Monday, February 22, 2010

Evidence for God

When I was a Christian, one of the things that bothered me about faith was that God could be reduced to a matter of perspective. For most Christians, it seemed that life just happened as it would and God was given credit for all the good things and the bad things were just happening "in his time." For example, if I have a sick friend and I pray to God to heal him, one of two things will happen; my friend will recover or he won't. If he recovers, either immediately or within nearly any time frame, it must have been God healing him, but if he does not recover, then it was just God's will. I was always frustrated that knowing the God of the universe seemed to changed so little. Shouldn't everything be different because we know God?

I'm sure this outlook on life is comforting to the believer, but does nothing to demonstrate the existence of God. This is an exerpt from deconversion.com called Salvaging Santa. It's a clever piece of satire demonstrating that most of the apologetic proofs are God would be just as effective to prove the existence of Santa Claus. It is interesting to see all my old Christian arguments in a new context:

Place Santa out of the reach of science.
Some point to what they consider the absurdity of a voluminous man descending a narrow chimney and other mysterious aspects of Santa. Here are a few ways to deal with this form of persecution.

-Announce that Santa’s magic is far above human understanding. Santa, in his infinite magic, can fatten flukes at will, create chimneys where there are none, and leave everything intact as if he had never descended from the roof at all. Ask the secularists how they even dare with their puny minds to question the magic of our Santa.

-Call problematic parts of the Santa story figurative. Suggest that the notion of “descending the chimney” is a metaphor of Santa’s intent. He actually may come through a window. What matters is that the presents are there in the morning. In doing this, never submit a standard for discerning between literal and figurative elements of the Santa story. That will make it convenient for you to choose which is which as aplogetics needs arise.

-Remind non-believers that, if the Santa story could be tested and confirmed, we couldn’t employ the faith that feeds the magic. Accuse them of not listening to the clear voice of Santa that each of us carries deep in our hearts if we only listen with open minds.

-Affirm the magic. Point out all the cases in which reindeer dung was found on roof tops. Suggest that any father who would simply throw dung on his roof in an attempt to create the illusion of a rangiferine landing would have to be either a lunatic or liar. The only sensible inference is that Santa’s sleigh had indeed visited your house.

-Belittle science and its tools. Point out that science is often wrong and is therefore not an appropriate method to assess the magic of Santa. Claim that statistics are a silly invention, and strongly affirm the idea that anything can be “proven” through statistics. The stronger you affirm this, the more true it will become. In this way, reports that suggest poorer (not misbehaving) children receive fewer presents can be dismissed. If secularists suggest this is not logical, claim that Santa logic is not the same as secular logic, but don’t bother explaining how.

-Suggest that science and magic fall into two non-overlapping domains. Declare that scientific methodology cannot assess the wonderment of magic. When asked about specific claims of Santaism that seem to fall within the reach of science, offer evasive permutations of the particular doctrine to make it impotent and thus unassailable. Fudging a bit on exegesis is forgivable if the net result is an increase in believers.

-Disparage the notion of belief based on “evidence”. This is becoming one of the most troubling issues that has already led to the apostasy of thousands. You’ll hear secularists claim that the degree of confidence in an idea should match the degree of the evidence. Where is the magic in that? Evidence only goes so far and is largely linear. How can belief be linear? Choose a side! Unless we go beyond the evidence with faith, we would be left saying “I don’t yet know” on many questions, a wholly unacceptable option.

2. Exercise the right to arbitrarily define true Santaism.
You’ll often hear accusations that Santanists do not behave any better than non-believers. Here you’ll want to point out the fallacy in this accusation by simply explaining that those who don’t act like Santanists are not real Santaists. This will prevent your opponent from citing anecdotes, and require him to lean on statistics that require a substantial sample that you can then simply dismiss as not representative of Santaism. If your opponent then demands positive evidence for superior behavior among Santaist, simply offer a few anecdotes as proof.

3. Appeal to what people already know in their hearts.
There are times when you may simply ignore the anti-santa arguments. Every person knows deep in his heart that Santa is real. Presuppositional affirmations are the way to go. This is economical in that it minimizes potential cognitive dissonance that may creep in through cracks in your counter-arguments, and eliminates the expenditure of contemplation that distracts from faith in Santa, and may even lead to doubting.

4. Emphasize emotions.
Fortunately, Christmas is replete with salient sensations that easily form a sense of identity, of belonging, and also address dozens of other emotional needs. We know through a feeling of certainty that emotions are a legitimate validator of what is true, so regardless of the apparent power of the secularist’s arguments, this emotional validation is what will vanquish the doubts that have destroyed the magic in so many young lives. And perhaps the greatest argument you can make is to ask weak believers if they would want to live in a world that had no magic. Ask them if they want to grow up to become merely scientists restricted by the parameters of materialism. Emphasize the rigor and critical thought required by those who have abandoned magic and have endeared themselves to rational thought. Above all, emphasize the personal relationship believers have with Santa. Have them make psychological investments by writing Santa letters for years, then remind them of this and of all other psychological investments at any point in which their faith is weak. Remind them that Santa’s apparent silence is simply a test of their faith or an indication that their requests are selfish. And always return to the assurance that emotions are a legitimate way to confirm the truth of their faith.

2 comments:

  1. ". . . never submit a standard for discerning between literal and figurative elements of the Santa story. That will make it convenient for you to choose which is which as aplogetics needs arise."

    I like this one. I'm starting to wonder if there is a book or online resource to help people determine what parts of the Bible are literal and what parts are figurative. Going forward, I intend to ask that question whenever the "figurative vs. literal" argument comes up. After all, if you base your faith on belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, you need to have a good reason for believing certain parts are not true, to avoid smitings and such.

    Having done zero research on the subject, I'm guessing the main reasons for the multitude of Christian denominations are:

    1. People can't agree on what's literal and what's figurative in the Bible.
    2. People can't agree on interpretations of what's figurative.
    3. People can't agree on the behaviors required to comply with their interpretations of the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  2. DJ-
    The certainly is a range of what Christians believe is figurative across denominations, and each denomination should have within their tenets of belief some resource for you to determine which passages they feel are figurative.
    In practical life, I've found that most Christians will say that anything too offensive is either a mystery or figurative language, but anything that sounds reassuring or hopeful is most likely for us to read today. For example, most Christians have heard the passage Jer 29:11 "For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future" and assumed that was God speaking to us today, but have never read the rest of the passage where God continues on just 3 verses later to say, "I will send the sword, famine and plague against them and I will make them like poor figs that are so bad they cannot be eaten." In both cases, it appears that God is talking to a specific group of people at a specific time, but most people adjust the words to fit their needs

    ReplyDelete