We try to make the whole Advent/Christmas season about anticipating and celebrating Jesus’ nativity. We do the Christmas decorations, stockings, tree, music, etc as well as an Advent wreath and calendar with our kids each day.
We treat Santa as something fun to pretend in. First, we didn’t want to have to explain in a couple of years why we lied about Santa. Second, we didn’t want the holiday to be about getting gifts (although they do get plenty of presents). So we sing “Santa is Coming to Town” as well as “Away in a Manger” and our kids know that Santa is make-believe, Jesus is real.*
*My four-year-old said to me the other day “Jesus is everywhere, right?” “Yes.” “So what I want for Christmas is a box that is wrapped, and when I open it, it will be empty but Jesus will be in it. And it will remind me that Jesus is everywhere.”
Because if you taught them that Santa Claus was real, and they figured out he wasn’t, they might actually begin to doubt the entire Christian mythology.
The way I see it, parents who teach their kids that Santa isn’t real but Jesus is have merely chosen to impart one myth over another. I’d honestly prefer they teach their kids that Santa Claus is real, because at least we expect kids to eventually grow out of believing in that myth.
Thinking back on it, I remember that I simply grew mature enough to understand that Santa was just a fun story.
The jolly icon of Santa instills a feeling of love and generousity for everyone, not just kids. Doesn’t the baby jesus carry the same characteristics for those who believe?
When I have children, I intend to tell them that every intelligent, rational, and informed person believes in Santa Claus, and that it’s far past time for our society to move past the primitive superstition of Santa Claus being imaginary. I intend to inform my children that the evidence in favor of Santa Claus is overwhelming.
Belief in Santa Claus originated in the 19th century in the United States and western Europe. Since this belief emerged from a very rational and scientific age, there’s no possibility that he was simply a primitive superstition that somehow outlasted his due date.
Eyewitness accounts of Santa’s existence are numerous, come from unimpeachable sources, and agree with each other in all the details. The most famous such was written within hours of the event. Its author was an Ivy League-educated scholar, so there’s no possibility that he was fooled by a primitive myth.
Further confirmation of the Santa Claus doctrine is provided by the flying reindeer. Anyone familiar with Darwin’s theory of natural selection can see why flying reindeer would have an evolutionary advantage of non-flying ones. Hence flying reindeer must exist. Rudolph’s shining red nose also argues for authenticity.
Lastly, some desperate deniers will claim that parents buy presents, wrap them, and put them under the tree, and then claim that Santa Claus put them there. But the absurdity of this is obvious when we consider it from the perspective of evolutionary psychology. We know that only behaviors which contribute to gene propagation can exist. Obviously, any innate predisposition to spend tremendous resources and then claim they were provided by someone else would be selected against, and hence it cannot exist.
So in short, I really don’t see any point in telling my kids that Santa is imaginary. Even if they were fooled at first, they’d eventually grow up and figure out for themselves that he’s real.
We did the Santa thing with our kids - we never said “Santa is real” we said “Santa is Magic.” Santa left gifts under the tree. Santa ate their cookies.
But we also told our kids magic isn’t real.
And, over time, figuring out the Santa thing became an exercise in critical thinking - we were very proud of them when they figured it out, and ushered them into the circle of “Big Kids Who Know the Secret.” You can’t tell the secret to other little kids. You now get to BE Santa to other people if you want.
See this is a lot less glurgy when you really grok how four-year-olds think. Dollars to doughnuts Skammer’s kid was not having any sort of sappy materialism-free “Oh I don’t need any Christmas Presents, Jesus is enough Christmas Present for me” thoughts going on in his head. He certainly wouldn’t conceive the prospect of the empty box being instead of a regular haul of presents. “Instead” is a concept that preschoolers have a lot of trouble with. I get into this all the time with the Smaller Girl (“OK, you can have a green icy pole or a red one - which one?” And then when she’s finished the green on it’s “Red one now mummy!Red one!”)
So to Skammer’s son, his empty box would be like a “box full of magic” might be to another kid. You open up the box, all covered with shiny paper - and inside is the “magic” - which you can’t see, but it’s there anyway, which is very mysterious to a four-year-old.
And then…
You tear off back to the tree and join in gleefully romping through the wrapping paper for your train-set/Tonka truck/Wiggles DVD/Jigsaw puzzles/bike/football/etc etc and join in with your siblings or cousins or whatever-kids-happen-to-be-around in turning the house into a gigantic maelstrom of toys, just like every other kid in the Western World on Christmas morning.
