Skeptics and Santa Claus

[bruto]

So where's the damage if very young children literally believe in Santa? And "manipulation"? How do you really think children are brought up?

I think it clearly depends on the kids, but there certainly is the potential for damage, if not huge damage, if a child's revelation that there's no Santa (or no three kings and their camels) is accompanied by ridicule and humiliation, and if she believes her parents have simply lied to her. Some of us would rather have the truth.

 

[sgtbaker]

I put that I did the Santa thing and I do feel it's inconsistant. I think the way I did it was but not necessarily the way it has been described by others in this thread. Raising children with the fanstasy that there is a magical being delivering gifts is fine. I admit to pulling the warning; "Santa is watching, you'd better behave," which goes beyond the border of play and right into the dogmatic catagory.

This was brought up at our atheist meeting, on Sunday, and it seems that questioning the existence of Santa was the start of a lot their skepticism; if Santa isn't real...

 

[slingblade]

Lionking, I love you pal, but...

(1)So where's the damage if very young children literally believe in Santa?

(2) And "manipulation"?

(3)How do you really think children are brought up?

(1) The "damage" is in the forming and fostering of magical, wishful thinking as a viable form of reality in the minds of the young. It lies in setting the patterns, at a young age, that you can get what you want in life by wishing for it, or by praying for it, or by some other magical means. This is the very mind-set that critical thinking seeks to correct.

(2) "Manipulation" is a loaded term; I think most of us realize that all human interaction consists of manipulating each other, to one extent or another. But one ought to be a little suspicious of managing the behavior of others through the promise of bribes or the threat of no rewards. Surely there are sound, logical reasons why a certain behavior is more desirable than another?

(3) Children, for the most part, are not brought up to understand and use critical thought. They are instead brought up with heavy doses of magical thinking: make a wish on your birthday cake, but don't tell it, or it won't come true; write a letter to Santa and ask him for what you want, but be good or you won't get it; pray to God when you have a problem you can't solve or a need you can't meet, but be obedient and have faith, or it won't be answered in the way you need.

This is the way we want to teach children to problem-solve?
This is more than just indulging a little harmless make-believe.
This is setting kids up for failure and disappointment and a reliance on others to hand you what you want, instead of relying on yourself to work for what you want.

This is teaching the wrong lesson about cause and effect:
Do you want to be teaching your children that the best reason to behave properly are the toys they'll get if they do? Or that if they can hide poor behavior well enough, they'll get what they want anyway? Or, as some have already noted, that it doesn't matter how good you are, you still aren't getting that X-Box because there is no Santa and your parents can't afford it, so what was the point of even trying?

Isn't it better to teach children about real-life, real-world cause and effect, as a strategy they can use year-round, and for the rest of their lives, in problem solving?

When it comes to Santa, yes. And if you can find a child who has suffered damage (and I doubt you can) how do you balance that with the countless millions who relish the whole fantastic experience?

LK, that really is special pleading, and I'm surprised you don't see that.

A belief in Santa is but one of the ways people are taught as children to rely on magic to solve their problems, or reach their goals. Do we really want to be making exceptions, based on emotion and nostalgia? The exception for Santa doesn't seem to be based on logic or reason or critical thought, after all.

And lying? Are you in a relationship? Does my arse look big in this?

There's a bit of a difference between being tactful and being deceitful.

Er, no. You asked if I wanted a demonstration of damage caused through lying about Santa (because this is what the thread is about). I said yes I do. Your response is a red herring.

You can label my response that way if you like, as well. But it isn't a red herring.

The damage in this is the damage that can result from instilling a belief in magical, wishful thinking. Where do you think woo comes from?
Water has a memory even though water has no brain with which to remember, because it's magic! Prayer will cure my child's fatal illness because it's magic! This copper bracelet will ease my arthritis because it's magic!


The child-mind is malleable. It may not exactly be a blank slate, but it is something of a receptacle, and will hold much of what's put into it. More, it will even reshape what it encounters; the results can be surprising and unintended.

