Atheists are fond of comparing belief in God to belief in Santa Clause, claiming that belief in one is as justified as the other. But the two beliefs are not analogous at all. There are plenty of positive rational reasons to believe God exists (the origin of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life, the origin of life, consciousness, the existence of objective moral values, etc.), but the same cannot be said of Santa. Indeed, when it comes to Santa’s existence, not only are there no good reasons that favor his existence, but there is plenty of evidence against his existence. If Santa exists we would expect to find his home in the North Pole, or have empirical evidence of flying reindeers or elves, and yet despite all the expeditions of the North Pole, we find none. Furthermore, we have widespread evidence from both credit card receipts and personal testimony that the gifts appearing under millions of Christmas trees were purchased by regular human beings from retail stores, not made by elves in Santa’s workshop. Finally, our knowledge of physics proves it impossible for one man to travel the globe in the amount of time allotted to Santa, carrying the number of gifts he would have to carry to supply gifts to all those .
Comparing belief in God to belief in Santa Clause may be rhetorically effective, but it is logically fallacious. As Paul Copan wrote, “To place belief in Santa Claus or mermaids and belief in God on the same level is mistaken. The issue is not that we have no good evidence for these mythical entities; rather, we have strong evidence that they do not exist. Absence of evidence is not at all the same as evidence of absence, which some atheists fail to see.”[1]
I think it is also worth pointing out that while virtually everyone abandons their belief in Santa Clause even prior to reaching adulthood, the same cannot be said of belief in the existence of God(s). The vast majority of people continue to believe in God(s). Why is that? Apparently they recognize that the grounds for believing in the one are not at all comparable to the grounds for believing in the other. Belief in God’s existence is rationally justified, while belief in Santa is not.
[1]Paul Copan, “The Presumption of Atheism”; available from http://www.gospelcom.net/rzim/publications/essay_arttext.php?id=3; Internet; accessed 13 February 2005.
Thinking to Believe 
March 31, 2010 at 6:55 am
Ah, but around December every year I can go and see Santa at the mall.
LikeLike
March 31, 2010 at 7:46 am
Answer: Because the vast majority of these people have been indoctrinated into believing in a god. Here’s a better question: why is it that the vast majority of people believe in the same god that they were indoctinated into believing? I mean, they can’t all be right, can they?
LikeLike
March 31, 2010 at 8:31 am
You are, obviously, correct in your assertion that there is much evidence that contradicts the existence of Santa Clause. I can, however, approach that evidence with the same mental gymnastics that allows the theist to defend God’s existence.
“If Santa exists we would expect to find his home in the North Pole, or have empirical evidence of flying reindeers or elves, and yet despite all the expeditions of the North Pole, we find none.”
Santa is a mystical being who has powers that supersede the laws of physics. His home at the North Pole exists outside of the normal space-time continuum and, therefore, is undetectable using empirical scientific methods. Similarly, his reindeer are not “normal” reindeer. They don’t travel in a linear, “point A to point B” fashion, and so they are not picked up by radar. Relying on science to verify the existence of something that lies outside of science is a sign of human arrogance. You will surely make the naughty list.
“Furthermore, we have widespread evidence from both credit card receipts and personal testimony that the gifts appearing under millions of Christmas trees were purchased by regular human beings from retail stores, not made by elves in Santa’s workshop.”
Santa’s generosity relies on the belief of the recipient. Many people do, indeed, have to buy their own gifts because they have closed their hearts to the wonder that is Santa. I, however, can tell you emphatically that I have received gifts that were not of my own or my family’s purchase every single year. Furthermore, popular literature and television is full of examples of Santa’s handywork. Surely, you can’t negate the validity of my own personal relationship with Santa–especially when it is backed up by so much popular, anecdotal evidence.
“Finally, our knowledge of physics proves it impossible for one man to travel the globe in the amount of time allotted to Santa, carrying the number of gifts he would have to carry to supply gifts to all those .”
