Comments on: Christmas Hermeneutics http://www.ooblick.com/weblog/2007/12/21/christmas-hermeneutics/ All the etcetera that's fit to read. Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:30:38 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: arensb http://www.ooblick.com/weblog/2007/12/21/christmas-hermeneutics/comment-page-1/#comment-127256 arensb Tue, 18 Mar 2008 03:44:32 +0000 http://www.ooblick.com/weblog/2007/12/21/christmas-hermeneutics/#comment-127256 <p>Jerry:</p> <blockquote>the argument that even though there is no scientific proof of deity, what’s the harm in believing?</blockquote> <p>Well, then that kind of belief is basically mental masturbation, isn't it? Pleasant and harmless enough, but ultimately pointless.</p> <blockquote>I’ll tell you why it isn’t OK for adults to believe in Santa in the literal sense, because Santa Claus isn’t real. For children, however, fantasy is a very charming part of their innocence.</blockquote> <p>It's far less charming, however, when grown-ups believe in a literal daddy-in-the-sky type of god. There was a big hole in Manhattan made six and a half years ago that attests to that.</p> <blockquote>Ultimately, you have created a false analogy.</blockquote> <p>How so?</p> Jerry:

the argument that even though there is no scientific proof of deity, what’s the harm in believing?

Well, then that kind of belief is basically mental masturbation, isn’t it? Pleasant and harmless enough, but ultimately pointless.

I’ll tell you why it isn’t OK for adults to believe in Santa in the literal sense, because Santa Claus isn’t real. For children, however, fantasy is a very charming part of their innocence.

It’s far less charming, however, when grown-ups believe in a literal daddy-in-the-sky type of god. There was a big hole in Manhattan made six and a half years ago that attests to that.

Ultimately, you have created a false analogy.

How so?

]]> By: Jerry http://www.ooblick.com/weblog/2007/12/21/christmas-hermeneutics/comment-page-1/#comment-127255 Jerry Tue, 18 Mar 2008 03:08:13 +0000 http://www.ooblick.com/weblog/2007/12/21/christmas-hermeneutics/#comment-127255 <p>I feel like people can draw parallels between your argument that it's perhaps OK for adults to believe in Santa if other adults who know better can agree with the "spirit of giving" even if there is no Santa and the argument that even though there is no scientific proof of deity, what's the harm in believing? Perhaps if you weren't so ambitious with your argument I wouldn't have sniffed that out. I'll tell you why it isn't OK for adults to believe in Santa in the literal sense, because Santa Claus isn't real. For children, however, fantasy is a very charming part of their innocence. They're so adorable! I also feel saying "those who clamor for 'evidence'..." shines a bad light on people who question first, and adapt (read: believe) later given sufficient evidence while at the same time treating nothing as doctrine. Ultimately, you have created a false analogy.</p> I feel like people can draw parallels between your argument that it’s perhaps OK for adults to believe in Santa if other adults who know better can agree with the “spirit of giving” even if there is no Santa and the argument that even though there is no scientific proof of deity, what’s the harm in believing? Perhaps if you weren’t so ambitious with your argument I wouldn’t have sniffed that out. I’ll tell you why it isn’t OK for adults to believe in Santa in the literal sense, because Santa Claus isn’t real. For children, however, fantasy is a very charming part of their innocence. They’re so adorable! I also feel saying “those who clamor for ‘evidence’…” shines a bad light on people who question first, and adapt (read: believe) later given sufficient evidence while at the same time treating nothing as doctrine. Ultimately, you have created a false analogy.

]]>