Mrs UK.
I appreciate all the advice, we stood today in a queue for 35 minutes in Fenwicks, a big UK department store, because Mrs UK wanted him to see Santa and ask him the usual requests. I said to her “have you asked if he wants to see Santa” she said for me to ask him. So I said, “son there is a man in there who is a Santa…” she went off it, but what more could I say to him? He waited in the line until we were three from the front and then announced ” I don’t want to see Santa…” so we left and Mrs UK aint too happy with me ....
Maybe for some people the fantasy around Xmas allows them to make false statements, in the spirit of the season I suppose, but I just can’t bring myself to do it. I can imagine some people will be furious with me for it, but it’s not like I sat him down or will sit him down and purposefully destroy his world, I just don’t want to be the person lying to him. It really is putting a strain on things.
I say keep the Santa fantasy going. There will come a time when he will dispel it himself. That may be a good time to interject an analogy with the story of Jesus. You can emphasize the good qualities for which the characters are supposed to represent (eg, giving, compassion, love, etc) while reconfirming that the greatest love for him is and always will be contained within the hearts of Mr and Mrs UK.
Thanks Answerer, that is good advice, I do have two older boys who I had little influence on when they were growing up and they have turned out alright, both of them are firm fans of Dawkins and Hitch, so I suppose I should go with the flow on this one, thanks.
Well, we seem to have resolved Moral Question #1, the famous Santa Claus Dilemma, but I have other moral questions to present…
Moral question #2 My niece, age 13, was cyber-bullying another kid, so her mom gave me her computer and told her daughter that the police came and confiscated it. Kid was hysterical for a while. I was tempted to intervene, but didn’t. Was I wrong? I guess it’s a memorable lesson, but what was it teaching?
Moral question #3 The father of the niece mentioned above suspects his wife is having an affair so he put a tracking device on his wife’s car which enables him to spy on her all day using his computer. I was tempted to intervene, and….did. I told him that if she finds out what he is doing, the marriage will probably be over. Is he willing to risk that?
I absolutely hate making moral decisions, but I’m confronted with them ALL THE TIME. It’s not like you have to decide between good and bad; it usually involves deciding between bad and badder. Sometimes values contradict each other. I would certainly want to know if my husband were trailing me, but do I have the right to interfere in someone else’s marriage, which means I would have to bear responsibility for the consequences?
No wonder people like to be told specific ethical rules to follow. It is so much easier. Unfortunately, morality is more of a creative act than obeying commandments and it can be very tiring. The hardest part is trying to separate yourself from the situation and seeing it objectively without your own prejudices and self-interested motivations interfering in your decision.
Hmmm….maybe I just need to buy a computer program to make these decisions for me. But then I’d have to program it, wouldn’t I? More decisions!
Well, we seem to have resolved Moral Question #1, the famous Santa Claus Dilemma, but I have other moral questions to present…
Moral question #2 My niece, age 13, was cyber-bullying another kid, so her mom gave me her computer and told her daughter that the police came and confiscated it. Kid was hysterical for a while. I was tempted to intervene, but didn’t. Was I wrong? I guess it’s a memorable lesson, but what was it teaching?
Moral question #3 The father of the niece mentioned above suspects his wife is having an affair so he put a tracking device on his wife’s car which enables him to spy on her all day using his computer. I was tempted to intervene, and….did. I told him that if she finds out what he is doing, the marriage will probably be over. Is he willing to risk that?
I absolutely hate making moral decisions, but I’m confronted with them ALL THE TIME. It’s not like you have to decide between good and bad; it usually involves deciding between bad and badder. Sometimes values contradict each other. I would certainly want to know if my husband were trailing me, but do I have the right to interfere in someone else’s marriage, which means I would have to bear responsibility for the consequences?
No wonder people like to be told specific ethical rules to follow. It is so much easier. Unfortunately, morality is more of a creative act than obeying commandments and it can be very tiring. The hardest part is trying to separate yourself from the situation and seeing it objectively without your own prejudices and self-interested motivations interfering in your decision.
Hmmm….maybe I just need to buy a computer program to make these decisions for me. But then I’d have to program it, wouldn’t I? More decisions!
I once had a similar situation as Moral question #3 .We were all in a pub in my home town when I was in my early 20’s, we saw one of my friends wife on the other side of the bar making very friendly with some other bloke, my friend wasn’t in our company at the time but the rest of the squad was there assembled. I remember us all discussing for weeks whether we should tell our absent pal about his wifes infidelity. In the end we didn’t. We are all in our 40’s now and the couple are still together with two teenage kids. They are a great couple and we admire them. I sometimes wonder what would have happen if we had intervened in some way, or maybe she came clean about it, we will most probably never know. I myself would want to know if my Mrs was playing around, or would I really? Not knowing seemed to help them rather than hinder.
Whew, what a mess you bold-faced intellectuals make.
The story of the birth of Jesus is one of the most beautiful ever told. Too bad your skepticism has ruined it for you.
Christmas day is my family’s favorite day. The whole season is filled with good thoughts and thoughts about this present or that present to give to this one or that one. My wife has quite a few presents already bought, wrapped, and ready to go.
Now the intellectual skeptic will say that my family has bought into the commercialism of Christmas.
I say that’s what skeptics do, ruin a good thing to prove how smart they are.
If God DID become incarnate one winter’s day under a super nova, and if his Incarnation was his GIFT to humanity, then the SPIRIT of Christmas is gift giving. Therefore, by the influence of this SPIRIT OF GIVING, people got it right, and instituted this holiday as it should have been.
Now, Santa Claus is another problem for the intellectual on a mission.
If there ACTUALLY WAS a historical person named Nicholas who felt the spirit of Christmas so much that he dedicated his life to making toys for the young children in his village, and if HIS STORY was spread by word of mouth throughout history until he became an icon and the basis of SANTA CLAUS, then people got it right again, and included him in this holiday as he should have been.
Now, how are these things that I share with you above not the things that children ought to hear in order to experience the wonder of them and later make their own decisions about them?
Have you even thought about the these things as they deserve to be thought upon, or simply woke up one day with all the answers? Answer this question honestly before you pride yourself on being honest with your children. The answer is most likely that you haven’t thought about such things in the least, and that makes it your skeptical OPINION more than certain knowledge.
If the Incarnation of God and the spirit of Christmas turn out to be wondrously TRUE, what kind of parent does that make you, and what will your children say to you the day they discover the truth?
Your shame will know no bounds.
Bruce, why don’t you share with your friends what Jesus said people should do rather than lead children astray.
The idea that children lose their innocence when we tell them the real reason for the season or explain that Santa and Jesus are symbols is just plain BS.
Why ever even start lying to a child you intend to teach to be honest? What kind of example does that set?
Perhaps you can pass the following on to your son, but I’d wait a few years. You see, as BM indicates, Santa Claus use to be Saint Nicholas. Good ol’ Saint Nick (of course, Nick was sometimes a name for the Devil, too). But at some point he became Santa Claus. Now those of us who have lived in California, or driven up highway 101, are familiar with many cities named after saints. San Diego, San Clemente, San Juan, Santa Barbara, Santa Rosa, San Francisco. The distinguishing point is that San is the masculine and Santa the feminine. Thus, today Santa Claus is a woman. Since she was once Saint Nick, there was obviously some sort of operation that took place at some time. As I said, I’d wait till your son is a bit older before passing on that bit of information.
Bruce, why don’t you share with your friends what Jesus said people should do rather than lead children astray.
Something about millstones.
Of the two stories about Jesus’ birth, I’m more inclined to accept Luke’s account. I’m suspicious of Matthew’s accuracy on several matters. Even though Luke’s reckoning of the Roman census during the time of Cyrenius is problematic, he seems on the whole to be a better historian than the author of Matthew. Here’s what Josephus says about the census
Now Cyrenius, a Roman senator, and one who had gone through other magistracies, and had passed through them till he had been consul, and one who, on other accounts, was of great dignity, came at this time into Syria, with a few others, being sent by Caesar to be a judge of that nation, and to take an account of their substance. Coponius also, a man of the equestrian order, was sent together with him, to have the supreme power over the Jews. Moreover, Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance, and to dispose of Archelaus’s money;
If this is the same census referred to in Luke, it seems that it occurred in 6-9 C.E., which is problematic for the birth of Jesus around 1 B.C.E. or 1 C.E., and especially difficult to fit into the death of Herod the Great, which by most accounts occurred around 4 B.C.E. But it is possible that the Lucan census is referring to something else entirely. All in all, the accounts of Matthew and Luke are difficult to reconcile with each other, not to mention being difficult to reconcile with secular sources. But such is the challenge of history.
Here is an interesting argument attempting to reconcile the birth accounts:
The idea that children lose their innocence when we tell them the real reason for the season or explain that Santa and Jesus are symbols is just plain BS.
Why ever even start lying to a child you intend to teach to be honest? What kind of example does that set?
The problem here is Stardust, no one actually sits down and tells the lies, or at least not me anyhow, it is the culture that is around kids from day one. They all pick it up , learn it at school and share it.
As far as losing innocence is concerned, if the majority have the idea and are enjoying the excitement of Santa being real and learning from school about the nativity, of course it is going to crush them when their parents tell them the whole thing is bull. It would cause conflict for them and that can be real upsetting.
Bruce, taking historical documents and fine-tooth-combing them in order to come to a knowledge and understanding about the birth of Jesus is like taking flour and yeast and trying to make a steak dinner. The fact that there was a census around that time is enough. Do you think Jesus went into the desert for exactly 40 days? How could Jesus be born on Dec. 25 when calendars back then were different? That he was born at a time of the year around December is what is important. The exact day is the agenda-driven pursuit for skeptical minds.
The knowledge that the Gospel writers didn’t get together and write some perfectly cohesive document proves that they wrote from many witnesses and sometimes speculation, not from a strategic plan. This is a good thing, for it is the way it should be.
Skeptics jump on hermeneutic inaccuracies and time-lines like zombies in a video game jump on human flesh.