Your reliance on physics to explain all of life’s wonders is the problem. Santa exists outside the laws of physics and so those laws are, inherently, inadequate to explain his existence.
The bottom line is that there is no–I repeat, NO evidence to support God’s existence. There is only gaps in current scientific knowledge, which theists will rush to fill with their notion of God. The reason Santa seems so much different to you is simply because you’ve chosen not to believe in one, while choosing to hold on to the other. The evidence for either is equally lacking–as is the ridiculous nature of the arguments that support them.
LikeLike
April 1, 2010 at 11:17 am
morsec0de,
No, what you see is someone pretending to be Santa.
You seem to suppose that the real is exhausted by what can be perceived by the senses. But why think this? I’m sure there is a host of things you believe to be real, but you cannot perceive with your senses:
1. Do you believe logic is real? Show me where logic exists. How much does it weigh? What is its chemical composition? These are nonsense questions because it’s clear that logic is not physical, and yet it exists. It is a non-physical reality.
2. Do you believe math is real? Where do numbers exist? Have you ever bumped into the number 4 while walking to the bathroom in the middle of the night? These are nonsense questions because it’s clear that mathematics is not something physical, and yet math is real. It is a non-physical reality.
3. Do you believe in protons? No one has ever seen one, so why think they exist? If you only believe in that which is is experienced directly by the senses, you should deny the existence of protons.
The claim that the real is limited to what is physical is self-refuting because the claim itself is not a physical reality that can be experienced empirically. It is a proposition, and propositions are not physical realities. Interestingly, then, empiricism rests on a self-refuting premise.
So the issue is not whether we can see God. That is not how we judge whether God exists. Thinking that the lack of direct empirical proof for the existence of an immaterial being makes as much sense as thinking one’s inability to see an invisible man is proof that such a man does not exist. He is invisible! If an invisible man exists, his existence would have to be discovered through non-empirical means. The same is true of God. If He exists, His existence would have to be discovered through non-empirical means.
Jason
LikeLike
April 1, 2010 at 11:37 am
Shamelessly Atheist,
Your observation is true. Most people do continue to believe in whatever it was that they were taught about religion when they were a child. That would be just as true for the atheist, however, as it is for the theist. Both beliefs can be the result of indoctrination (just ask the Russians and Chinese). If you imbibed atheism from your parents as a child, you will likely be, and remain an atheist (like so many in Russia and China). What does this say about the truth of atheism? Nothing. Likewise, the fact that people tend to continue believing in the religion taught to them by their parents tells us nothing about the truth of God’s existence. It may tell us something about psychology or sociology, but next-to-nothing about reality.
But of course, there are many people who abandon the religious or anti-religious beliefs they imbibed as a child. Some convert from theism to atheism. Does that prove that atheism is true and theism false? If so, what about those who convert from atheism to theism. Would that prove that theism is true and atheism false? Surely both phenomena can’t prove contradictory things. In reality, both prove nothing. When it comes to assessing truth, what matters is the evidence. It doesn’t matter how many people believe X, or how long they have believed it. It’s the evidence that matters. And like you said, we can’t all be right. The evidence has to decide who is right.
Jason
LikeLike
April 1, 2010 at 12:10 pm
John,
Santa Clause has never been understood the way you have described him. He has always been described as a physical being living in space-time who literally climbs down our chimneys and eats cookies and milk. As a physical being, then, we can demand physical proof of his existence. If we do not find empirical evidence of his existence where we would expect to find it, then we can safely conclude that Santa does not exist.
The God of theism, on the other hand, has never been understood to be a physical being. He has always been understood to be an immaterial being that transcends the universe. As such, it would do no good to conclude He doesn’t exist on the basis that there is no empirical proof of his existence (see my response to morsec0de).
The way we would go about detecting God’s existence is different than we would go about detecting Santa’s existence because they are different kinds of things. The way we would detect God’s existence is two-fold: (1) Philosophically; (2) Inferentially.
