The Atheist's Guide to Christmas

[rug]

DECEMBER 21, 2013
BY ISAAC CHOTINER

With the Yuletide season upon us, America is once again engaged in the standard asinine debates about the holiday: Is Santa white? Is that decorated green perennial at the mall supposed to be called a "holiday treet"? If you neglect to say the word "Christmas" when conveying good wishes to a stranger of uncertain religious background, are you part of a noxious war against the sacred holiday?

Insofar as the December holiday has become a culture-war touchstone, I suspect it has something to do with increased pominence of atheism in American life. Religiously neutral seasonal greetings were one thing when they were about being respectful to Jewish neighbors—but, at least in some corners of the country, it's something else entirely when the respect is being directed towards the faithless.

On the other hand, Christmas can be confusing for atheists, too. Minority religious groups in Christian countries have had centuries to develop their own approaches to December 25—my colleague Marc Tracy just made the case for the joys of being Jewish on this holiday—but for atheists, there's no established formula, let alone something that's had time to evolve into a Chinese-food-and-a-movie cliche.

With all this in mind, I decided to call up Deborah Mitchell, the author of the forthcoming book Growing Up Godless: A Parent’s Guide to Raising Kids Without Religion. Mitchell covers everything from the basis of morality to prayer, but I was especially interested in how she suggests nonbelieving parents talk to their children about Santa, religion, and the meaning of this special time of year. In short, here is your atheist’s guide to Christmas.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116003/atheists-guide-christmas-how-talk-kids-about-santa-jesus

[cleanhippie]

1. This won't go over well with some of our resident "all opinions are equally valid" crowd.

On another level, Jesus actually wasn’t the son of God and I should state that as a fact rather than say you can choose and all opinions are equally valid.

IC: You want your kids to be open-minded but you also don’t want to tell them that every opinion is equally valid.

She is right, of course.

[rug]

2. "Valid" has an interesting etymology.

valid (adj.) 1570s, "having force in law, legally binding," from Middle French valide, from Latin validus "strong, effective," from valere "be strong" (see valiant). The meaning "supported by facts or authority" is first recorded 1640s.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=valid

The original meaning has significant consequences while the more recent one is academically interesting.

[cleanhippie]

4. The current contextual use that implies "true" seems most significant.

While etymology is interesting as a subject of study, the contemporary use of the word in the context of the topic at hand makes a specific implication.

[rug]

5. To be presise, the word does not mean true. It means "supported by facts or authority".

Both of those change and have changed over time.

[cleanhippie]

7. Fair enough. But she is right.

On another level, Jesus actually wasn’t the son of God and I should state that as a fact rather than say you can choose and all opinions are equally valid.

IC: You want your kids to be open-minded but you also don’t want to tell them that every opinion is equally valid.

Do you agree with her?

[rug]

8. Essentially I do. Note, she said "equally valid".

I don't agree with her, obviously, on her first statement. That must always be stated as a matter of faith rather than fact.

[cleanhippie]

9. Must be stated as a matter of faith by those that choose to believe it, right?

[rug]

14. The statement is based on faith.

Anyone who claims - or critiques - it as a matter of empiricism is engaging in idle conversation.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. Um. No. Not even close.

[rug]

15. Given this post lacks any content, I deem it invalid.

[AtheistCrusader]

17. It is not a matter of faith that "Jesus actually wasn’t the son of God"

It's a matter of faith to claim that he IS.

[rug]

19. That's correct but it's semantical. She's denying the claim made by others.

Assuming of course she didn't come up with the idea of Jesus in the first place.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. Since when is dismissing someone's claim a matter of faith?

Positive claims require evidence. Not recognizing unsubstantiated claims isn't a matter of faith. CANNOT be a matter of faith.

[rug]

22. You said that. I said the claim itself is a matter of faith.

You can dismiss it all you want but you can't claim the dismissal is a matter of empiricism.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. Yes I can.

You can have absolute faith you have a living elephant in your pocket. Proclaim it from the rooftops. Believe it in your heart, that your very salvation relies upon there being an elephant in your pocket.

I can look at you and see, there is no elephant in your pocket, and dismiss your claim empirically.


Just as I can empirically evaluate the claims of Christianity, or Islam, or any other number of religions.

[rug]

25. Shallow analogy.

If the claim is there is an elephant in your pocket, the claim itself is defined empirically. Look in pocket. Elephant absent. Empirical claim disproved empirically.

These tactics are fine if the claim itself is empiric but they're sophomoric if the claim is not empiric, such as a transcendent supernatural claim that the universe was created by a conscious god.

Do you really find that concept so hard to grasp?

[AtheistCrusader]

27. If we can empirically show the Universe does not require a supernatural creator?

What then?

What of claims made in the bible about heredity (goats/striped/painted sticks) that can be shown to be completely untrue?

