# Faith, Mythology, Truth, and Santa (or, Poly Writes a Myth) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 5, 2003, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-mythology-truth-and-santa-or-poly-writes-a-myth/146700 "2003-01-05T01:47:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![JustPlainBryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/57b2e6/32.png) [@JustPlainBryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JustPlainBryan)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2003, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-mythology-truth-and-santa-or-poly-writes-a-myth/146700/41 "2003-01-07T01:40:15Z")
> [@](#): > > Anyway, the being that is God transcends our perception. It is meaningless to say this god, or that god. What you see is your perception of God. That does not constrain God to be as you see Him. But it does constrain you to be what you see Him to be. See, He became real, again. You must understand, though, that your personal truth about Deity may not be same as mine (substitute “God” in the quote above for “subconcious self”, and you’ll start to understand my worldview. “Start” is the operative word). How we perceive deity (or even the lack of that perception) is different and unique for everyone. What matters most is how we use those perceptions, metaphors, and mythologies. ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2003, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-mythology-truth-and-santa-or-poly-writes-a-myth/146700/42 "2003-01-07T02:30:12Z")
Bryan, What matters most here on the earth is what you do, in your life, and how you treat the rest of us. God will be able to see the rest of it, and the rest of us can never really know how you feel about it, or what you think God is. Talking about love is just talking. Talking about your faith is just talking. What you do is your faith, not what you say. Obviously, I am not much of a theologian. Love is not a mystery; it’s the way you treat people. Tris ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2003, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-mythology-truth-and-santa-or-poly-writes-a-myth/146700/43 "2003-01-07T03:03:02Z")
I’m sorry for the ignorance here, but I really see no debate here, can you please point it out? So far it just seems like a rambling MSPIMS kinda thread. Especially since the OPer never responded to my synopsis of the OP (Not that I need every post of mine addressed, but what is this thread about!?) Grrrranimals. ---
**Author:** ![JustPlainBryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/57b2e6/32.png) [@JustPlainBryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JustPlainBryan)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2003, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-mythology-truth-and-santa-or-poly-writes-a-myth/146700/44 "2003-01-07T03:12:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by stpauler \* > \*\*I’m sorry for the ignorance here, but I really see no debate here, can you please point it out? So far it just seems like a rambling MSPIMS kinda thread. Especially since the OPer never responded to my synopsis of the OP (Not that I need every post of mine addressed, but what is this thread about!?) > > Grrrranimals. \*\* I don’t want to speak for **Poly** but I think the debate here is whether one can use metaphor and mythology (and by proxy, religion) in a mentally productive way. Or maybe I’m just reading too much into this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2003, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-mythology-truth-and-santa-or-poly-writes-a-myth/146700/45 "2003-01-07T03:30:59Z")
I assumed that **Poly** was trying to create an example of a known fiction, with an acknowledged absence of factual correctness that might still produce in our hearts and minds something we can all see is truth. And that God is real, even if He is imagined. It’s a slippery thing to hold on to, if you are limiting yourself to logic, and materialism. (Although you would be stunned by what skeptics and materialists are willing to believe.) ## Tris “I don’t play the Gausepheme anymore. I do sit around and imagine it, now and then.” ~ me ~ ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2003, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-mythology-truth-and-santa-or-poly-writes-a-myth/146700/46 "2003-01-07T03:47:04Z")
The map is not the territory. ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2003, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-mythology-truth-and-santa-or-poly-writes-a-myth/146700/47 "2003-01-07T03:54:09Z")
But the territory can be your map. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2003, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-mythology-truth-and-santa-or-poly-writes-a-myth/146700/48 "2003-01-07T04:00:10Z")
We can watch the territory, and use it to create our maps. When we claim the territory is in error because it doesn’t match our map, that is insanity. ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2003, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-mythology-truth-and-santa-or-poly-writes-a-myth/146700/49 "2003-01-07T04:02:10Z")