Consider the latter. Scientists use this approach all the time when doing science. They observe phenomenon X. But what caused X? Sometimes they cannot observe the cause directly, but infer the existence of some cause Q because it alone is causally adequate to explain X. This is how we know protons and quarks and all sorts of other sub-atomic particles exist. We haven’t observed any of them, but we infer their existence based on the effects we can see, because only those postulated entities are capable of explaining the effect.
The same sort of reasoning is used to detect the existence of God. We look at some effect X, and since all effects require a cause, we seek to discover what caused X. If the only adequate cause sufficient to explain the effect is an immaterial, eternal, conscious, and intelligent being, then that would be (inferential) evidence for the existence of such a being.
Consider the universe. The Big Bang is the effect. But what caused it? It cannot be some prior physical thing/event because the Big Bang marks the origin of physical reality, and it’s incoherent to think matter existed before matter existed. It cannot be some natural law, because you can’t have natural laws until nature comes into existence. Natural laws are part of the effect that needs to be explained. By definition, the cause of the universe must be immaterial. Furthermore, it must be non-spatial and timeless too since it brought space and time into being at the Big Bang. Now, a being that is immaterial, non-spatial, and timeless forms part of the core of what theists have always believed God to be. God’s existence, then, while not directly observable, can be indirectly inferred based on what we can directly observe.
If you are going to dismiss this line of reasoning as illegitimate, then you also need to reject the existence of subatomic particles because the same line of reasoning leads us to conclude both. You might be tempted to dismiss this line of evidence on the basis that it postulates an unseen immaterial entity to explain a material effect, whereas scientists are postulating unseen material entities to explain material effects. But this merely begs the question in favor of atheism because you are making an a priori assumption that there can be no immaterial realities capable of causing anything. Why think that? The beginning of the universe is itself a reason to believe in the existence of at least one immaterial entity, so you can’t dismiss the inferential evidence on the basis that we have no reason to believe an immaterial reality exists. Besides, you can’t escape the fact that by the very nature of what needs to be explained (the beginning of material reality), the cause of the universe cannot be a material reality.
Jason
LikeLike
April 1, 2010 at 2:33 pm
“No, what you see is someone pretending to be Santa. ”
Really? How do you know? Were you there? Did you see the particular Santa I’m talking about? Do you have all the knowledge in the universe? No. Then you have to accept that my Santa is the real Santa.
Makes sense, doesn’t it?
“You seem to suppose that the real is exhausted by what can be perceived by the senses.”
No I don’t. Scientific instruments can perceive far more than our senses.
“Do you believe logic is real?…Do you believe math is real?”
Logic and math are concepts created by humans to explain certain aspects of the natural world.
Are you saying your god is a concept? Because if you are, I agree with you. A simple concept that early humans came up with to explain their limited understanding of the natural world. We no longer need that concept.
The rest of you argument is semantics.
Again, if you want to convince me your god exists as a concept I won’t argue with you. But there’s no evidence that it exists in any other way.
LikeLike
April 1, 2010 at 4:45 pm
jasondulle,
Your arguments are obviously well-practiced and eloquently delivered. Unfortunately, each one rests upon either a logical or factual fallacy which renders it moot.
Regarding the comparison of God to Santa Clause…I see no valid reason why my description of Santa Clause must adhere to some pre-conceived notion that you have about his nature. Since you seem to acknowledge the Big Bang as opposed to some ludicrous “young-earth” creationist view of the universe, then you are obviously not strictly bound by the Bible and it’s description of Yahweh as the only possible nature of a creator God. Once you acknowledge that, then you must also acknowledge that creator gods have been described throughout time in many different forms. They have been male and female. Corporeal and non-corporeal. Humanoid and non-humanoid. Sometimes they have interacted with humans, while sometimes they do not. Santa Claus is no different. He has been described in popular mythology in many different forms–utilizing many different methods to accomplish his amazing feats. I am simply doing with Santa what theists have always done with God–adapting his description to evade the onslaught of ever-increasing evidence against his existence.
