Einstein: The Bible Is Pretty Childish

[M forever]

Santa (called "Weihnachtsmann", simply "Christmas Man" in German) actually answered a few of my letters. Plus I got some of the stuff that I had requested from him. So I *do* know that he exists.

[Brian]

Santa (called "Weihnachtsmann", simply "Christmas Man" in German) actually answered a few of my letters. Plus I got some of the stuff that I had requested from him. So I *do* know that he exists.

When I was a kid, Santa ripped his coat on the grate in my fireplace. We found some red velvet fabric there on Christmas Day, only a few feet from the cookie crumbs. Imagine my astonishment at seeing, before my own eyes, proof that Santa was real!

[Bunny]

Santa (called "Weihnachtsmann", simply "Christmas Man" in German) actually answered a few of my letters. Plus I got some of the stuff that I had requested from him. So I *do* know that he exists.

When I was a kid, Santa ripped his coat on the grate in my fireplace. We found some red velvet fabric there on Christmas Day, only a few feet from the cookie crumbs. Imagine my astonishment at seeing, before my own eyes, proof that Santa was real!

Perhaps he never came to my house because we are Jewish. 

[M forever]

When I was a kid, Santa ripped his coat on the grate in my fireplace. We found some red velvet fabric there on Christmas Day, only a few feet from the cookie crumbs.

Did Santa sue your parents for making the access to his workplace that dangerous?

[Brian]

Did Santa sue your parents for making the access to his workplace that dangerous?

No, although I don't think he ever gave them presents. 

[PSmith08]

Pascal's Wager is flawed in a very serious way, and in a way that seems to have eluded you. I don't belief in God, though I do, of course, admit that I do not KNOW that God doesn't exist. However, I am not in the least bit afraid of the possibility of hell. BUT, just say, hypothetically, that I was afraid that I may go to hell for not believing, it would not be at all rational for me to suddenly start believing, in order to avoid eternal damnation. In fact, it would be almost impossible to start truly believing in God anyway, if fear was the only thing motivating me to do so. The most I (and any non-believer) could do is pretend to believe in God, which surely isn't an option either because God, being apparently all-knowing, would catch me out.

Pascal deals with this very issue in #233 of the Penseés, at least the bit about the alleged impossibility of believing where one has failed to believe before. Swing and a miss, but take heart: Pascal isn't Pascal because he didn't foresee objections like that one.

It is irrational to believe in God solely because of Pascal's Wager. It is, in fact, rational to maintain non-belief, because Pascal's Wager offers no actual or honest motivation to do otherwise. This is the only intellectually honest way of going about it, IMO.   NOTE: People who genuinely believe in God for other reasons are excluded from this whole notion.

It does not strike me as particularly intellectually honest not to admit the possibility that one is wrong, which is what one has to do in order to say that there is no possibility that there is a God who rewards belief and punishes disbelief. One must do at least that much to say that belief is no longer the dominant strategy, such as it is, at least under Pascal's suggestion.

Have you ever heard of Schrödinger's Cat?  I think you've opened the poison bottle.

I am familiar with the feline in question, but the use of the subjunctive mood for some of my being-verbs saves us from that position (i.e., 'could' and 'will' mean different things).

[Al Moritz]

Please explain why God exists!  Religion fails to explain why God exists, so you are really back to the very same problem -- no explanations of anything.

Something must be the ultimate explanation that is the basis for everything else. In the case of the theist it is God, in the case of the atheist it has to be eternal matter (that a naturalistic "creation out of nothing" is absurd I have explained elsewhere). The problem with eternal matter is that, in order to be not just eternal but also eternally functional, it has to have miraculous properties that we know ordinary matter does not possess (e.g. not obeying the second law of thermodynamics). So if the atheist proclaims that his views (in fact, beliefs) are more "scientific" than the theist position, I have to laugh my ass off. Whatever way you twist and turn things, the atheist has to assume new, unobserved and unobservable properties of matter, which makes his position anything but scientific, rather, a modern fairy tale. That this fairy tale is materialistic, and dressed up in (pseudo-) scientific language, does not in any way help to make it "scientific".

The God idea also solves the design problem with respect to the laws of nature, which is unsolvable in the atheist scenario (I have extensively discussed all this on "The Religion Thread", so I won't reiterate the arguments here). And the God idea is backed by divine revelation, while atheism has no evidence going for it at all (just to make sure, I want to reiterate that on physical and biological evolution I hold the mainstream view of science, in agreement with atheists -- yet evolution is no evidence for atheism). All the pieces together give, to my mind, a much more consistent and satisfying description of reality than atheism can ever deliver.

