Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion
Dialogue with an Atheist on “Tooth Fairyology” vs. Theology

Dialogue with an Atheist on “Tooth Fairyology” vs. Theology

Last updated on: February 21, 2019 at 10:38 pm by Dave Armstrong

Dialogue with an Atheist on “Tooth Fairyology” vs. Theology 2019-02-21T22:38:35-04:00 Dave Armstrong

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Take the Fair Face of Woman, and Gently Suspending, With Butterflies, Flowers, and Jewels Attending, Thus Your Fairy is Made of Most Beautiful Things, by Sophie Gengembre Anderson (1823-1903) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

* * *

This took place in the combox for my post, “Fairies, Atheism, God, & Ad Populum Fallacy.” The words of TheMarsCydonia will be in blue.

* * * * *

P1. A position for which serious thinker have given consideration cannot be blithely dismissed.
P2. Holding a position for which serious thinker have given consideration is reasonable.
P3. Serious thinkers have given consideration to theism
C. Therefore, theism cannot be blithely dismissed and is reasonable (from p1-3).

You have spent two blog posts arguing for the above so I have little doubt you agree that the premises and therefore the conclusion are sound (I could be mistaken of course).

So the unanswered question remains, does argument apply to atheism?

P1. A position for which serious thinker have given consideration cannot be blithely dismissed.
P2. Holding a position for which serious thinker have given consideration is reasonable.
P3. Serious thinkers have given consideration to atheism
C. Therefore, atheism cannot be blithely dismissed and is reasonable (from p1-3).

Yep. I think atheism should be given serious consideration (which is why I have written a lot about it and have debated many atheists). It’s rational (in a broad sense), and atheists are generally very sharp and thoughtful people, but it starts from false premises, which is the problem. The castle is only as good as its foundation.

I was making the argument, of course, as to how belief in God is to be distinguished from belief in the tooth fairy and other imaginary figures, which is what is thrown at us.

And so I came up with the notion that many many great thinkers and philosophers have accepted and built up theism and theology, whereas there is no “tooth fairyology” or “leprechaunology.”

I’ve also maintained for many years that the problem of evil is the most serious objection to Christianity, and it is one of the primary atheist objections. So it is a serious objection from a serious position, that should be given serious consideration (and I have done so, with many treatments of it).

But don’t you think that the “Santa Claus argument” is simply a reductio ad absurdum variation of a lack of evidence argument? That saying comparing Santa Claus, feathered fishes, tooth fairy, etc. with God is invalid “because serious thinkers” is red herring that avoids actually answering the soundness of the premises?

Because really, what the “santa claus argument” is a “lack of sound justification argument”. And the aim is not to disprove the existence of god but to demonstrate that it is reasonable for atheists to withhold belief in god:

P1. It is reasonable to withhold acceptance of a position for which you have no sound justification for.
P2. Belief in the existence of Santa Claus has no sound justification
C. Therefore, it is reasonable to withhold acceptance of a position of belief the existence of in Santa Claus.

The “Santa/Tooth Fairy/etc.” is a comparison meant to use something for which theists will also agree with. I doubt theists (in general) will dispute P1 and P2 are sound and therefore the conclusion is sound.

The problem is when you flip the argument to another subject: God.

P1. It is reasonable to withhold acceptance of a position you have no sound justification for.
P2. Belief in the existence of God has no sound justification
C. Therefore, it is reasonable to withhold acceptance of a position of belief in the existence of God

This explains why atheists come to that conclusion. Theists then should have to explain why premise 2 is unsound. Saying “a lot of serious thinkers disagree with premises 2” doesn’t show that premise 2 is unsound, it just burden shifts the responsibility to the “serious thinkers”.

And all of the above concerns theism, not christianity. The problem of evil may be an objection to the existence with the characteristics of the classical christian god (and I agree that is a considerable problem) but not to a god “in general” (a deistic god or a god that is not omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and omnibenevolent).

The “Santa Claus argument” is not an argument against a particular and specific god but against the belief (and not the existence) in any god “in general”.

And the only foundation my atheism has is: “I have not been presented a convincing case (which means a sound case) that a god exist”. It has not other premise. If I could convince myself that a god exist without the case being sound we wouldn’t be having this conversation and I would still be a catholic.

Unfortunately there came a time when I realized that what I wished to be true and what I knew to be true were two different things and I could no longer pass the first as the second. In regards to Santa Claus, I made that realization when I was a kid. When it came to God it took me decades more.