Regarding your response to morsecode…ANYTHING that exists can be observed, measured, and tested empirically. ANYTHING. That doesn’t necessarily mean that we have the technology or even the knowledge necessary to do so, but it could be done. Math and logic (your two examples of things that exist outside of empirical observation) are simply human thought processes used to interpret the natural world. We can see these thought processes occur on an MRI as different areas of the brain engage in specialized tasks. If we could see down to the molecular level and identify each neuron in the human brain, we could “see” math as it happens–just as I could pick out a memory from your squishy gray matter that represents your 6th birthday. Math is a concept–firing neurons exist and can be measured.
Regarding the Big Bang…You are most definitely right in your assertion that, given our limited technology and knowledge, some phenomena can only be observed inferentially. There are two problems with your argument, however. First, inferential evidence only works when there is only one possible cause for the phenomena being observed. In the case of the Universe’s beginning, however, there are several competing theories related to the Big Bang. You are arguing from a traditional “singularity” point of view–which I will address in a moment–but there are others. There is also a “non-singularity” model of the Big Bang which would mean that there WAS material, time, and space, before the rapid expansion we call the Big Bang. There is the “brane multiverse” theory which claims that the expansion of the universe will not slow down universally and that some parts will first stop and then contract upon themselves before others–creating individual Big Bangs and multiple universes and that the universe that we live in is the result of one of these previous “multiverse” formations–again dictating that material, time, and space existed before the Big Bang and eliminating the need for an immaterial cause. These are just two–there are others if you care to read up on them.
Even from a traditional singularity point of view, however, you still make a factual error. The singularity that existed before the Big Bang was infinitely dense. That means that while it had no size, it did have mass. You can not have mass without material–more likely energy than matter, but that is inconsequential since the two are fully interchangeable according to E=mc2. If you have material, then there is no need for an IMMATERIAL cause. You see, I don’t reject your line of reasoning as illegitimate, I reject the premises upon which you base your line of reasoning.
LikeLike
April 2, 2010 at 6:08 am
Dear atheist(s),
I do not believe in you. You do not exist. The words that are on this post are merely randomly organized letters that just happened to organize themselves into semi-intelligent ramblings. Since you are not real your logic is not real. Logic and math are merely concepts therefore my concept of you does not include you.
Yes, the evolved words do seem to speak to a subject but since I’ve never met you and can’t see you then your words are empty and meaningless.
Makes sense doesn’t it? 😉
Yet, since I do believe in God, the One of the Old and New Testament, then I should believe in you too. Since logic and math are more than concepts and all material substance came from His immaterial being then I must ignore my humanistic fantasies that ignore the reality of you. Else I should deny the reality of me.
We are and God is.
LikeLike
April 2, 2010 at 6:27 am
“Dear atheist(s),
I do not believe in you. You do not exist.”
I love a good false analogy.
“His immaterial being”
Correct. Your god is immaterial.
The key difference between your god and us is that when we post things, other people can read it. And confirm whether or not we actually exist, are computer programs or a figment of your imagination. When your god talks to you, the only ones who know if it’s real or not is you and your therapist.
LikeLike
April 2, 2010 at 9:08 am
morsec0de
So you are claiming a truth?
Immaterial? I think it is your argument that is immaterial, the use here is: irrelevant, and not the being of God. It is your argument that makes all life inconsequential and pointless. However, it was a nice attempt at word play.
So DNA isn’t information? How do you know God hasn’t posted anything? I suppose this is another of your claims to truth, which again is meaningless. It is the grand sum of the atheistic outlook on life – pointless, meaningless, inconsequential, false, and empty.
LikeLike
April 2, 2010 at 10:55 am
Morsec0de,
Is this the kind of thing you have to resort to in order to evade my point? Constructing some alternative Santa to make a false analogy?
Saying scientific instruments can perceive more than our senses misses the point. Besides, we are still perceiving those things through our senses. When I look through a telescope and see distant galaxies, I am perceiving them with my senses. The fact that it is through another medium makes no difference at all. I am still seeing it with my eyes.