The harm is the general harm that comes from mistaking fantasy for reality, and acting accordingly. There was a news story recently about a young woman who believes she's part werewolf, part vampire (Twilight, anyone? True Blood, Vampire Diaries?). She was arrested recently and charged with accessory to murder in the death of a 16-year-old boy. Is she mentally ill? Maybe. But have you seen how many websites there are, how many real-life clubs there are, that cater to this vampire/werewolf fantasy? We either have a lot of mentally ill people out there, or we have a lot of people who find it difficult to distinguish between fantasy and reality. Hence, woo-thought of all sorts.

Let me ask this: do kids who love the Harry Potter books have to believe magic is real and Harry exists in order to enjoy the books? Do parents go to a lot of trouble to instill this belief in their kids before letting them read the books or see the movies?

So why can't Santa be enjoyed by kids as an obvious but fun fiction?

Why should we be fostering a belief in magical thinking?

What's the harm?

 

[Lamuella]

My general attitude will be this:

I won't tell my children that Santa exists. When they're old enough to ask I'll say that there isn't a Santa, but some people think it's fun to pretend there is, and it would be rude to tell them they're wrong.

EDIT: or alternatively I'll tell them that Batman brings presents to good children. And brings the bad children justice.

 

[ZirconBlue]

A conversation with my 9-year-old daughter the other day (while watching Santa Claus is Coming to Town:

Daughter: "How do people know what Santa looks like, if no one ever sees him?"

Me: ". . . Well, he comes to the mall and stuff."

Her: "That's not the real Santa, that's just someone dressed up like him."

 

[Psi Baba]

Wow, if ever there was a thread were a lot of claims were being made, by skeptics, no less, that were totally devoid of evidence, this is it.

In pre-Victorian times, Christmas was not so much of a children's festival. Father Christmas in Britain was the spirit of revelry and was not seen as a figure for children. The Victorian attitude of focusing on children and the whole Dickensian "traditional family Christmas" resulted in the adoption of the American version of Santa Claus, morphing Father Christmas into a similar gift-giver for children. Santa Claus/Father Christmas was viewed by the Victorians as more of a gift to children, far from being part of some "selfish enjoyment" for adults (maintaining the illusion of Santa Claus requires a great deal of selfless effort and sacrifice for most parents, so doing nothing would be the selfish act by taking the easy way out).

Anyway, until I see some evidence or studies that point to all this horrible "damage" that belief in Santa Claus causes, I'll remain skeptical of that particular claim.

BTW, Happy St Nicholas Day everyone! (I hope no-one here get a visit from Black Pete).

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Are you telling me that adults do not intentionally mislead children to believe that Santa Claus literally exists, or that many children who are so misinformed by their parents do not believe, as a matter of literal fact, that a magic man in a red suit lives at the North Pole and brings them toys via flying reindeer on Christmas morning? Or that you see no important difference between that literal belief and the experience of, say, going to see a Disney movie where the children understand that what's happening is just a story and the parents make no effort to persuade them otherwise?

ETA: Does your answer change if we replace "Santa Claus" with "Jesus"?

To me it won't.
I went to a catholic school during the years I believed in Santa (well, the dutch version of Sinterklaas, but same difference). By the time I'd reasoned out that maybe one guy bringing presents to everyone everywhere at once was maybe a bit unbelievable I also applied this to the stories of the bible and found them equal fantasy. Fun to read maybe, but not true.

 

[slingblade]

Anyway, until I see some evidence or studies that point to all this horrible "damage" that belief in Santa Claus causes, I'll remain skeptical of that particular claim.

Encouraging magical, wishful thinking is harmless in specific instances.

Is this, essentially, the argument?

 

[AvalonXQ]

I'm a new parent. This is my plan.