Every religion that I am aware of has made fatal, poison pill claims to build a false narrative of not one what, but WHY. They build and they turn and build some more, 'it's turtles all the way down'.

We can see no need for a turtle to explain anything at all. Moreover, we can't see the turtle.

The gospels of the new testament make claims that are not independently verifiable. On the one hand, Christians want to use obscure, tenuous references in 3rd party sources to establish the existence of a man called jesus/Christ, etc. But they overlook the dearth of support for things like, all the saints rising from their graves in Jerusalem and walking the streets.

The claims of christianity, all moral questions aside (which it fails anyway for scapegoating) are no more substantial than Russell's Teapot. It is not a matter of faith to dismiss either.

It would require me to accept at least partial burden of proof in the face of Christian supernatural claims, for me to be acting on faith in dismissing them.

I, of course, accept no such burden.

[rug]

31. That would not discredit it any more than evolution discredits the notion of creation.

Necessity and choice are two different things.

As to the rest of your post, these are old arguments. Didactic and metaphorical language are not really answered by microscopes and genomes.

You of course are under no obligation to believe the claims but you can't really credibly state that you have rebutted them by citing theorems of physics or biological principles.

[cbayer]

3. Good read.

I love how inclusive she is in her approach to this, while still conveying her preferred message to her kids. And I love the way she enjoys christmas and, in doing so, provides her kids with an opportunity to enjoy it.

I would guess this is a good book all the way around for atheist parents.

[cleanhippie]

6. As one that advocates for all opinions being equally valid, how do you reconcile her contrary POV?

On another level, Jesus actually wasn’t the son of God and I should state that as a fact rather than say you can choose and all opinions are equally valid.

IC: You want your kids to be open-minded but you also don’t want to tell them that every opinion is equally valid.

Do you agree with her?

[AtheistCrusader]

11. Yeah, because I'm so stupid I need a fucking manual.

[cbayer]

12. What? Parents use books all the time to help

them when raising their kids. They don't come with instruction manuals and they are just about as complicated as it gets.

And when you are raising a child in a home where some things may be different from the other kids (whether it's having 2 same sex parents or one without religion or any number of things), guidance can be really valuable.

Why the hostility? It's not like this is a comment on your intelligence. She seems like an insightful person who has been through this and may have some good information.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. I didn't see any good info in the synopsis.

Religious or otherwise, dancing around the issue of death is stupid. (One example)

This book is a waste of money.

[cbayer]

16. Wow. That's an interesting take but she seems like a good

and genuine person who has raised a child in an atheist household in an admirable way.

[AtheistCrusader]

18. I'm not aware of any intrinsic quality about atheism that requires adaptation

to raise a child. There's nothing unique here. Christmas is stone simple in the US. Hardly anything religious about it at all.

There's nothing special about teaching a child who happens to be non-theistic about interfacing with people of faith that isn't true of a Christian child, interfacing with people of other faiths.

[cbayer]

20. If you have a child who goes to a school in which their lack

of religious beliefs (or parents lack of religious beliefs) put them in a clear minority, (or worse yet in a position where they may be harassed or bulled), then some adaptations may be necessary.

Dan Savage has been a great role model for raising a child in a home with same sex parents. I think many are grateful for his insights and experience.

I think that you are right about teaching children about interfacing with kids that may be different than they are or might come from homes that are different. The more kids learn about it and have contact with those that are different, the better it will be.

I'm at a loss to really understand where you are coming from on this.

[AtheistCrusader]

23. I'm an atheist and a parent. With a kid about to hit 5.

That's where I'm coming from.

Some of the lead-in to the story seems highly offensive. You can be an atheist AND culturally jewish. You can be an atheist AND pagan. Culture and religion are not mutually exclusive, and the trappings of each can be shared.

Atheists do not manifest whole out of a vacuum, fully armed for battle like Athena from Zeus's brow.

How ignorant do these authors/commentators think we are?

[cbayer]

26. Well, I hope your child doesn't face any negativity due to having an atheist

parent. I hope you live in a community where that is not an issue at all. I hope that in the future all kids will.

But it is for some kids and some families.

Of course culture and religion are not mutually exclusive. It's can be very complicated or not complicated at all.

It's too bad you found this offensive. Don't get the book. I think other parents will and some kids might benefit from it.

Frankly, I think you are misreading this.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. It will be an issue, probably. Something is always an issue.

I think you may have misunderstood me, however. I don't find the book offensive. I found the intro claims/article on the New Republic to be typically offensive and insulting.

I think the book is wasteful and useless.

[cbayer]

29. You find the New Republic to be offensive and insulting in general?

I get more confused by the minute.

Well, nice talking to you.

[AtheistCrusader]

30. Most publications, on this topic.

Not TNR specifically. In fact, they did a really nice piece on Dawkins, not too long ago. I was just identifying between the content of the article and the content of the book.