Say what you will, but I know you don’t truly believe logic is a created concept. And if you do, it can only be because you haven’t thought about it enough. By its very nature logic is a necessary truth. There is no possible world in which a circle can be a square. Why? The law of identity, and the law of non-contradiction. These laws are not something we invent for convenience’ sake, but something we discover. That’s why every human uses these laws of logic, and cannot escape them. And those who wish to deny them, have to employ them in their denial (which is self-refuting).
Of course I’m not saying God is just a concept.
Why didn’t you respond to the main point of my comment? The point is that it is foolish to demand empirical proof for an immaterial entity, and illegitimate to claim that since no empirical proof is given, the immaterial entity must not exist.
Jason
LikeLike
April 2, 2010 at 10:55 am
John,
Not all young-earth-creationists would deny the Big Bang. Furthermore, the Big Bang was first described in Scripture, so my acceptance of the theory in no way detracts from my belief in the Bible as God’s word.
You say theists have been changing their description of God to evade the evidence against his existence? How so? Theists have always claimed that God is an immaterial, eternal, non-spatial, intelligent, powerful being.
Seeing brain activity is not the same thing as seeing thoughts. Neuroscientists can see different parts of the brain lighting up, but they could never know in a million years know the content of that thought apart from the person having it, disclosing it. Why? Because thoughts, while they have physical correlates in the brain, are not physical things. They are mental, not physical in nature. Only you can know your thoughts and see your memories. They are 1st-person specific, not accessible to 3rd-parties. Being able to determine the neural activity/paths that take place in your brain when you think about ice-cream is not at all the same as seeing the ice-cream! Thoughts are non-physical things with physical correlates in the brain.
You wrote, “First, inferential evidence only works when there is only one possible cause for the phenomena being observed.” Actually, that’s not true at all. There can be several competing hypotheses to explain some effect, but scientists will infer the existence of the one that best explains the data. When there is only one possible cause, however, it increases our confidence that the proposed cause is the actual cause – that it truly exists. Ironically, in the case of the origin of the universe, there can only be one cause. Regardless of one’s cosmological model, the beginning of the spatio-temporal-material world cannot be avoided. Physical reality began to exist a finite time ago. It is not eternal. It came into being, and therefore must be caused. The cause cannot be material because there is no matter prior to the beginning of matter.
Tbc…
LikeLike
April 2, 2010 at 10:55 am
Continued….
You want to dismiss the line of reasoning I ended my last comment with by appealing to alternative cosmological models. Each model could be critiqued in detail, but let me just point out the following:
1. Some of these models have no empirical support whatsoever. They are just mathematical equations on a piece of paper. Even those that do rely on empirical data have not yet risen to the level of empirical confirmation garnered for the Standard Model. They are simply trying to account for the data in a new way.
2. Some models rely on outright mathematical fictions, such as Hawking’s quantum fluctuation models which employs imaginary numbers.
3. Some models, such as the Ekpyrotic model (brane cosmology) are based on string theory. String theory is highly speculative. In fact, all of the equations to the theory haven’t even been formulated, yet alone solved! So it’s a bit premature to think that models built on string theory can unseat the Standard Model.
4. We must distinguish between a model that is logically possible, and one that is physically possible. We must also distinguish between models that are physically possible, and those that are physically probable. To prove any of these theories one needs more than to show that the math works on paper, or that it entails a coherent concept. We need empirical evidence. Brane cosmology isn’t up to par for the task. Most of the newer models aren’t. They are more of an exercise in metaphysical cosmology than empirical science.
5. It is impossible to empirically verify the existence of an infinite, and thus science can never prove the universe to be past-eternal. For example, imagine trying to verify the existence of an infinite staircase through empirical means. To determine if it was infinite, you would have to walk it. But even if you had been walking up the stairs for a trillion gazillion years, you couldn’t conclude that it was infinite because for all you know the last step could be just a year ahead of you. You would have to keep walking on and on and on. It is impossible to empirically verify an infinite of anything. Since science works on empirical investigation, science cannot conclude that anything, including physical reality, is infinite, so no cosmological model that purports to show an eternal universe/multiverse could ever be verified scientifically. Only philosophy can determine if the infinite is possible, and the philosophical arguments against the possibility of the existence of an infinite are overwhelmingly opposed to it.