Take the idea that the Gospels were written 50 years after Jesus died. What is so surprising and suspect about this? How long would it take any writer to interview hundreds of people and write the life of a person? Now take into account the slow pace of the ancient world (you know, donkey-travel), and there you have it. No, the Gospels were not written 50 years after Jesus died. They were FINISHED then. Why are there so few people who see this?
Even you, with faith and Biblical knowledge, probably have not thought this through. Or maybe you have. Anyways, the point is that there are historical corroborations that the Gospels are not works of fiction, and subtleties throughout these Gospels that point to them as being honestly written. To toss such things aside in favor of unquestionable facts about a 2000-year-old person living at a time when people were mostly illiterate, writing materials were a luxury, and picture-drawing was basically nonexistent is just plain skeptical propaganda masquerading as scientific discovery. Please, don’t encourage such people, for they are not the brilliant thinkers and objective scientists they make themselves out to be, but opinionated and agenda-driven people first and foremost.
Bruce, taking historical documents and fine-tooth-combing them in order to come to a knowledge and understanding about the birth of Jesus is like taking flour and yeast and trying to make a steak dinner. The fact that there was a census around that time is enough. Do you think Jesus went into the desert for exactly 40 days? How could Jesus be born on Dec. 25 when calendars back then were different? That he was born at a time of the year around December is what is important. The exact day is the agenda-driven pursuit for skeptical minds.
The birth stories do not say that Jesus was born on Dec. 25, and I don’t think anyone takes that position today. The problem with your post is that it seems to discount scholarly analysis of a text. Even the Catholic church encourages scholarship over simply accepting something at face value. When you dig into the text, there are problems. Being honest about those problems is a sign of a maturing faith. My position is that when you dig down to the core, there is still a strong foundation upon which one can build ones life. I don’t want to build on rubble but on solid rock. That means that scholarship and science have to be given their rightful place.
TheBrotherMario - 04 December 2011 04:26 AM
The knowledge that the Gospel writers didn’t get together and write some perfectly cohesive document proves that they wrote from many witnesses and sometimes speculation, not from a strategic plan. This is a good thing, for it is the way it should be.
Yes, I agree, but it also demonstrates that the New Testament is not a “perfect” book that was dropped out of the sky. It’s not like the Muslims see the Qur’an. Since it is not perfect (even Catholics see that - so they add tradition and the Magisterium as additional sources of authority) it behooves us to dig deeper and see where the evidence leads us.
TheBrotherMario - 04 December 2011 04:26 AM
Skeptics jump on hermeneutic inaccuracies and time-lines like zombies in a video game jump on human flesh.
Well, let them jump where they want to jump. That doesn’t affect me. Everyone does not have to agree with me.
TheBrotherMario - 04 December 2011 04:26 AM
Take the idea that the Gospels were written 50 years after Jesus died. What is so surprising and suspect about this? How long would it take any writer to interview hundreds of people and write the life of a person? Now take into account the slow pace of the ancient world (you know, donkey-travel), and there you have it. No, the Gospels were not written 50 years after Jesus died. They were FINISHED then. Why are there so few people who see this?
I essentially agree with you on this, and it seems clear to me that while the gospels weren’t published for some time, they contain information that goes all the way back to the source. That’s one reason I value Luke more than Matthew with respect to the birth story. He tells us at the beginning that he is writing an orderly account, and if you go all the way through Acts, it’s clear that some of his account is based on personal knowledge (latter part of Acts) and some is based on interviewing sources in Judea when he traveled there with Paul. Perhaps he had an encounter with Mary in that process. With Matthew we have no statement of the author’s intent, and we know nothing about his sources. His account is told from Joseph’s perspective, but Joseph was probably already dead by the time Jesus began his ministry, so where does the author of Matthew get the information? That, plus the problems of harmonizing the two accounts, and the vastly different genealogies, create problems. No reason to hide from that.
TheBrotherMario - 04 December 2011 04:26 AM
Even you, with faith and Biblical knowledge, probably have not thought this through. Or maybe you have. Anyways, the point is that there are historical corroborations that the Gospels are not works of fiction, and subtleties throughout these Gospels that point to them as being honestly written. To toss such things aside in favor of unquestionable facts about a 2000-year-old person living at a time when people were mostly illiterate, writing materials were a luxury, and picture-drawing was basically nonexistent is just plain skeptical propaganda masquerading as scientific discovery. Please, don’t encourage such people, for they are not the brilliant thinkers and objective scientists they make themselves out to be, but opinionated and agenda-driven people first and foremost.
You seem to have a problem with other people coming to different conclusions than you. You have an authority problem, not from the standpoint of rejecting authority, but insisting on everyone accepting your authority. That’s not going to happen, so disabuse yourself of that idea. Again, we shouldn’t require that everyone comes to the same conclusions that we do. The people on this forum came to their conclusions long before they knew of me, so I’m not “encouraging them” about anything. I’m just here for the discussion, which I find interesting. I have personality conflicts with a few, but for the most part, this place is just coffee talk.
