More on Santa….

In response to Emil…

My point was not to propose a specific doctrinal analogy between the belief in religion and the belief in Santa. My point was to elicit empathy as to how annoying it is to have those wishing to “battle” about religion by relating a hypothetical experience you might find annoying in an equivalent way.

For those who missed it, this is Emil’s post:

In response to Emil…

My point was not to propose a specific doctrinal analogy between the belief in religion and the belief in Santa. My point was to elicit empathy as to how annoying it is to have those wishing to “battle” about religion by relating a hypothetical experience you might find annoying in an equivalent way.

For those who missed it, this is Emil’s post:

In general, those who let us believe in Santa, eventually recanted their story. There would be no point in going back to that story that nearly everyone (other than the children) agrees is basically a myth. Then again, we do have historical knowledge (St. Nicholas, etc.) about true events that apparently developed into the Santa Claus story.

But those who’ve told us about God, in general, have not recanted their claim. If Santa Claus is based partly on some truth, how much more likely is it that the claims of God’s existence are true?

(An important note: I am talking mainly of the existence and reality of God here. I’m not so focused on “religion” or “Mormonism” necessarily. It seems when I talk of God, several people here take that to somehow imply I’m talking of the LDS church. Yes, my view of God is colored by my belief and upbringing in the LDS church. But my knowledge of God’s existence comes from my own experiences and also from accounts repeated by others of various faiths. That fact–that God lives–is the thing I most strongly believe in regarding spiritual things.)

EDIT by matthew: Linked for clarity.

9 thoughts on “More on Santa….”

  1. Metaphors

    This goes back to a thought I’ve been developing over the last few years: “The only metaphor which does not fall apart under scrutiny is the thing being described itself.”

    It’s more complicated than that, but that quote sums it up. No matter how good a particular metaphor is, the common practice of attempting to analogize the metaphor beyond the original intent–generally in order to refute it–is a trivially-accomplished and mostly useless gesture.

    But people always think it’s clever. Kind of funny, that. I fall into the trap frequently myself.

    —
    Matthew P. Barnson

    1. Exactly

      This is precicely why I did not use the metaphor to actually compare religious belief to belief in Santa. It was only to incite a feeling in the reader similar to the feeling I get when people tell me I have to believe.

      I once believed. Now I don’t. My lack of belief is not because I don’t understand the position of the believer. Quite the opposite. My lack of belief comes from what I already know, not from what I do not yet know.

    2. Clever and Cleverer

      I don’t know Matt, that sounds kind of harsh. I’d say, if you extend the metaphor in order to demonstrate its weaknesses, that’s trivial. If you extend it in order to turn it back against the original use, that can be pretty elegant (not debunking the metaphor, but turning it around as a tool of your own). Maybe this distinction is covered in the thoughts behind the single-line summary, but if it isn’t, don’t sell yourself short for doing the latter.

      Of course the real beauty of your summarization is that the thing itself cannot be a metaphor (which you realize), so you could drop the zero-metaphor from your equation, leaving “All metaphors fall apart under scrutiny.” Not nearly as catchy, is it? Guess that’s why you write the lyrics…

        1. I have to say that was the

          I have to say that was the most brilliant comparison I’ve heard since someone compared life to a box of chocolates.

          Of course, that was a simile…

      2. Metaphors fall apart

        “All metaphors fall apart under scrutiny.”

        Which could further be shortened to “Metaphors fall apart”. Which could then neatly fit into a quatrain:

        Metaphors fall apart, ‘Cuz I know in my heart You deserve a l.a.r.t. For comparing me to my fart.

        (LART: Loser Attitude Readjustment Tool. Generally a large, blunt object applied forcefully to the head.)

        —
        Matthew P. Barnson

          2. I think

            I think a metaphor is more like the trash can. You can put ideas into it but eventually it overflows. And then once a week you have to empty it otherwise it falls apart under it’s own weight…

            Hmmm… Yeah… chuck em.

Comments are closed.