What should have been for which that is absent!

ZeusAres42 said:

@MayCaesar

I can understand your frustration, especially when one or more people try to shove endless religious nonsense down your throat. However, I cannot entirely agree with this or the other assertions you have made about Santa Claus in the past being the same as a belief in God. And I will explain why. First, I see nothing wrong with your first paragraph and can resonate with it.

Moreover, regarding the latter bits, most children of this age are not interested in this kind of stuff and are probably far more interested in the next game they're going to play on their console, or something else. Children at this age are still developing intellectually; this kind of development doesn't end at the prepubescent age.

Furthermore, the idea that belief in God is akin to some childish fantasy or like the belief in Santa is a false equivalence and kind of a blanket assertion. If we just take Santa for example, while he and God might share some very similar traits, there is one huge difference: falsifiability. We can know that Santa doesn't deliver presents to all the kids in the world at the speed of light on one particular day of the year. We can know that Santa doesn't live in the North Pole. And by not doing these things, he is no longer Santa.

Now, even if one does manage to come up with some wild and bizarre philosophical argument as to how he still could be Santa, there is still the fact that most people of normal mental ability by the time they reach adulthood no longer believe in Santa. And the fact that more than 80 percent of the world's population ascribe to some kind of religion. This means that there is a huge difference in religious beliefs versus Santa beliefs or other fairy tale beliefs.

While I do agree that religion has something to do with what is going on in the brain (I even say that there is an evolutionary factor here too), I cannot agree with the blanket assertion that one is religious because they are intellectually inferior to those that are not. That claim in itself is something I am skeptical about and would require hard evidence to convince me that it is the case. Interestingly, on a similar note, I think it was Michael Shermer who said that he had noted in his debates/discussions it tends to be those of high intellectual ability that seem to be very clever at rationalizing their beliefs and thus justifying their positions to themselves and others.

Let me first clarify that I have never claimed that "one is religious because they are intellectually inferior to those that are not". I was talking about a specific element of intellectual development that, in my view, have gone wrong in them. That does not make them intellectually inferior to someone who stopped believing in these things at a young age - in fact, there are some religious people who become religious very late into their life - but this does make a particular aspect of their intellectual framework inhibited. That can still be fine if they keep an open mind, are open to the possibility of being wrong, are in a constant intellectual search involving processing input from others, even input that feels uncomfortable - people who do that are those about whom I said that "their employment of religion was more philosophical than literal, and I could not shake that feeling that they were engaged in some intentional semi-conscious roleplay". If they do not keep an open mind though and become seriously religious, then my observation is that their intellectual framework overall becomes corrupt, and it translates to intellectual dishonesty and moral dis-integrity across the board. I am not sure I agree with Michael Shermer: I think there is a difference between rationalizing one's beliefs (which is a genuine mistake), and defending them via explicit intellectual dishonesty.

I will also add that I am not "frustrated": I very rarely talk to anyone about religion outside of these boards, and religion does not impact my life. I was just sharing my observations, and if I feel any way about it, it is ugly because of all the compromises I have gone to when trying to respect those people views, when deep inside I cannot find any reasons to respect them.

Now, to the Santa question, I think you underestimate the extent to which people may go when trying to preserve their beliefs. There are many interpretations of Santa, and one that has been disproven can be switched to another. Here is an unfalsifiable one: Santa sometimes brings presents to good kids, but the kids have to be really-really good, and presents may not necessarily be physical presents. You met the love of your life in your adulthood? It is Santa's present: you were a good kid, and he cast a spell and made sure that your life will be out there waiting for you. You ate a great food at a restaurant? Santa gifted the chef with a great culinary talent because the chef was a good kid. Someone's life is falling apart? They did not receive any gifts from Santa because, even though everyone thought they were a good kid, behind everyone's backs they were doing something very naughty.


Lastly, I want to address this part that is very common (often implicitly stated) in these discussions:

Now, even if one does manage to come up with some wild and bizarre philosophical argument as to how he still could be Santa, there is still the fact that most people of normal mental ability by the time they reach adulthood no longer believe in Santa. And the fact that more than 80 percent of the world's population ascribe to some kind of religion. This means that there is a huge difference in religious beliefs versus Santa beliefs or other fairy tale beliefs.

I do not think that popularity of something supports its validity (and I am sure that you will agree with it). If your point is that, because religion is much more popular than serious belief in Santa, then people are much more likely to inherit it from their family/community/society, then I do not dispute that. That does not change the preposterousness of the beliefs in question. One can be led to believe in very wacky things by social conditioning, sure. But if one is to analyze the, let us call it, "quality" of such beliefs, they must approach it by looking at the intrinsic merit of these beliefs and not on how they are propagated. Of course no one should be surprised that a North Korean kid believes in magical powers of his Dear Leader - the belief is still ridiculous, however.