[Al Moritz]

It's a scary world without something to believe in, so afaic it doesn't matter what belief system anyone espouses or doesn't espouse, so long as no one is trying to proclaim my way is the only way.  I have as much respect for Buddhism, Hinduism, Lamaism, Shintoism, Christianity, Islam, etc., as agnosticism, theism, deism, atheism, monotheism, polytheism, etc.  Different strokes for different folks. 

Fine, I have in principle no problem with other world views either. However, when atheists these days paint any believer as irrational, childish and "unscientific",, this intellectual dishonesty/lack of knowledge of theism irritates me and makes me cynical. I find atheism highly irrational for reasons that, again, I have extensively discussed before. I might leave atheists in peace if they wouldn't behave so arrogantly towards believers and show so much ignorance of theism (the height of childishness is inevitably always reached when belief in God is compared with belief in Santa Claus -- and yes, I wrote this before just reading the latest flurry of Santa posts, which just prove that my cynicism is justified). Having said that, religious fundamentalism is just as annoying as fundamentalist atheism.

[Bunny]

Fine, I have in principle no problem with other world views either. However, when atheists these days paint any believer as irrational, childish and "unscientific",, this intellectual dishonesty/lack of knowledge of theism irritates me and makes me cynical. I find atheism highly irrational for reasons that, again, I have extensively discussed before. I might leave atheists in peace if they wouldn't behave so arrogantly towards believers and show so much ignorance of theism (the height of childishness is inevitably always reached when belief in God is compared with belief in Santa Claus -- and yes, I wrote this before just reading the latest flurry of Santa posts, which just prove that my cynicism is justified). Having said that, religious fundamentalism is just as annoying as fundamentalist atheism.

You know it's much harder to be tolerant than intolerant; that's why so many more people are intolerant.  It's even harder still to retain a sense of humor about all this.  Sometimes we take things too seriously.  This is an internet forum, not the courtroom of the Grand Inquisitor, so I for one welcome any discussion of Santa. 

[PSmith08]

Fine, I have in principle no problem with other world views either. However, when atheists these days paint any believer as irrational, childish and "unscientific",, this intellectual dishonesty/lack of knowledge of theism irritates me and makes me cynical. I find atheism highly irrational for reasons that, again, I have extensively discussed before. I might leave atheists in peace if they wouldn't behave so arrogantly towards believers and show so much ignorance of theism (the height of childishness is inevitably always reached when belief in God is compared with belief in Santa Claus -- and yes, I wrote this before just reading the latest flurry of Santa posts, which just prove that my cynicism is justified). Having said that, religious fundamentalism is just as annoying as fundamentalist atheism.

The trivialization of the opposed belief is necessary for the non-believer. As soon as belief in God becomes something more than an analogue to belief in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, then it becomes more difficult to brush it aside and quell the doubts that should confront any atheist (just as they should confront any believer). In other words, it's much easier and less intellectually taxing to not believe in a triviality (which is highly counterintuitive, but that is another issue) than it is to discard something "big." Blind faith and trivialization are much the same function: a reduction to make belief easier. Intellectual dishonesty? No. Just self-delusion, either way you cut it.

[Bunny]

Pascal deals with this very issue in #233 of the Penseés, at least the bit about the alleged impossibility of believing where one has failed to believe before. Swing and a miss, but take heart: Pascal isn't Pascal because he didn't foresee objections like that one.

It does not strike me as particularly intellectually honest not to admit the possibility that one is wrong, which is what one has to do in order to say that there is no possibility that there is a God who rewards belief and punishes disbelief. One must do at least that much to say that belief is no longer the dominant strategy, such as it is, at least under Pascal's suggestion.

I am familiar with the feline in question, but the use of the subjunctive mood for some of my being-verbs saves us from that position (i.e., 'could' and 'will' mean different things).

Patrick, you are arguing semantics.  The subjunctive case in English is rarely differentiated from the future or conditional when it's being used.  You've now swallowed the poison.

[M forever]

The trivialization of the opposed belief is necessary for the non-believer. As soon as belief in God becomes something more than an analogue to belief in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, then it becomes more difficult to brush it aside and quell the doubts that should confront any atheist (just as they should confront any believer). In other words, it's much easier and less intellectually taxing to not believe in a triviality (which is highly counterintuitive, but that is another issue) than it is to discard something "big." Blind faith and trivialization are much the same function: a reduction to make belief easier. Intellectual dishonesty? No. Just self-delusion, either way you cut it.