Tbc…
LikeLike
April 2, 2010 at 10:56 am
Continued…
Finally, and most importantly, none of these alternative models can extend infinitely in the past. In 1994 cosmologists Arvind Borde and Alexander Vilenkin developed a theorem demonstrating that a universe eternally inflating into the future still must have a finite beginning. They write, “A physically reasonable spacetime that is eternally inflating to the future must possess an initial singularity…. The fact that inflationary spacetimes are past incomplete forces one to address the question of what, if anything, came before.” (“Eternal Inflation and the Initial Singularity,” Physical Review Letters 72 [1994]: 3305, 3307.) And again, a “universe…in a state of eternal inflation without a beginning…is in fact not possible in future-eternal inflationary spacetimes as long as they obey some reasonable physical conditions.” It was their theorems that caused Andre Linde to finally admit that his chaotic inflationary model could not be extended eternally in the past.
In 2003 Vilenkin and Borde, along with Alan Guth, developed additional theorems demonstrating that any universe that has been, on average, expanding throughout its history must have a finite beginning in the past. Their theorem applies to multiverse inflationary theories as well as models based on string theory such as brane cosmology. In other words, it covers all current cosmological models. This prompted Vilenkin to write, “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).
Indeed. You have to face the fact that whether there is a universe or a multiverse, physical reality is not eternal. It came into being in the finite past, and thus it needs a cause, and that cause cannot be material. There is only one cause sufficient to produce the effect we see: an immaterial, non-spatial, eternal, personal, intelligent, and powerful being. That is what theists have always considered God, and thus the beginning of the universe/multiverse is powerful evidence that God exists.
Tbc…
LikeLike
April 2, 2010 at 10:58 am
Continued….
As for your claim about the singularity, I find it interesting that the scientists who adopt the model would reject your description of it. They are quite clear that the singularity represents the origin of the material world out of nothing.
Yes, the singularity is described as being infinitely dense. But that doesn’t mean it has mass. It is also described as having infinite curvature, but that doesn’t mean it had space. Scientists describe the singularity as having a mass over volume of zero. But that is just a mathematical way of describing nothingness! In fact, the singularity is physically impossible because it is incoherent. Atheist philosopher Quentin Smith describes why:
“The definition of a singularity is of a self-contradictory entity. The singularity is supposed to be a zero-dimensional point. It’s a spatial point, it doesn’t have height, it doesn’t have width, it doesn’t have depth. It doesn’t have 3 dimensions, 2 dimensions or 1 dimensions. It has zero dimensions! … So how could something with 3 dimensions fit inside something with zero dimensions?
…
“And this zero-dimensional point is supposed to be infinitely curved. Well, how could something that has no radius or size at all be curved whatsoever? It would be meaningless. You have to have sides to be curved in some way. But a zero-dimensional point has no sides. … [T]he Big Bang singularity is metaphorically said that if it did exist, it would have infinite temperature. It would be infinitely hot. But temperature is the motion of molecules, or particles against each other. But the Big Bang singularity is a single zero-dimensional point. Nothing is moving. So it can’t have infinite temperature. Temperature doesn’t apply to it at all. And this zero-dimensional point is supposed to be infinitely dense. Well, it can’t be infinitely dense, because it’s got no matter in it. It’s just a point. It’s really nothing.”
The singularity is just a mathematical idealization, so even if it was thought to be eternal (which it’s not), you could not get the mileage out of it that you are trying to get.
Jason
LikeLike
April 8, 2010 at 7:42 pm
Comparing Santa Claus and God is silly.
However, some Christians go overboard with this anti-santa rap and it just make Christians and the church look cold and calloused.
LikeLike