I buy that. If a child is the one who asks, by all means the truth should out. But I don’t think parents should be hung up from day one about “telling their children lies,” when in fact the “lies” are compelling stories laden with meaning. I think forcing “truth” onto children who are yet at a stage where they are learning equally well from a perfectly healthy mix of fact and fiction is neither beneficial nor particularly helpful.

Ho ho ho! (He says, mimicking that jolly old non-entity.)

… yeah I see what you mean about young minds and imagination, yet I don’t have the same outlook with regards to how a child deals with fact and fiction. I see a difference between imagination and story telling, and when a child asks a question. When a child asks ” Mum … is Santa real?” ….we are not in the realm of imagination any more. A question like that is usually a request for a truthful answer. Children have just as much ability to ask a question as they do to have an imagination, I reckon they can do it both at the same time. So when a question like that is asked, the answer is important. A parent may say .. maybe ( which is a grey area)… or no … and that would be the truth. If the parent says yes … its a lie. The thing is, when I was a child ( I have good memories from age 3) I did want answers to things, but I also had a good imagination. The two didn’t conflict. Knowledge of the truth about Santa did nothing to diminish my imagination. I think children deserve more credit with what they can and can’t discern about their world around them, and their world within.

Perhap in your own childhood toilet training was a little too strict.

Given YOUR proposition that an all-powerful being can do whatever he pleases, including the ability to erase thoughts, reverse time, and ignore causality, then it is rational to conclude that human rationality is not possible. The mention of God does not destroy rational discussion, it ends it.

In this sense, you can not possibly claim that I hold rationalism as the only valid viewpoint. I am a live and truthful human with kids who recognizes the value that others have in religion. I stand fully willing to accept a religion (and teach it to my kids as true) if anyone can convincingly demonstrate that his holy book is without flaw.

KC writes “As it happens, the responses so far have pretty much underscored my argument. Note that every one so far argues that religious belief cannot be rational.” You must include your own comments in this criticism! You complain of rationalism’s “odd blind spot” when you completely ignored my question. I’m asking you to demonstrate what you have claimed. I will ask you again: please rationally explain how Jesus’ virgin birth can be UNIQUELY proved AND disproved. If no evidence or logic can disprove it, it is not a question that can be discussed in rational terms. Rational discussion of any premise can’t start with the assumption that the premise is true. You have assumed that there is an all-powerful being who can do whatever he wants and therefore he *could possibly* do what you claim. This is not rational explanation; it is begging the question.

Let me demonstrate:
Assume all-powerful being…the question then becomes not *if* He could, but *has* the messianic figure al-Mahdi, who is an infallible male descendant of Muhammad, been born but has disappeared and we await his return to fill the world with justice. On your terms, I have now rationally explained why Shia Islam is “a valid religion.” It is less than a minor point that Sunnis reject this “valid” explanation.

KC, I respect your views and I would defend your right to worship with my life, but you have not supported your position and have cast atheists as fundamentalist. Moreover, you claim that there is no “true” skeptic movement, and perhaps you are correct, but let me end my comments with a quotation:

“There was only one Christian, and he died on the cross.” – Nietzsche

“My point is that it may be fine to have fiction, but a child needs to know its fiction.”

I think that’s cool…at the right time. But you’ve got to wait until they’re ready. Young children see the world a little differently than adults. Their brains don’t differentiate between fact and fiction. To a very young child, it simply doesn’t matter whether or not Snow White is real or just a fictional character. From a child’s p.o.v. the distinction doesn’t count. What matters is the story itself. That’s just the way a young child’s brain is wired. At that stage, learning is all about make believe, pretending, role-playing. Cardboard boxes aren’t really airplanes or transmogrifiers, but they are when the child is inside of one using her imagination. And that’s what a young brain needs at that age, not a strictly adult sensibility about “truth.”

That’s all I’m getting at.

@ Ixnu

You answered your own question.

“Why did you think Joseph wanted to quietly divorce Mary? He knew very well that virgin births wasn’t the natural order of things. It’s also why it took an extraordinary event to convince him otherwise.”

As is repeated in this blog and its comments numerous times, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” It’s not that “rational” atheists (unless driven by other issues) are being pig-headed, it’s just that there doesn’t seem to be any “extraordinary evidences” or “events” around to suggest the theistic case might be a reasonable possibility.