But that is the point. There is really no difference between believing in Santa Claus and believing in this or that God. You can also say that Santa Claus is the personification of the principle that it is nice when people care for each other and give each other presents to show that. That isn't trivial at all. Besides, organized religion and believing in fairy tales is what trivializes "God", not pointing out that the idol worshipping nature of organized religions does that.

[Al Moritz]

You know it's much harder to be tolerant than intolerant; that's why so many more people are intolerant.  It's even harder still to retain a sense of humor about all this.  Sometimes we take things too seriously.  This is an internet forum, not the courtroom of the Grand Inquisitor, so I for one welcome any discussion of Santa. 

Ok, I realize that the Santa discusssion here may have been for the most part light-hearted (and you started it as I see). However, too often the Santa argument is just used as a (pseudo-) intellectual and rather seriously intended weapon against belief, while in that context it never achieves anything than being a platitude.

[Al Moritz]

But I see that Patrick has just explained the Santa phenomenon quite well (thanks!). However, I still would hold that, next to trivialization, fundamental ignorance of the God concept plays a part as well.

[Bunny]

The trivialization of the opposed belief is necessary for the non-believer. As soon as belief in God becomes something more than an analogue to belief in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, then it becomes more difficult to brush it aside and quell the doubts that should confront any atheist (just as they should confront any believer). In other words, it's much easier and less intellectually taxing to not believe in a triviality (which is highly counterintuitive, but that is another issue) than it is to discard something "big." Blind faith and trivialization are much the same function: a reduction to make belief easier. Intellectual dishonesty? No. Just self-delusion, either way you cut it.

But, as a Jew, the belief in the Resurrection of Christ is as difficult a pill to swallow as belief in the Tooth Fairy or Santa.  I imagine that being told there is only one god must have been equally off-putting to the ancient Romans and Greeks.  Most people want to retain the religious system they grew up with and resist a new one.  It's the rare person who is so dissatisfied with his childhood experience of religion that he or she looks for change. 

[Al Moritz]

The trivialization of the opposed belief is necessary for the non-believer. As soon as belief in God becomes something more than an analogue to belief in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, then it becomes more difficult to brush it aside and quell the doubts that should confront any atheist (just as they should confront any believer). In other words, it's much easier and less intellectually taxing to not believe in a triviality (which is highly counterintuitive, but that is another issue) than it is to discard something "big." Blind faith and trivialization are much the same function: a reduction to make belief easier. Intellectual dishonesty? No. Just self-delusion, either way you cut it.

Yes, blind faith is worthless, certainly intellectually worthless (this holds for religious belief and non-belief -- which is also a kind of faith -- alike). And doubts are a normal part of the continuous process of evaluation and re-evaluation of beliefs that, indeed, should be part of actively holding any world view.

[Bunny]

But I see that Patrick has just explained the Santa phenomenon quite well (thanks!). However, I still would hold that, next to trivialization, fundamental ignorance of the God concept plays a part as well.

You know, if you grew up in a completely non religious environment, never learned anything about God or any religion, do you really think that you would have "discovered" that there is a God?  I'm not sure I would have reached that conclusion.

[Al Moritz]

You know, if you grew up in a completely non religious environment, never learned anything about God or any religion, do you really think that you would have "discovered" that there is a God?  I'm not sure I would have reached that conclusion.

I am not sure either.

But then, anyone should properly inform themselves. I have informed myself about atheism too, and mulled over any and all of its arguments many times.

[Bunny]

That's what I find so difficult about believing in God.  It kills me that I didn't discover God by myself, but that I had to rely on so many other people to establish the belief in myself, and that these same people also told me that the Tooth Fairy was real (Jewish parents really don't push Santa that much).  Then one day, I was told that the Tooth Fairy was just my mother or father with a quarter (yes, I'm old enough to remember when 25¢ was real money).  Then after that, they told me the Prophet Elijah didn't really show up at the Passover table with a big sack to carry off any child who fell asleep during the Seder.  Is it any wonder that now I am completely skeptical about any thing having to do with faith that has been told to me? 

[Al Moritz]

Well, perhaps I got lucky that I never was told that the Weihnachtsmann (the equivalent of Santa Claus, I guess) was real, or that the Christkind (Christ child) actually was the presenter of gifts, instead of my parents.