Of course we deny that there is no evidence or justification or warrant for our beliefs. I compiled the various different arguments in hundreds of links, so people like you can peruse them if you wish. I have collected seven lengthy collections of links:

Cosmological Argument for God (Resources)

Teleological (Design) Argument for God (Resources)

Ontological Argument for God (Resources)

15 Theistic Arguments (Copious Resources)

Science and Christianity (Copious Resources)

Atheism & Atheology (Copious Resources)

God: Historical Arguments (Copious Resources)

The evidences and arguments are there for anyone who wishes to read them. But you can bring the horse to water; you can’t make it drink.

When the atheist claims there is no evidence whatsoever and no reason to be a Christian, then I produce this.

If they want to dismiss it all as of no import, they may. God gives them free will to do so if they so choose. The consequences will be dire, but they have the freedom.

All this does not nothing to really address the issue raised in my previous comment Mr. Armstrong:

Is the “Santa Claus argument” a valid argument for atheists to explain why they do not believe?

No. I don’t consider it serious argumentation. It is more along the lines of mere mockery and derisive dismissal. Hence, we see the unsavory accompanying attitudes (quite often) among those who utilize it.

Finding it mocking does nothing to invalidate the soundness of an argument. If that is the case, your whole “faith of atomism” post suffers from the same.

[not at all. See that post of mine, which is a true, legitimate reductio ad absurdum and turning the tables argument, with use of sarcasm and parody, and my lengthy defense of it against attacks and widespread miscomprehensions]

* * *

Is saying “serious thinkers have given consideration to” a proper rebuttal to it?

Yes. Like I said, if there were well-established academic fields of “tooth fairyology” or “leprechaunology” then the argument might have some weight. But since there are not . . .

I haven’t seen you respond to my point that is a red herring. Saying “other people disagree with the premise” does nothing the invalidate the premise. It just shifts the burden to someone else.

I’ll say again what I have stated over and over: the presence of a long and noble history of theistic thought among philosophers goes to show (I think) that theism as a worldview is vastly different in kind from “tooth fairyism” and “leprechaunism” (infinitely more substantiated academically and philosophically); not that theism is true (the latter would be the ad populum fallacy). Unless you grasp what I am dealing with and specifically what I am replying to when I make an argument, you won’t grasp the argument, because you have removed it from context. This is part of the reason why I refused to reply to your long counter-reply, because it had several frustrating errors of this sort, and I simply didn’t have the patience. I’m painstakingly careful and minute in argumentation, and many times, thoughts that you assumed were in my head or reasoning in making a particular argument had nothing whatsoever to do with it; never crossed my mind.

* * *

Its true that there remains some “leap of faith” with regard to any and all theistic arguments. They’re not airtight, but that is of small concern, since very few arguments of any sort or type are airtight.

I would say that the cosmological argument is strong and plausible because there seems to be no plausible alternative [i.e., explanation of the origin of the universe]. It’s by far the most plausible of the options available. And that makes it a strong argument.

* * *

The “is there evidence” is another question. Of course theists will say there is evidence. As you yourself said “95% or more of Christians are not convinced because of intellectual arguments” but once that’s pointed out to them, they will try to justify holding to their beliefs by claiming evidence or justification.

People are very good at finding intellectual arguments for conclusions they reached for non-intellectual reasons. The question then becomes, are those intellectual reasons sound?

Yes, but there is nothing necessarily wrong, fallacious, or improper about that. We all do that all the time, regarding things we don’t fully understand.

I agree, which is why there was this part too that you did not quote: “The question then becomes, are those intellectual reasons sound?”

I believe that when I turn on a light switch, that a light bulb will come on. In a remote sense, it’s a sort of faith. I may not know the ins and outs of electricity. If I learned those, I could later explain what I previously perceived on a more elementary level.

Piece of advice Mr. Armstrong, no atheists (generalization) takes that kind of equivalence seriously. I recommend avoid equating faith in a god with faith that the light will turn on when flipping a light switch.

Of course I didn’t do that (once again you are out to sea with one of my many analogies).

No analogy is perfect, of course, but this one was to believing in things we don’t fully understand, and later perhaps giving more intellectual reasons for it (replying directly to your statement); not an utter equation of “faith in God” with “faith in electricity”: which is ridiculous and not an “argument” I would ever advance.

* * *

Examples are legion. We trust our senses for giving us accurate information about the external world. Indeed, all of science is built upon this initial premise.

We all do that naturally. A baby can do it. Does that mean it’s not valid or trustworthy or “serious” until and unless we can fully explain it? Clearly not.