How 'bout I skip the map, and if someone asks me for directions, I just take him there? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2003, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-mythology-truth-and-santa-or-poly-writes-a-myth/146700/50 "2003-01-07T04:25:59Z")
Then you would **be** the Way for him, **Tris**. (And, in this context, the Truth, and if being lost put him in danger, even the Life. Just a thought. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2003, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-mythology-truth-and-santa-or-poly-writes-a-myth/146700/51 "2003-01-07T16:40:06Z")
> [@](#): > > _from **Tris** :_ > > And that God is real, even if He is imagined. It’s a slippery thing to hold on to, if you are limiting yourself to logic, and materialism. (Although you would be stunned by what skeptics and materialists are willing to believe.) If I understand the Gausepheme\* reference correctly, you’re saying that an imagined God has phenomenological consequences much the same way your imagined instrument “exists” as a conceptual model? Isn’t that like trying to move your cart by conceptualizing a horse? --I’m honestly not asking that to be contrary. I’m genuinely curious because this seems to go against everything I’ve understood you guys (Tris, Poly, Lib) to say about the apprehension of God; that the subjective experience (_received_ God) can be trusted, while the imagined or theorized phenomenon (_conceived_ God), although perhaps fruitful intellectual exercise is not itself a reliable way of “knowing” God. Perhaps imagining the numinous is a necessary precursor to experiencing it, but I don’t see experience as a necessary _consequence_ of imagination. **Tris** introduced a conceptual model, but he’s never actually “played” a gausepheme. I can contemplate, discuss, theorize and debate the _Agapepheme_, but that doesn’t mean I’ll ever “hear” God play it. I think you’re saying “the God you imagine _can be experienced_ in the same way the Santa you imagine can be experienced.” But this is not the same thing as saying that “God is imaginary, and real”. After all, Santa is not phenomenologically real for anyone until they experience him. Unless that happens, he’s only a conceptual model. You can draw the plans and programming for Santa; those are real, but he’s not, until he interacts with you. We could’ve conceived Santa over and over and yet had nothing if not for the interaction of people who _received_ Santa. And that, I think, may be the obverse face of the metaphor. Without human interaction based on receiving God, he IS imaginary. \*[sub]I tried to link to Tris’ original post on this marvelous invention, but I can’t get the link to work.[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2003, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-mythology-truth-and-santa-or-poly-writes-a-myth/146700/52 "2003-01-07T18:36:21Z")
**tris** > [@](#): > > God is someone. And our belief in Him only matters to us, and to Him. True, and that is one reason why I have respect for the faith that you and **Poly** express. Sadly, this is not true of every person of faith. What someone else believes has all to often become critically important to those who do share the same. As to the teh use of metaphor in theology, can you and **Poly** please answer a question for me: _when someone discusses “God”, and the object of their conversation is the mythological construct, are they discussing God?_ ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2003, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-mythology-truth-and-santa-or-poly-writes-a-myth/146700/53 "2003-01-07T19:05:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > One of the classic analogies brought forth against any religious faith espoused here is the one to Santa Claus (and the first person to spell that with a final -e here will be firmly escorted to the Pit and have a Tim Allen videotape inserted in lieu of a suppository! :mad: ). > > The essence of the argument seems to be that just as little kids believe in Santa Claus as the all-seeing arbiter of good and evil who rewards them for being good in some magical and mysterious way, so God is likewise a construct of human mythology who is an “all-seeing arbiter of good and evil who will reward them for being good in some magical and mysterious way” – and as such should be as firmly rejected as the Santa Claus myth. Just one nitpick here. Poly, it’s fine if you want to start a thread comparing Santa Claus to God, but I take exception to your characterization that it’s “one of the classic analogies”. I think you have misconstrued the usual argument. You do encounter the “Santa Claus” argument a lot here on the boards, but not in the sense that God and Santa Claus have similar characteristics. It’s generally presented more to show the irony of believing without evidence. Something like this: Atheist: You don’t have any evidence that God exists. Thiest: Well, _you_ don’t have any