3 ms·

"Santa Clause analogy" "It's just flat strange and saddening to me" This is why the analogy is used. Not this: "would have been devastating to St. Augustine

"Santa Clause analogy" "It's just flat strange and saddening to me" This is why the analogy is used. Not this: "would have been devastating to St. Augustine or Tolstoy or Tolkien." It's simplistic. And as an argument against specific dogma and teachings, it is quite effective. It's not meant to make a profound philosophical statement, it's meant to elicit exactly your response. Atheists are subjected to seemingly endless shitstorms (see: banana argument, peanut-butter argument, etc), it feels good to return the favor. Most of us know that we're never going to get through, so we might as well have fun.

phuff 15y ago
Not sure you understood that his point was that an atheist using the Santa Claus argument sounds like a philosophical n00b...
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  No, I understand it completely. He's making the mistake however of assuming that anyone using the Santa Claus argument is attempting to make a philosophical point.
  - bane 15y ago
    Perhaps analogous to the idea that anybody using an argument in favor of faith, no matter what terminology they couch it in, is attempting to make a rational point.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      The difference of course, is that they generally actually seem to be.
davesims 15y ago
Not sure I follow you. Are you saying its content is simplistic (meaning an argument that oversimplifies an issue by ignoring complexities) but rhetorically useful to get a rise out of your opponent? How is that productive? This was the point I was making: all too often the specific brand atheism that Dawkins' writing seems to inspire is more interested in tweaking fundamentalists than engaging faith as such. Hell, I love to tweak fundamentalists as much as the next guy, but where does that get us? Might as well go cow-tipping...
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  "Are you saying its content is simplistic (meaning an argument that oversimplifies an issue by ignoring complexities) but rhetorically useful to get a rise out of your opponent?" Yes. Exactly. "How is that productive?" It's not, nor is it meant to be. It's entertainment for atheists, nothing more. You should not attempt to determine the philosophical sophistication of anyone who uses it from the fact that they are using it. There are tons of atheists who will be willing to have level headed and informed philosophical conversations with you. I however, and many others, are not interested in such things. Dawkin's is often appreciated by both groups.
jarin 15y ago
As the person who made the Santa Claus argument, I'll say that this is spot-on. I feel like I can hold my own in a serious discussion, but it really does get tiring making the same arguments over and over again, especially to people who tend to argue logic with non-logic. Apologies to anyone who mistakenly saw a Q.E.D. at the end of my Santa Claus story.

phuff 15y ago

Not sure you understood that his point was that an atheist using the Santa Claus argument sounds like a philosophical n00b...

burgerbrain 15y ago
No, I understand it completely. He's making the mistake however of assuming that anyone using the Santa Claus argument is attempting to make a philosophical point.
- bane 15y ago
  Perhaps analogous to the idea that anybody using an argument in favor of faith, no matter what terminology they couch it in, is attempting to make a rational point.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    The difference of course, is that they generally actually seem to be.

davesims 15y ago

Not sure I follow you. Are you saying its content is simplistic (meaning an argument that oversimplifies an issue by ignoring complexities) but rhetorically useful to get a rise out of your opponent? How is that productive? This was the point I was making: all too often the specific brand atheism that Dawkins' writing seems to inspire is more interested in tweaking fundamentalists than engaging faith as such. Hell, I love to tweak fundamentalists as much as the next guy, but where does that get us? Might as well go cow-tipping...

burgerbrain 15y ago
"Are you saying its content is simplistic (meaning an argument that oversimplifies an issue by ignoring complexities) but rhetorically useful to get a rise out of your opponent?" Yes. Exactly. "How is that productive?" It's not, nor is it meant to be. It's entertainment for atheists, nothing more. You should not attempt to determine the philosophical sophistication of anyone who uses it from the fact that they are using it. There are tons of atheists who will be willing to have level headed and informed philosophical conversations with you. I however, and many others, are not interested in such things. Dawkin's is often appreciated by both groups.

jarin 15y ago

As the person who made the Santa Claus argument, I'll say that this is spot-on. I feel like I can hold my own in a serious discussion, but it really does get tiring making the same arguments over and over again, especially to people who tend to argue logic with non-logic. Apologies to anyone who mistakenly saw a Q.E.D. at the end of my Santa Claus story.