No, Virginia...

I just learned about “Yes Virginia, There Is a Santa Claus”.  I learned about it from a animated movie about the story, but have since read up on the original source.  And I have to say, I’m a little steamed about it.

The story, as I understand it, is that a little girl wrote a letter to the editor expressing skepticism about Santa Claus.  Some of her friends say he’s not real.  She’s not sure.  “Please tell me the truth, is there a Santa Claus?” she asks.

Here is the full text, for reference.

http://www.nysun.com/editorials/yes-virginia/68502/

What really chaps me about this is that I read the honest, heartfelt pleading of a girl who is confused and yearning for the truth.  I admire her so much for her desire to fine the line between fact and fiction.  She’s clearly confused, and goes to what she feels is the ultimate source for the truth.  So what answer does she get?

“Virginia, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age.”

Bull.  Shit.  Her friends are dead-on right.  There is no Santa Claus.

“Not believe in Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies.”

Yes.  You might as well not believe in fairies.  In fact, I don’t think you should.

“Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus.”

And

 “Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there.”

This is true enough, but that’s not how we go about determining what is real.  We don’t start with “everything is real until proven otherwise”.  You can’t say “Fairies are real until you prove they are not.”  That is a terrible strategy.  Instead, I claim we should take the opposite approach.  “Nothing is real until it is demonstrated to be real.”

Now, before going too much further, it bears discussing the terms “real” and “exists”.  Do ideas exist?  Are emotions real?  That totally depends on your definition of the words.  If you want to say that Santa Claus exists as an idea - as a representation of the Christmas spirit, then I agree.  The idea of Santa Claus exists (inasmuch as any idea exists).

I think it’s helpful to remember the context of Virginia’s question.  I think that kids are generally taught that Santa actually exists as a real, physical entity.  You know all the stories.  It isn’t until they get older that they begin to have very real, and very valid questions.  How does he travel to millions of houses?  How does he carry so many presents?  In short, how is this possible at all?!

Of course, the correct answer is “It’s not possible.  It’s a deliberate lie that some people tell their children to make Christmas more fun.  And good for you for using your big brain to determine that it’s all a fraud!”  Our children should be commended for seeking out the truth, and not only that, but seeking out the proper strategies for determining truth from fiction.

So it breaks my heart that young Virginia, when asking for the truth, had it denied to her.  Or, at the very least, twisted and distorted.  She wasn’t asking about the metaphorical Santa (I don’t think).  She was asking if he was real in the literal sense.  And the answer she got was misleading.

Now, as an adult, I think I know where the editor was going.  And this is probably what you, dear reader, have been screaming at me the whole time.  He’s saying that Santa exists as the metaphor of the Christmas Spirit.  He exists as emotions of generosity and love and imagination.  Without “Santa”, we’d have no “childlike faith, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence.”  To a certain degree, I can get behind this.  There is room in our lives for both fact and fantasy.  For love and for art and beauty.  But where the editor and I part ways, I think, is that I don’t think that Faith or Belief is an integral part of those things.  We needn’t trick ourselves into believing fairy tales, and our lives lose nothing if we strive to cut out fantasy from reality.  There is enough beauty in reality to last more than a lifetime.

Copypasta from reddit

From /u/iopha

"Hi Unsuremother,

First, off, though I am an atheist myself, I want to empathize a little: this must be difficult for you and your family. Your faith commitment is an important part of your life and it is bewildering to have your own child turn away from this. I don't know exactly what you believe, but you might be worried about his soul in the next life, or his behaviour in this one. If you don't believe in God, how do you know right from wrong? If you reject God, how will you be reunited with Him in the next Kingdom?

The most important thing to understand is that these kinds of concerns, while very vivid and real to you, only make sense within a belief system your son no longer accepts. There is no sense in making threats of Hell or damnation anymore: atheists do not believe such a place exists. We don't believe such a place could exist. The thing that is important to remember is that while we no longer believe that there are places beyond the world, the world he lives in has now become all the more important. That's all we have. That's all we ever have. His world is family, and school, and friends: all these things structure his life and he will need them more than ever. He needs you. He's still a kid, and he's a kid dealing with Really Big Questions in the only way he can: honestly and critically.