evidence that He _doesn’t_ exist. Atheist: But if you believe things without evidence, why do you not believe in Santa Claus? Since you can’t _disprove_ Santa Claus, and you advocate believing things simply because they can’t be disproved, then you should believe in Santa Claus as well. That’s the usual form that the “Santa Claus” argument takes. It’s an attempt to point out the irony of the argument that “I’m right because you can’t prove me wrong” - in other words, it’s an attempt to show the chaos of the position that all points of view are equally valid regardless of objective evidence. I just wanted to point out that we should not conflate this argument with the completely different argument you quoted from **mrfoi** , where he actually IS comparing the charateristics of the two entities. ---
**Author:** ![agentfroot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/779978/32.png) [@agentfroot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/agentfroot)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2003, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-mythology-truth-and-santa-or-poly-writes-a-myth/146700/54 "2003-01-07T21:48:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > \*\*Hey, **agentfroot** , you didn’t need to deal with that subordinate Claus at the mall. You know Jesus quite well – He lives inside that crazy lady! 🙂 \*\* _cracks up_ Yes indeed! ---
**Author:** ![lynn73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ebca7d/32.png) [@lynn73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lynn73)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2003, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-mythology-truth-and-santa-or-poly-writes-a-myth/146700/55 "2003-01-07T22:00:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > \*\* > > That’s the usual form that the “Santa Claus” argument takes. It’s an attempt to point out the irony of the argument that “I’m right because you can’t prove me wrong” - in other words, it’s an attempt to show the chaos of the position that all points of view are equally valid regardless of objective evidence. > > I just wanted to point out that we should not conflate this argument with the completely different argument you quoted from **mrfoi** , where he actually IS comparing the charateristics of the two entities. \*\* Here’s something you guys ought to take a look at, though I know it won’t be popular. Found it on the net looking up Christian views on Santa Claus. [http://www.av1611.org/othpubls/santa.html](http://www.av1611.org/othpubls/santa.html) ---
**Author:** ![lynn73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ebca7d/32.png) [@lynn73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lynn73)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2003, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-mythology-truth-and-santa-or-poly-writes-a-myth/146700/56 "2003-01-07T22:06:18Z")
Shoot, I meant to use a different part of **Blowero’s** post! Something about the comparison between God and Santa. ---
**Author:** ![JustPlainBryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/57b2e6/32.png) [@JustPlainBryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JustPlainBryan)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2003, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-mythology-truth-and-santa-or-poly-writes-a-myth/146700/57 "2003-01-07T22:48:22Z")
> [@](#): > > Here’s something you guys ought to take a look at, though I know it won’t be popular. Found it on the net looking up Christian views on Santa Claus. Sorry, **His4ever** , but your worldview and mine are miles apart. If we were to use your worldview, however, I would say that it seems like you are being deceived by the devil about a great many things, including the Bible itself. You’ll probably respond with Biblical quotes. I’ll simply respond that the Bible itself could be deceiving you. Question everything. ---
**Author:** ![lynn73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ebca7d/32.png) [@lynn73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lynn73)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2003, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-mythology-truth-and-santa-or-poly-writes-a-myth/146700/58 "2003-01-07T23:02:28Z")
Hey, you’re entitled to your opinion. Just sharing a different persepective, that’s all. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2003, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-mythology-truth-and-santa-or-poly-writes-a-myth/146700/59 "2003-01-07T23:09:11Z")
Well, I thought the link was appropriate. Tell me, **H4E** , do you agree with the link you posted, and if so, does this mean you take exception to **Poly** ’s thesis that mythological constructs reveal true meanings? Can you relate your beliefs regarding the Santa myth to that thesis? ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2003, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-mythology-truth-and-santa-or-poly-writes-a-myth/146700/60 "2003-01-07T23:19:50Z")