Religious mythology doesn’t count. Evidence does. Testable evidence.

As to C.S. Lewis, et al, I would suggest that it is entirely possible for people to hold rational beliefs and irrational beliefs at the same time. I suspect that a majority of the human population could be lumped into that category.

Given the proposition that you have a being that created the entire universe, why is it irrational to accept the same being cannot do whatever He pleases? Is it not rational to acknowledge that he could? The question then becomes not *if* He could, but *did* He? Why did you think Joseph wanted to quietly divorce Mary? He knew very well that virgin births wasn’t the natural order of things. It’s also why it took an extraordinary event to convince him otherwise.

This is an odd blind spot in “rationalism,” the assumption is that the atheist viewpoint is the only valid one. A devout atheist is closer to a devout Fundamentalist Christian than perhaps either would be willing to admit.

As it happens, the responses so far have pretty much underscored my argument. Note that every one so far argues that religious belief cannot be rational. Yet whether one believes in religion or not, neither C.S. Lewis or, for a contemporary example, Billy Graham are irrational men. The only way to argue that position is to accept as a given that religious belief cannot be rational while never considering that it might.

That doesn’t strike me as being a rational thought process. In fact, it’s one of the reasons I think there isn’t a true skeptics movement.

Way back you asked what a definition of a ‘skeptic’ is. I am using it in the sense of someone holding a skeptic viewpoint or attitude to most things that cannot be discerned or measured by application of a/the scientific method. I am mainly posing the questions to those that embrace a strong skeptical viewpoint with most issues that are fuzzy with data and facts and heavy on faith or belief. I am sure there are other definitions depending on other uses of the word. I am not really referring to those.

Cool. That is what I am getting at. I knew I wasn’t alone. hehe That is great.

I am against however, parents that take the fiction, and make it so real to their children, that the children can’t see it as fiction. That is where is is blurry for me. If I tell a kid a story about Snow White, but then I suggest that it actually happened, I am taking something fun, and fictional for a child, and turning into a reality for that child. It is the lack of definition of fiction vs reality that bugs me with this issue. I have seen so many parents use the threats of ‘ if you dont behave Santa will not bring you gifts’ and such … and parents many times (usually run by church groups) teach their kids the Santa story as if it was fact. My point is that it may be fine to have fiction, but a child needs to know its fiction. If you teach fiction … and leave the child knowingly thinking it is fact … you have told the child a lie. I don’t see how this could be any clearer. It is a pretty simple concept.

I love fiction … because it is fiction. I will teach my child to keep a place for fiction, but to differentiate that completely with what is fact. I reckon that is a basic and solid foundation for a child to develop clear and rational thinking abilities. I agree some kids might work it out, but that is not the case for most. The fact I copped so much dirt for not believing in Santa reminds of this .. heheh

” Let’s not beat around the bush. If you convince your child, or someone elses child that it was Santa that put the presents under the tree, or it was the tooth fairy that put the money there, or whatever …. it is a lie.”

Please see my earlier comment, for an attempt to explain. Fiction is not “a lie.” It is fiction. A story might be fictional in regards to plot, but convey a great truth about human nature, the world we live in, and life in general. There is more “truth” in Crime and Punishment than in many history or psychology books.

I would hate to see children deprived of such a powerful medium for learning about the world around them. That is why fairy tales are so universal, and so powerful.

Yes, I suppose if a parent continually insisted upon the real existence of Santa Claus, long after the fictional medium had been outgrown, I’d say there was a problem. But to deny a child the magic and power of fiction because it’s “a lie”? Oh dear. That would be a sad, sad child.

I was always skeptical of Santa Claus myself. When I heard a rumor in kindergarten that he may not exist, I thought to myself, “Yeah. He probably doesn’t. He was a bit too good to be true.” Maybe that was due to more of my cynical side than skeptical side, but I didn’t think Santa would be so tacky as to leave price tags on presents (my parents sure would have been). Since I loved numbers, not too much later I calculated the average time Santa would have spent in each household. The result pretty much killed Santa.

I just wonder why people can’t have everything else that it may offer, like the fun, and presents, and family (which are all great) but leave out the parts that are lies. Why is it so important to perpetuate this small myth to kids as a real thing. Why not just include it into Christmas, but be clear to young minds about it, that Santa is completely made up, regarding how he is portrayed today. I just don’t see why the tradition of Santa has to be told to kids as if it was true. There is no point.