It’s only recently, in fact, that we have advanced in neuroscience to the extent that we can actually explain the particular processes that go into sight and storage of such information obtained by sight into our brains.

But we all had trusted our eyesight (and other senses) all those years before we had technical explanations of it. We had created modern science before we could “prove” all the ins and outs of sensory perception.

I have yet to meet any which is why I am still an atheist. Either you are convinced by the arguments or you are not. I find the arguments unconvincing because I find them unsound.

Take the cosmological argument. Even if all its premises were sound (they are not), it still is a leap to go from “there is an uncaused cause” to “that cause is God” as Thomas of Aquinas did.

I will actually be doing a presentation next week on theological arguments (cosmological, teleological, ontological and moral) and why they are not convincing.

* * *

I don’t think the errors are coming from where you think they are. It may be me but it seems that your “it’s more substantiated academically and philosophically” actually has little to do with the “Santa Claus argument”.

P1. It is reasonable to withhold acceptance of a position for which you have no sound justification for.
P2. Belief in the existence of Santa Claus has no sound justification
C1. Therefore, it is reasonable to withhold acceptance of a position of belief the existence of in Santa Claus.

This you agree with.

pA. It is reasonable to withhold acceptance of a position you have no sound justification for.
pB. Belief in the existence of God has no sound justification
cA. Therefore, it is reasonable to withhold acceptance of a position of belief in the existence of God

This you do not.

I unfortunately do not see how you support the second opinion. I’ll concede that to you, I really do not understand.

Of course I completely deny pB. The justification I would give is summarized in all of the theistic arguments I have compiled [see the list of seven links-posts above] (which cannot be compiled to defend Santa Claus, which was my initial point). I think those provide plenty of justification and warrant for theism and Christianity.

Also, when I say “reasonable” I’m not using it as a synonym for “true.” Remember, above, I stated that I thought atheism was reasonable, but I certainly don’t think it is true or even plausible.

In other words, I’m saying that it is a reasonable viewpoint (very broadly speaking) that can be argued with / by means of serious rational arguments, as opposed to pure irrationality. I deny several of its premises, and therefore, its conclusions.

This is what I strive to get atheists to see regarding Christianity. We utilize reason; we love reason; we love science; we love evidence. We don’t espouse blind faith, but rather, a rationally informed faith, not inconsistent at all with either reason or science. We’re not against any of those good things. We simply come to different conclusions than atheists do.

Yet it seems that the majority of atheists regard us as purely irrational, gullible, infantile. Many Christians think that of atheists, or that they are also invariably evil and wicked.

Both attitudes are dead wrong.

Atheism & Agnosticism

Philosophy & Science

Trinitarianism & Christology

ad populum fallacy

agnosticism

Atheism

Philosophy of Religion

religious epistemology

theistic argumnts

Previous Post

November 17, 2015

Annulment: Essentially Different from a “Catholic Divorce”

Next Post

November 17, 2015 Dialogue on Religious Epistemology with an Agnostic

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category & Last Things About Me Anti-Catholicism Atheism & Agnosticism Baptism and Sacramentalism Bible and Tradition Blessed Virgin Mary Books by Dave Armstrong C. S. Lewis Calvinism & General Protestantism Catholic Apologetics Catholic Apologists Catholic conversion Catholic converts Christmas Church (Ecclesiology) Church History Conversion and Converts Development of Doctrine Eastern Orthodoxy Ecumenism & Christian Unity Eucharist & Liturgy Fathers of the Church French Translations G. K. Chesterton Hell Hell & Satan Hell & Satan & Last Things Heresies & Comparative Religion Holistic Health Inquisition & Crusades & Scandals James White Jews & Judaism & Old Testament John Calvin John Henry Newman Liberal / Modernist Theology Life Issues Literary Resume Lutheranism Mariology Martin Luther Music Orthodoxy Papacy & Infallibility Personal Page Philosophy & Science Political & Ethical & Moral Issues Protestant Persecution & Intolerance Protestantism Purgatory Purgatory & Penance Romantic & Imaginative Theology Saints & Purgatory & Penance Salvation Salvation & Justification Satan & Last Things Sexuality and Gender Issues Spanish Translations Traditionalism vs. Radical Catholic Reactionaries Traducciones al español / tradução para português Trinitarianism & Christology Uncategorized Videos

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 April 2010 March 2010 December 2009 October 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 March 2009 February 2009 October 2008 September 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 May 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 October 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 July 2004 May 2004 April 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz