Willravel

"The Claus" sounds like a Frank Miller graphic novel about Christopher Kringle, an aging cop that has one last case, to save a child from holiday blues. It's a bit melodramatic, though.

Santa Claus gave me non-consumerist gifts and consumerist gifts. I got GI Joes and sweaters from JC Penny along with the more personal gifts from the jolly man in the red suit. The point is that gifts from Santa Claus don't have to endorse consumerism. They can, but they don't have to. Just like any gift from anyone, some will be personal, some will be practical, and some will be superficial. As to sacrifice, I have to imagine flying around the world at nearly the speed of light breaking into people's homes is dangerous work. Ultimately it's rewarding because Santa Claus is devoted to children, understanding that they have value and deserve positive attention, but, if you accept the mythology, it's hard work. On top of the delivery, there's the consideration that goes into the gift giving. Tailoring a billion gifts to a billion children is a supernatural effort made just to make children happy and feel appreciated by someone in the world, someone magical and jolly. Milk and cookies aside, kids are getting a hell of a deal.

I don't know how many parents are rigid with the naughty or nice list, but even if we assume only some stick to it that alone would seem to verify my association between Santa Claus and positive reinforcement in parenting. Remember also, this debate is about Santa Claus being harmless. Even for those parents who are less strict in using Santa as a reward system, there's no actual harm being done. Still, for those parents who do give bigger for better, more moral or ethical behavior are utilizing an important tool in the development of their child. Even if you want to coldly regard the positive reinforcement as payment, positive reinforcement it remains. The fact that it supposedly comes from Santa Claus doesn't have to cheapen or distort it, either, in fact it can essentially create a phantom third authority figure, one that parents consistently along with the mother and father (or mother, or father, or mother and mother, or father and father, etc.). Consistent positive reinforcement makes for an even stronger case. Santa Claus doesn't have to be real in order to be a positive force in the life of a child, after all.

I wish I could say I was trying to capture evidence of Santa Claus' existence with my camera trap, but it was less about healthy skepticism and more about showing off a picture to my friends. After my last post, I brought up the incident in a discussion with my dad and he remembered it quite clearly. Apparently, I tried to do the same thing with Jesus and forgot about it. The point was that I was immersed in the mythology, in both cases, and born of that immersion was imagination.

To speak in broader terms, mythology is a challenge to the concept of reality. On some level, most children are able to recognize the difference between Santa Claus and grandma. You see grandma, you talk to grandma, you sit in your grandma's lap. Grandma never flies or has magical pets. Even at a young age, discerning that difference is intuitive. On one level they believe, like, for example, I used to believe in Jesus, but on a more basic level, even if not conscious, there's a recognition that things which violate the consistent systems of reality witnessed and experienced aren't the same as things that you intuitively suppose are real. And that's where imagination comes in. Imagination isn't just about thinking magically, it's about thinking outside of the box, in terms that might challenge preconceptions. All pretend play by children is a tool by which they expand their understanding. So why Santa Claus, specifically? He's not real, but many things in the child's environment say he is. Television, kids in their school class and neighborhood and church, the guy at the mall, parents, etc. all insist this character is real. That is where Santa Claus stands alone. What happens some day if your son or daughter is caught in a situation where they could be taken by groupthink? Will he or she have the tool to think outside of their preconceptions and go against what everyone around them is saying? That tool is, above all else, imagination. It's the key to individualism, to understanding, and to intellectual growth. Aside from religion, I can think of no better imaginative tool than Santa Claus.

I wasn't raised atheist, but a lot of people are. It is difficult for me personally to imagine circumstances in which an atheist would become religious, but I'm seeing this through the experience of having been raised Christian and then deconverting as a young adult. It does happen; there are atheists that convert to being theists. I won't quote it or link to it, but I've recently been made aware of an article entitled "Après une visite au Vatican" or "After a visit to the Vatican" (I think, my French is horrible) in which French writer and critic Ferdinand Brunetière argues that atheistic, scientific philosophies lack social morality. Whether I agree with him or not, and I don't, the result of this man's quest for truth lead him from being a life-long atheist to being a Roman Catholic. I'm not judging him, but I feel his story is a good example of how being raised atheist isn't necessarily a guarantee that one will remain so lifelong.

I think the most important point I can make is that skepticism must be free of absolute certainty. The assuredness of reality you describe, knowing there's no monster under the bed, seems to run contrary to the very nature of skepticism. Skepticism must be free of any and all bias in order for it to be most effective, and in order for your knowledge to continue to self-correct and advance, you must remain, at least to some degree, uncertain. Certainty, you see, breeds intellectual lethargy. If I am absolutely sure of something, why would I question it? I understand that once you've gone through the difficult task of establishing something to yourself, forming a hypothesis, gathering evidence, testing evidence and establishing a consistent answer, you've earned a certain level of assuredness, but there's a big difference between being almost certain and being certain. Almost certain leaves room for further correction in the future. Almost certain is the difference between Newtonian physics and Einsteinian physics, which I don't have to tell you is significant. Newtonian physics is intellectually beautiful, but after a time there were cracks, exceptions discovered that required a skeptical mind to question accepted laws of nature. Some day, perhaps, we will be saying the same thing of current quantum theories, as knowledge ever-evolves. Santa Claus is the poorly constructed theory just waiting to be attacked with rigorous skepticism. It's flaws are simple enough that a clever child can start to recognize them, deconstruct them, and understand them. What a wonderful thing it would be for a child to allow curiosity and skepticism to meet for the first time to teach them how to think critically.

btw, I'm having a blast. It's amazing how such a difficult debate can come from a topic so seemingly simple.