Most of us have come to this point honestly. This must be emphasized. We're not angry at God, we're not trying to get attention or going through some cultural phase. We looked at the arguments on both sides and came to the best conclusion we could. We only have 70 odd years on this planet. We make mistakes, too; we are fallible creatures prone to error and haste. We do our best. And sometimes our best is 'well, I don't think any of this is right.' I don't pretend to have all the answers. I don't rightly know where the universe came from, or how life began at first. But I don't need all the answers to know that some answers are the wrong ones. I don't know, and I don't think Christians, or Muslims, or Taoists know either. They claim to know; I claim to not know.

Suppose I'm wrong. Suppose your son is wrong. I'm standing outside the pearly gates and St. Peter, or God Himself, gives me one chance to explain myself. What would I say except "I'm sorry--I got it wrong. I really tried. But I got it wrong. I saw all the different religions, each saying different things, all changing over time. It seemed just a part of human culture, not ultimate truth. I saw unnecessary suffering and couldn't make heads or tails of it, if you were good and all-powerful. It didn't make sense to me to posit something existing to explain existence: that gets it backwards. I'm sorry, God, that I didn't believe in you, but it wasn't malicious--I just--I just screwed up."

What would Jesus say to that? Would he send me to suffer forever? Do I deserve to be tortured eternally because I read Lucretius as a young man--the 2,000 year old Roman poet who professed his atheism before Christ ever walked desert sand? Because I looked at the ontological argument and found it wanting?

Or would he press me to Him and forgive me? And wouldn't I desire that forgiveness---?

If there is a God that would send me to Hell for making this mistake, I don't want it in my life. Nothing justifies torture. Nothing at all. And He would not be worthy of worship--or even respect. If He is merciful, then I will apologize. If I am right--and he doesn't exist--then I live my life as a free man.

And that is how atheists live: under actual freedom. The German philosopher Nietzsche wrote that 'freedom is responsibility'--genuine freedom. I am responsible for the consequences of my actions. So: how do I live? What do I do? Do I want to live in a society where everyone does what they can get away with? What standards do I hold myself up to? This is the essence of the atheist's morality: his freedom, his rationality.

Before even Lucretius wrote his atheistic treatise De Rerum Natura, there was another man, Socrates, who asked a simple and startling question: Does God say something is Good because it is good, or is something good because God says it is? We must be careful here. If what is good is whatever God says is good, then we have no morality at all, but caprice. If God says: kill your son! it is good to kill your son. If God says: from henceforth, children shall be murdered--then it is good, by definition, that children be murdered. But that's not morality. That's authoritarianism. And if you say: "But God would never do that," I ask: why? Because if there is a reason, then goodness is independent from God after all. It is grounded elsewhere. In what? Well: maybe in reason itself? Or maybe morality is just part of the universe--a different kind of part, not like your sofa or TV or the moon is part of the universe, but the way numbers, or relations (like 'equal to')--an abstract object, none less the real.

There is a very, very long tradition of ethical thinking that is, in fact, older than Christianity itself. In philosophy classes we teach wisdom that was recorded a millennium before Christ. If it is impossible to be good without God, there wouldn't be one virtuous atheist. Yet there are millions of us non-religious men and women on the planet, and we live our lives, as best we can. Atheists don't fill the newspapers with tales of carnage or debauchery--clearly we can figure it out on our own.

Well. Not quite on our own. We have each other. No one else--just each other. And that's enough. So be there for your son."

Found on reddit

I thought this was an interesting story from someone who had lost their faith...

The reasons I left the faith are twofold, mostly.

Growing up, I was subject to the stereotypical "God is good and forgiving" line that is tantamount to modern day apologia.

I was taught Creationism, and some of the evidence was really convincing, to be honest. It made me question some of the evolutionary teachings I had heard in school, and I had to truly re-evaluate what I believed.

Then, at some point, it just clicked. It doesn't matter if you think God is real, it matters if you think God is worth following and supporting.

As I read through scripture, I was confronted with story after story that demonstrated, to me, the behaviour of an all-powerful kindergartener, not a loving deity.

I realized that in the case of the Garden, assuming it's true, we were set up to fail.

We were held accountable, as a species, for believing a lie. Humans, according to scripture, had never been subject to deception before. Literally, before the serpent, 100% of what Adam and Eve had heard was true. There was no reason to doubt the serpent, because skepticism comes with knowledge.

Then there was the fact that humans were punished, for "sinning."

I had two problems with that.

If they hadn't eaten from the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil," then by definition they didn't know right from wrong. It's irreconcilable. And punishing someone for a crime they didn't understand isn't gracious.