Me: "Hey, let's get ready for Santa to come tomorrow! I wonder what he's getting each of us this year?"
My kid (at some point): "Is Santa real or make believe?"
Me: "Oh, he's make-believe. But isn't it fun to pretend? So, what do you think he's going to bring you this year? Should we set out milk and cookies?"

... in other words, when they're old enough to care, I make it clear that we all pretend because it's fun. You don't have to believe Santa is real to enjoy celebrating the generosity and fun he stands for.

 

[slingblade]

Well, I feel silly now. I had no idea we were supposed to make exceptions to critical thinking, or that Santa's only fun because he's real.

What are the other exceptions? I really don't want to embarrass myself like this in future. I need a good link to a list of the accepted exceptions to critical thought. Anyone have one?

 

[ZirconBlue]

I had no idea we were supposed to make exceptions to critical thinking. . . .

Who's "we"?

 

[slingblade]

Who's "we"?

Whomever you need it to be. I've seen baited hooks before.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Whomever you need it to be. I've seen baited hooks before.

I don't play those games. I just couldn't evaluate if "we" are "supposed" to do anything without knowing who "we" are.

 

[JamesDillon]

To me it won't.
I went to a catholic school during the years I believed in Santa (well, the dutch version of Sinterklaas, but same difference). By the time I'd reasoned out that maybe one guy bringing presents to everyone everywhere at once was maybe a bit unbelievable I also applied this to the stories of the bible and found them equal fantasy. Fun to read maybe, but not true.

Great for you that you were able to reason it out, but wouldn't you have been able to do that just as effectively without believing in the Santa myth? Let's say you're a kid whose parents don't mislead you-- are you going to be any less able to look at the way other children are tricked by the Santa story and apply that lesson to religion? Is the development of your critical thinking skills really going to be impaired if you're looking at Santa from an external rather than internal perspective?

I think this applies more broadly to a lot of people who are making the argument that it's good to perpetuate Santa because it teaches kids to think critically. Even if the experience of falsely believing something and reasoning your way out of it does somehow contribute to the development of a critical faculty in a unique way, there's more than enough misinformation and fallacy out there that every one of us is going to step into it at some point in our lives; I don't see how it benefits anyone to intentionally create more of it.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Well, I feel silly now. I had no idea we were supposed to make exceptions to critical thinking, or that Santa's only fun because he's real.

What are the other exceptions? I really don't want to embarrass myself like this in future. I need a good link to a list of the accepted exceptions to critical thought. Anyone have one?

On the other hand, what is more encouraging to critical thinking?
Telling a child what is real and what not, or letting them figure it out for themselves?

If you have young children and they believe in monsters under the bed, do you leave on a light to reassure them, thus implying that they might exist, or leave them in the dark with their own imagination because you told them such things cannot possibly exist?

I've seen this type of critical thinking in action. A mother tearing a crying child away from a sinterklaas entry into my hometown (a big parade thing encouraging the horrible magical fantasy/hoax which is immense fun) telling her 4 year old "No, there is no such thing and unlike everyone you know YOU will not get brought presents, because its not real!"
Sure, it teaches critical thinking at an early age, and also teaches that critical thinking = sour killjoys who take away the fun things everyone else does get to do.
I personally would rather go with harmless fantasy that can later in life be used as a lesson that maybe not everything you're told is true, even if it does sound fun.

 

[JamesDillon]

On the other hand, what is more encouraging to critical thinking?
Telling a child what is real and what not, or letting them figure it out for themselves?

The question posed by the poll is, do you falsely tell a child that Santa Claus is literally real, or do you not? "Letting them figure it out" is a cop-out if you're using that to justify affirmatively misleading them about a fact of the world. And, as I've said before, I think it's totally unrealistic to expect that parents should let children "figure out" the facts of the world without any kind of guidance as some kind of character-building exercise, but even if you really believe that the appropriate thing to do would be to remain agnostic about Santa and refuse to take a position either way, not to actively encourage false belief.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Great for you that you were able to reason it out, but wouldn't you have been able to do that just as effectively without believing in the Santa myth? Let's say you're a kid whose parents don't mislead you-- are you going to be any less able to look at the way other children are tricked by the Santa story and apply that lesson to religion? Is the development of your critical thinking skills really going to be impaired if you're looking at Santa from an external rather than internal perspective?