As an atheist, I think Santa is generally harmless, so I wouldnt mind teaching them about it. They’ll grow up and realize its a crock like the rest of us, and by then they shouldnt care too much.
I remember my niece asking me about Santa when she was pretty young. She asked if there was a Santa and I said, “What do you believe?”
“Grown ups like to tell stories. They like stories that have meanings.” I’m paraphrasing, but her utter contempt for stories with meanings was apparent.
Personally, as a lifelong heathen, I’d prefer Santa Claus to Jesus. Santa actually has a proven track record, and doesn’t set unrealistic deadlines.
Anyway—my parents (also heathens—that’s a good enough catchall, I think) also got me and my sister in on the Santa Claus deal*, with no apparent philosophical ill effects. I don’t know about my sister, but I figured “the truth” out myself by age 10 or so—I think I knew, or at least suspected it for awhile before that, but I didn’t really want to admit it to myself.
My sister later became a christian in her teenage years (she’s leveled off from her early fervor, in later years—I haven’t quizzed her about her current beliefs, or anything, though she was hardly an addle-brained fanatic, even before), and I’ve been a more or less confirmed atheist for as long as I can recall, so take that for what it’s worth.
*I’m also descended from a proud line of BSers and tall tale spinners—I suppose this also figured into it. I remember once asking my Dad how Santa could bring presents (books, specifically, IIRC) from major brands, with copyright information and barcodes on them and whatnot. The answer was something like that Santa had franchise agreements with various companies to produce his own licenced versions of gifts, or some deal to buy them at or below cost. I forget which.
I don’t see any harm in just letting young children believe, but even as a kid myself I remember being horrified by the outright deceptions my friend’s family engaged in to keep their kids from doubting. I actually felt sorry for them.
Come to think of it, I got into arguments with them about the existence of God too. I was quite the skeptic for an 8 year old. Their mother must have hated me…
A child is born innocent of an understanding that the reality of Santa is a testable hypothesis. It’s OK to let the kid believe for a while. He doesn’t have to be corrected out of a fear that such a false belief is harmful to small children. It’s not harmful, and it lays the groundwork for a healthy psyche as an adult which allows enough suspension of science to appreciate, for example, the wonder of a rainbow and not just the refraction of water particles.
The “inextricably and exclusively linked” phrase is yours. I am not sure what you mean by it.
I really don’t see a point in playing the Santa game. Everything is new and exciting for a kid that age anyway, may as well just tell the truth.
Thats not to say theres not a certain amount of fun to be had at a kids expense by spinning tall tales… We all remember the fun Calvins dad had with him.
Within the context of a thread about what should children be taught about Santa Claus, you said:
This implies that parents who don’t allow their children to believe in Santa Claus are denying them a period of Magical Delight. And, according to you, this denial is so bad that those parents are “jerks”.
(BTW, are you saying that **Frylock **is a jerk, and his wife is a “nutcase”?)
So, your argument is something like this:
Magical Delight is good for children.
A belief in Santa Claus results in Magical Delight.
Not believing in Santa Claus results in no Magical Delight.
Therefore, a belief in Santa Claus is inextricably and exclusively linked to Magical Delight.
Actually, I don’t think that’s what you’re arguing. But, your use of “jerks” suggests that not believing in Santa Claus results in a major loss of childhood delight. I disagree.
It seems like you’re saying that children who aren’t encouraged to believe in Santa Claus will not develop the wonder of a rainbow. I’m sure that’s not what you mean.
BTW, are you a psychologist specializing in child development?
Oops, I missed the nutcase remark. Thanks for drawing my attention to it.
I don’t know why it takes a “nutcase” to respond to deception as though it were deception.
I can understand a range of reactions to the Great Santa Revelation, anywhere from hilarity to anger. It depends on the situation and the kid. But anyone in their right mind (i.e., not a nutcase) has the right, when they are decieved, to feel… decieved.
They don’t have to be upset about it, but if they do feel upset, that makes sense and is perfectly justifiable.
It turns out my wife’s character is such that trust and truthfulness are very important to her. So she was kind of pissed off about the Great Santa Revelation, and doesn’t want to do the same thing to her kids.
Indeed, the poster said that scientific understanding of the rainbow precludes a sense of wonder regarding the rainbow, which is Manifestly Untrue.
