Asymmetrical Skepticism

Christians are skeptical.

Christians, and theists in general, are skeptical of life arising from non-life and the universe originating from quantum fluctuations they’ve never observed. They don’t feel inclined to believe that consciousness as deep and self-aware as ours can arise through random mutations that are built upon guided by selective pressure.

Don’t make fun of them for this.

They are right to be skeptical of these things. These are counter intuitive concepts with evidence that can’t be assessed directly by laymen and requires a large commitment to gain any competence.

Make fun of them for believing in miracles.

Where does that skeptical instinct they methodically apply to naturalism go in regards to virgin birth, resurrections, and transubstantiation? One one hand they deny living matter arising from unliving matter, but one the other they freely accept living matter arising from non-matter. It’s okay to be extremely skeptical of both--they are extraordinary claims that are so rare that we only have clear reason to believe one or the other happened once in the history of the universe--but be consistent.

Why? What specifically makes walking on water and the magical duplication of bread and fish more believable than quantum mechanics or a multiverse? Why be understandably skeptical about some extraordinary claims and so faithful about a host of others?

I've asked Christians these questions and the answers, when given, are never satisfying. If I had to distill their varied answers to a core principle, it's an emotional connection to their indoctrination. In lieu of understanding, embrace what is comfortable.

Maybe You Have Too Much Faith To Be An Atheist

What Effect Does Santa Have On Credulity?

Every year theists and atheists alike tell their children an impossible story about a fat man and his flock of reindeer.* I’ve often wondered whether this ruse has a net positive or negative affect on a child’s skepticism. I’ll briefly argue both sides in this post then outsource my opinion to the commenters because, frankly, I just can’t make up my mind.

Santa makes you more gullible.

The myth of Kris Kringle is a more compelling story in the imaginative eyes of a child than, say, Jesus. It’s a case of presents, snow and elves versus preaching, desert and crucifixion. No contest. In terms of believability, the two competing Christmas stories are on par. A man who hardly looks spry traveling to every home on earth within a 24 hour period is roughly equivalent to every human having a simultaneous personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Airborne caribou is about as likely as walking on water. Santa, like Christ, allegedly sees you when you're sleeping and knows when you're awake. Simply put, Santa is crazy talk that kids love which prepares them to accept crazy talk that parents want to teach. It’s Indoctrination 101.

Santa makes you more skeptical.

After the well intentioned lies have run their course, all but the most mentally challenged youth eventually outgrown Santa. In most cases, their own questions expose the cracks in their parents’ story until, finally, mom and dad have no choice but the come clean. This isn’t Indoctrination 101, it’s Intro to Critical Thinking. The experience should teach kids the value of open inquiry and to never accept stories at face value--regardless of the authority of the source.

Before opening up to comments, my last thought is that the affect of Santa probably depends largely on the reveal. For me, discovering Santa wasn’t real was both disappointing and rewarding. The disappointment may be unavoidable. Learning the world has a little less magic is never good news for a kid. The reward came from figuring out the truth on my own. The knowledge that my conclusion had to be more correct then what I previously thought made me feel smart. If a sibling broke the news that Santa is bunk, I may not have gotten as much out of the ordeal.

*A group of reindeer is actually a herd, but once they’re in flight I like to think of them as a flock.