I believe in Santa Claus

[PairTheBoard]

When I was a child I was taught to believe in Santa Claus. I understood this to mean that a man named Santa Claus lived at the North Pole and gave presents to kids on Christmas. I was sorely disapointed when I discovered that this understanding was flawed. I was especially disapointed to think that my parents had lied to me. Yet today I believe in Santa Claus and I don't think my parents lied to me. If David were to apply his probability arguments to my belief in Santa Claus I would have to laugh at his naivete.

PairTheBoard

[PGarlic]

What occured between your childhood and now that has renewed your believe in the big man?

[PairTheBoard]

I grew up?

I can just see David now, hounding some poor little 3 year old kid with arguments like, "how can you believe Santa travels all over the world in one night in a sleigh pulled by reindeer? Don't you know the odds against that are a gazillion to one?"

PairTheBoard

[Bartman387]

[ QUOTE ]
I grew up?

I can just see David now, hounding some poor little 3 year old kid with arguments like, "how can you believe Santa travels all over the world in one night in a sleigh pulled by reindeer? Don't you know the odds against that are a gazillion to one?"
PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]
I could see him doing that to an adult, not a child though.

Is there a point to this thread? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[d10]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there a point to this thread? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the point is that David seems to be debating logically against people whose beliefs don't rely on logic. Theoretically he may have the most correct arguments, but they will only be compelling to those who already agreed with those arguments in the first place. Those who don't believe in David's reasoning won't find any reason to accept anything David says as logically sound, therefore his arguments, as correct as they may be, are inherently pointless given the audience.

It's like the concept of betting on the end in poker. Putting as much money in the pot as you can when you are 100% to win it may be theoretically correct, but often checking it through is more correct in the practical sense, when betting will accomplish nothing against those who are in fact the losers of the hand.

Or it's like when a helicopter pilot tries to explain to you why the flight controls are set up as they are by using the term "gyroscopic procession" but then goes on to explain a concept that is not even close to gyroscopic procession. Sure, I could try to explain how gyroscopic procession actually works and its application on a helicopter, but it's obvious this guy is not thinking in terms of physics, but only what he was taught in flight school, so instead I just smile and nod.

[Gin 'n Tonic]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the point is that David seems to be debating logically against people whose beliefs don't rely on logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or - in the words of St. Thomas Aquinas "To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible."

The words 'faith' and 'belief' tend to indicate a position that is not amenable to logical arguement.

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
Yet today I believe in Santa Claus and I don't think my parents lied to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just like SOME OF the people Sklansky argues against today, you either say that you believe in something that you really don't, OR you completely lack the ability to reason logically.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]

Or - in the words of St. Thomas Aquinas "To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible."

The words 'faith' and 'belief' tend to indicate a position that is not amenable to logical arguement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh the power of context. Lets not forget that St Thomas Acquinas very much believed that much of religion could be supported with rational reasoning.

Of course one of the problems with David's assertion is that many of history's greatest minds have been strongly religious. I am sure they had the ability to evaluate evidence rationally, esp. given one of the people I am thinking of formulated the laws of motion.

People that think there is no evidence pointing towards the existence of God and the truth of Christianity are the ones that are truly believing in something foolish.

[PairTheBoard]

einbert:"Just like SOME OF the people Sklansky argues against today, you either say that you believe in something that you really don't, OR you completely lack the ability to reason logically. "

Exactly Wrong. And very on point in your wrongness. When I say I believe in Santa Claus I'm not lying. I DO believe in Santa Claus. Do I believe like a 3 year old child believes. Well, yes and no. If an exhastive expedition were sent to the North Pole do I think Santa would be found? No. But I do go along with the Santaology which says Santa lives at the North Pole. It's not central to my belief in Santa but I can go along with it. If you say I am either being illogical or lying you are wrong. You just don't get it.

I wouldn't raise my belief in Santa to the level of Faith but it's similiar. And when it comes to matters of faith there are many adults who understand their faith like the 3 year old kid understands Santa. David is like the 9 year old kid who wants to argue with the 3 year old kid.

Here's the thing. Matters of Faith involve, for lack of a better word, METAPHYSICAL concepts; like God, the Word of God, the Son of God, the Emaculate Conception, etc. Whatever a person's understanding of these concepts, from the point of view of the faithful, the important thing is that it brings them to the faith. If a person's understanding is from a mundane perspective, the Church does not discourage it. David does. When he does he is simply out of his depth.

PairTheBoard

[Gin 'n Tonic]

[ QUOTE ]
People that think there is no evidence pointing towards the existence of God and the truth of Christianity are the ones that are truly believing in something foolish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not IMO - the foolish ones are the people who base their entire lives on evidence that, frankly, wouldn't sell me a secondhand car.