If Eve, by eating the fruit, introduced Original Sin into the world, then there's a whole mess of other problems. For instance, that means that the serpent lying and tempting wasn't a sin. If the serpent lying and tempting wasn't a sin, then Lucifer rebelling against God in the first place wasn't a sin. If rebelling against God wasn't a sin, then questioning and doubting God wasn't a sin. And if questioning and doubting God wasn't a sin, then salvation is unnecessary.

Then there's the image of God as a father figure. I like to make an analogy in this case.

If you had a two year old kid, then there's a pretty good chance that they don't fully understand right and wrong yet. That's a pretty good comparison for Adam and Eve, being as they hadn't yet eaten from the tree of knowledge.

Now, as a responsible parent, you tell the kid not to touch the stove, which is on. You tell them that touching it will burn them, and it will hurt. You step out to make a call, and leave the stove on. This is a fair comparison for leaving the tree in the garden unattended.

Enter me. I'll be the serpent in this one. I go to your kid, and tell them that touching the stove won't actually hurt. You were mistaken. I say to touch the stove. You know what the kid does? They touch the stove. They are inclined to believe me.

Here's the part where humanity surpassed God in grace. You know what you do when your kid burns themselves? You bandage them. You kiss their boo-boo. You explain that there are people out there who you mustn't believe, and tell them to learn from the experience.

You know what you don't do? You don't kick them out. You don't cut off their college fund, or subject them to the horrors of working in the adult world. You don't curse them.

You yell at me. I'm the one responsible for your child's injuries, not the child.

If God were a parent worth having, he would have done the same. Instead, he did everything on the "don't" list, times a hundred.

That was hard for me to accept.

But there's more.

The Tower of Babel.

This was really one of the final straws for me.

In the passage, God says:

But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

As a parent, you're preparing your child to succeed without you. It's the point. You want them to be self-sufficient. It's the measuring stick of a parent, how their child fares without them. That's not what happens here.

God is made insecure by humans capabilities. So he cheats. He breaks down their ability to communicate. Petty. It's tantamount to changing the answers on your kids homework because they no longer need your help with it.

That would make you a bad parent, so why is it "good" if the Almighty does it?

Then there's the salvation story.

According to this source, the number of people who have existed is 107,602,707,791. That's mind-boggling.

Now, I'm going to be very generous here. Let's assume that half of everyone went to heaven. That means, by default, that an equal half went to hell. That's over fifty billion souls, burning eternally.

And for what? Free will?

I ask you this: is free will worth it? I can only speak for myself, but if giving up my ability to make independent decisions meant that just one person would be spared that torment, I'd do it in a heart-beat.

And lets be honest here. God doesn't really want free will anyway. The Tower of Babel demonstrates that unequivocally. When we "choose" something that's displeasing, he intervenes and cheats.

That means that fifty billion people are burning for the illusion of choice, so that his "praises" are a little more convincing.

He created, and doomed, a sentient species just to get an ego boost. How could I justify following someone who seemed so needy and petty?

I can't.

Then there's the Egyptian story.

One man, the Pharaoh, speaks for an entire people. God, when he doesn't get what he wants, kills all the firstborn of a people who didn't make the decision.

Let that sink in for a moment.

You wouldn't support a guerrilla fighter who massacred children to get what they wanted, so how could you support a god that did the same thing?

Then there's the gap between the Fall and Jesus.

Being conservative here, going off Creationism, lets say it's roughly 4,000 years. That's four thousand years worth of people who were doomed to burn for the misfortune of being born outside of the Jewish people.

The Jews, by the way, are another evidence against a gracious God.

He chose one people, and favored them. He intervened in war and such, causing countless deaths against other people. He helped them take land, and encouraged them to kill the children of their enemies.

How gracious is that? It's like a child, playing army. He chooses one side, and stacks the deck against all others.

Not all-loving, that.

Then there's the shear inefficiency of spreading the Gospel via humans. What about people in Africa who died the day after Jesus was crucified?

What was their sin? Being born in the wrong place? Not having internet?

Assuming God is all-powerful, there's no excuse for taking 4,000 years to rectify the issue, nor is there an excuse for allowing such rectification to take so long, given that it's human souls on the line.

In short, there's no way I could ever respect God as an equal to humanity, much less revere him as our superior. Simply put, we're better than him.

And there's no way I could dedicate my life to someone or something so temperamental, selfish, needy, lazy, infanticidal, and generally unloving as the Christian God.

I'm sorry that the answer was so long, but it's not one that bears being short.