I think this applies more broadly to a lot of people who are making the argument that it's good to perpetuate Santa because it teaches kids to think critically. Even if the experience of falsely believing something and reasoning your way out of it does somehow contribute to the development of a critical faculty in a unique way, there's more than enough misinformation and fallacy out there that every one of us is going to step into it at some point in our lives; I don't see how it benefits anyone to intentionally create more of it.

Have you ever honestly met a child angry or upset about learing santa isn't real? Someone who then assumes everything must be a lie, or gets twisted into believing everything is real?
Children begin to be able to somewhat look critically at the world at what, 10? And even then its the whole black/white thing. Nuances start appearing at 16 or later. (barring the occasional exception).
This discussion to some extent reminds me of a Jack chick tract about a child learing santa isn;t real and thus becoming a mass murderer, because he then also didn't believe in chick jesus.
Believing in santa at 4-5 =/= believing whatever woo you hear later and imo forcing one's personal belief system on a child who just wants to join in the thing all his/her friends are doing, as all children at that age do, is as bad as forcing them to pray each night.

 

[JamesDillon]

Have you ever honestly met a child angry or upset about learing santa isn't real? Someone who then assumes everything must be a lie, or gets twisted into believing everything is real?
Children begin to be able to somewhat look critically at the world at what, 10? And even then its the whole black/white thing. Nuances start appearing at 16 or later. (barring the occasional exception).
This discussion to some extent reminds me of a Jack chick tract about a child learing santa isn;t real and thus becoming a mass murderer, because he then also didn't believe in chick jesus.
Believing in santa at 4-5 =/= believing whatever woo you hear later and imo forcing one's personal belief system on a child who just wants to join in the thing all his/her friends are doing, as all children at that age do, is as bad as forcing them to pray each night.

This is just the "what's the harm" argument all over again, and slingblade has already addressed it more eloquently than I could. I don't care about incidental harm. As a skeptic, I think that holding or perpetuating false beliefs is intrinsically harmful and to be avoided wherever possible. This is the kind of argument that routinely gets laughed out of the General Skepticism forum when anyone makes it about Bigfoot or UFOs (or God, for that matter).

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

This is just the "what's the harm" argument all over again, and slingblade has already addressed it more eloquently than I could. I don't care about incidental harm. As a skeptic, I think that holding or perpetuating false beliefs is intrinsically harmful and to be avoided wherever possible. This is the kind of argument that routinely gets laughed out of the General Skepticism forum when anyone makes it about Bigfoot or UFOs (or God, for that matter).

The difference being that parents don't believe in Santa and as children get older they pick up on this.

 

[lionking]

This is just the "what's the harm" argument all over again, and slingblade has already addressed it more eloquently than I could. I don't care about incidental harm. As a skeptic, I think that holding or perpetuating false beliefs is intrinsically harmful and to be avoided wherever possible. This is the kind of argument that routinely gets laughed out of the General Skepticism forum when anyone makes it about Bigfoot or UFOs (or God, for that matter).

Where is the evidence it causes harm? This is simply your belief.

I think it's drawing an incredibly long bow to infer a relationship between a belief in Santa and later woo beliefs. As I mentioned earlier all seven kids believed in Santa (with their parents collusion) and have all grown up as skeptical atheists.

I will never forget taking my oldest son to see Humphrey Bear at about two, nearly 30 years ago. His excitement was a delight to see. He believed Humphrey was real - possibly not a real bear, but also not a man in a costume. What should I have said? "Son, you know that Humphrey is not real".

Is that what people really think I should have done? Really?