Why not just still have Santa, but promote it as a story, of fiction. Or refer to the man it was supposed to be about in the original, celtic versions. After all he is supposed to be based on a real person in history. It just seems to me like a conflict of interest to be all high and mighty about skepticism and truth, but at the same time perpetuate lies to kids.

I understand it is good for kids to think critically and work it out for themselves, but surely their is plenty of subjects they can do that with. Why does that make it ok to tell your kids a lie ? If a kid asks if he is real, and you say he is, or even suggest that maybe he is, it is a lie. I am still bugged by this, probably always will be.

It is not surprising to me that a fundamentalist minister would attempt to marry the rational and religious in a shotgun wedding. Islamic and Christian apologists emphasize that their respective holy books contain scientific truths that are only now being discovered.

KC, if you believe that there is no barrier between the rational and the religious, then how was Christ born of a virgin? Please, without special pleading for your religion, explain how it can be proved AND disproved without invoking invisible entities or other closed systems of knowledge.

And don’t count me among the many. I’m “skeptical” and I fully accept that Christianity can be valid in the sense that it is effective at creating meaning for many of its followers. In this respect all religions, including Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Aztec mythology, are valid.

While you may very well be right about the reaction of the atheist moms, in my own experience I’m not so certain. Many skeptics refuse to accept that once can be skeptical and still conclude that Christianity is valid.

I have found that there is a correlation between atheist/agnostic thought and “rational” thought. In fact, most intelligent religious individuals who have deep faith in Jesus Christ or any other deity usually separate the rational from the religious. When I ask them about the details and reasons for their beliefs, they usually define faith as “super rational” or unrelated to the rational. In this regard, they recognize that some of their beliefs are based on the irrational. Most of my friends who separate these lines of thought are of the liberal or mainstream Christian faiths and I believe make up about half of the believers that I know. They have erected a firewall between the religious and the rational.

For Isaac Newton, he was equally irrational in his deep faith in both Jesus Christ and alchemy.

As for the acceptance of Christians by rational moms, I don’t have any experience with the group, but I have a suspicion that they would be more accepting than a fundementalist parenting group would be of an atheist parent injecting an opposing viewpoint.

No doubt many today in the Skeptic “movement” would assert just that. Yet such an assertion begs the question of whether men like C.S. Lewis, Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, and Augustine of Hippo were irrational because they had a deep faith in Jesus Christ. It also raises the issue of what are we to make of atheists who make irrational decisions.

In any event, while I’m quite sure that the members of Rational Moms consider themselves to be rational people, I get the distinct impression that they would not consider a Christian to be one of their number.

In any case, I will enjoy those blogs!

>Her step-dad is a Baptist deacon and is so extreme that the supervisory organization has >publicly cautioned him over some of his views.

Unlike many denominations, Baptists organizations are independent coalitions of churches, who originally formed to cooperate on missionary work and purchasing literature. Thus Baptists have no supervisory organization. Baptist organizations can vote whether or not to accept or remove member churches, but they cannot dictate what goes on in those churches. In fact, one of the touchiest issues among Baptist organizations is whether there should be an organizational creed. The closest Baptists come to this is a confession of faith.

This means that, as denominations go, just about any church can call itself baptist. Whether or not they’re accepted by other baptist churches is another issue, but doctrinal issues vary. For example, churches who are members of the Southern Baptist Convention tend to be between Calvinism and Arminianism, while Primitive Baptist churches tend to be strongly Calvinistic.

Thus the only supervisory organization in a Baptist church is the preacher, the other deacons, and the church members. And Baptist churches have a long history of voting out preachers who disagree with members.

Idries Shaw is Tahir Shaw’s father, and the one he mentions in the quote.

I have a younger daughter now who is six. I’ve done the same thing. It’s funny,though. She questions everything. She comes home with questions about God and Jesus (she has some Christian friends). She comes home with all kinds of questions on every subject. But she doesn’t question Santa. I think she knows.

When she asked me questions about God and Jesus I explained that there are some people who believe (explanation here), and other people who believe (explanation here) and still other people who believe (my beliefs here). When she is older she can think about all of that and figure out what she believes. To that she replied “well, right now I believe in God, not Jesus, yes Santa). Santa had not even been discussed.

It will be very interesting to see where her mind goes with all of this.