**Xeno** , and **Spiritus** , and any other objectivists or skeptics tuning in. I am going to try to address the specific case of your point of view, but it is going to take a while. Bear with me. I personally believe that the life and death and resurrection of Jesus, the person are factual historic occurrences. My reasons for believing this are not entirely based on evidence that meets the criteria for skeptical scrutiny. So, for me the existence of God, and Savior and all the attendant spiritual truths associated with it are not matters of limited to myth. However, they certainly are not excluded from myth. Along with the intellectual belief in Christ, the person, and God the person comes an emotional bond, which becomes faith. I love Christ. I love God. I cannot, in the objective certainty I am trying to limit this argument to put forth that Christ loves me, or God loves me, for I have no evidence. Now, the love I feel is not dependent upon objectivist reality of God, or Christ. (I suppose I should stop at this point and prove that I exist, but that would be tedious, don’t you think?) I do love them. The love is real, however much in doubt God and Jesus might be. But of course, you can only know that I say I love them. My faith requires me to be a witness to the Lord, and the love of God. Although I can find no specific scriptural authority for it, it is my point of view that the Lord does not want me to be an ineffective witness. To the folks at church, I can assume the question of God’s existence. To you guys, though, that won’t work. So, to witness to the dreaded Godless Intellectuals, I must find another way to speak the same truth. But it must still be the same truth. To wit: God loves you. The matter of god, small g, in the minds of men is a thing only occasionally associated with love. Men, with their gods have done much in the history of this weary world that has little to do with love. More poignant still, that same sad state of affairs is true with Christians. From the days of the inquisition, the Crusades, and even down to this very day, and this very forum, Christians speak of damnation, with ill disguised glee. God in a box, on sale at your local internet store, is a vile and disgusting thing. I won’t support it. I ask that you grant this to me. I am not defending Christians; I am only trying to show you Christ. Now, in the many debates here, I have, at times grown passionate on the subject and, to my lasting sorrow, in my selfish passion I have been unkind. There is no other answer to that than apology. However, still my passion is there, and not entirely a fault, I think. So, with your indulgent forgiveness, I will again witness to the Godless, boldly, and with heartfelt love for you, and for God. On with the objectivist examination. I have love. It is real, and I want to share it. So, how can I share it? I can make it real. I can do what love demands, in real world terms. In good works, and in pointless, random acts of kindness. Why? What benefit is there for me, to do kind things to others I will never again meet in my life? Sure, for a moment, I get told I am wonderful, but it takes a bit more effort to be truly kind than it does to be truly grateful. I feel that doing it pleases the Lord. I think it fulfills what He wants from me. But in an objectivist view, He is imaginary. So, I do real good, to please an imaginary being. I don’t mind that explanation. I don’t require that those who apprehend the concept of altruistic motives must accept the reality of God. I ask that they accept that my motive is indeed what I say it is. I don’t do what good I do in the world because of the approval of other men. I do it because God, and my Lord Jesus ask it of me. I might be deluded, but I am not dishonest. But, to those to whom this witness is directed, I ask this. What must God be, to be real? If one man acts only to be obedient to the Will of God, then is not God, Himself thereby made more than just an imaginary being? Are a thousand men enough? I think that what we see in each other that is good, and kind, and decent, is that image of God which was made into us. But if I am wrong, then is it not so that goodness, itself can be made to exist, because we wish to believe that it is the nature of our being. The image of our many selves, distilled down, and made pure. The being out of myth, or the myth out of the being, which is which? And if, instead of God becoming a man, a man must become God, instead, how is that man not worthy of our love? How is He not the Savior of man? How is He not Christ, born, and died, and resurrected? Miracles are matters of faith. If you cannot believe that Jesus lived in Palestine, can you believe that He lives now, in my heart, and in CJ’s, and Poly’s, and Lib’s, and Lel’s, and so many other hearts? Can He live in yours? Please? ## Tris “I have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts.” ~ John Locke ~ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-mythology-truth-and-santa-or-poly-writes-a-myth/146700.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/faith-mythology-truth-and-santa-or-poly-writes-a-myth/146700.md?page=4)