Skip to main content

Christmas without Christ

Doing a bit of vanity-surfing and just noticed I was quoted here...

Comments

The Atheist Missionary said…
This post reminded me of a recent question posed by a friend of mine after I sent her a copy of Richard Dawkins' famous letter to his daughter Juliet. She is aware that my wife and I are proponents of critical thinking and was interested to know how we handled concepts such as Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy with our children. This was my response:

"I think the point of Dawkins writing the letter to his daughter when she was 10 is that she was old enough at that point to understand, for example, that there is no Santa Claus. Children at ages below that are hard wired (for good survival reasons) to instinctively believe whatever they are told by their parents. I see no harm in our kids believing in these things before they learn to critically evaluate things for themselves. I would be interested to know whether Dawkins feels there is any harm in children being led to believe in non-religious traditions such as the tooth fairy, easter bunny and Santa. My guess is that he would not have any objection to these traditions as long as a point came in the kids' lives where they learned that belief in anything without evidence (such as religion) is really no different than their belief in the tooth fairy during their tender years."
January 21, 2009 at 4:21 PM
Timmo said…
Stephen,

A nice article. It's good to see an article about 'Christmas without Christ'. Though, to tell you the truth, I'd rather see an article about 'Christmas without Turkey', as millions of turkeys are ruthlessly killed for our pleasure on a holiday about love.
January 23, 2009 at 1:19 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen...
159 comments
Read more

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se...
446 comments
Read more

Sye show continues

I was sent a link to this , for those interested in the never ending saga of Sye TenBruggencate and his "proof" of the existence of God. Hit "sinner ministries' proof of the existence of god" link below or on side bar for 30+ earlier posts on this topic that I wrote during an extended interchange with him last summer (check the literally many hundreds of comments attached to these posts if you really want to get into how Sye thinks and argues). Sye's amazing intial "proof" is available here . PS. For those interested, my own "presuppositional" proof, parodying Sye's proof by his principle "the impossibility of the contrary" (which turns out to be the key to Sye's proof) is: My claim: Sye's mind is addled and his thinking unreliable because he was hit on the head by a rock. Prove this is false, Sye. Try to, and I will say - "But your "proof" presupposes your mind is not addled and you can recognise a pr...
250 comments
Read more