I'm coming at this, having read The God Virus by Darrel Ray.

What I have here is a hypothesis for the real reason why kids are taught to believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny...

Mythological children's figures, like Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny are used to prime children's minds to make them ready receptacles for the God virus. It plants the idea in their heads that it's OK and encouraged to believe in fantastical figures with absolutely zero evidence, and rewards them for doing so with toys and games and candy and fun!

Eventually, when they're a little older, the kids learn that the mythological figures aren't real, but by that time, the damage has been done, the mind has been primed for unquestioning belief, and if they question Jesus the same way they question Santa Claus, the God virus's defense mechanisms kick in, and out come the punishments, the threats of Hellfire, the ostracism, etc. etc. etc.

That's my hypothesis. Am I close to the truth on this?

To be honest, I’m not really sure where the truth lies (if it's anywhere at all).

When a parent tells his/her kid about Santa, is the reason behind it so consciously contrived, or is it just a bit of pleasure-giving fun? Maybe the modern myth started out as an indoctrination tool (open to debate), but I personally think the Santa story is more about tradition and habit than anything else (at least here in the UK). Like many other Christmas habits it is done because it is done, because it is done.

I know there is a school of thought that states children shouldn’t be lied to no matter what happens, but I also think it’s important that they should also be aware of the role of myth in society. I also think that if a child is unaware of the power of the lie, then this is a serious handicap to him/her when going out into the world: A chicken ripe for the plucking, no less. There’s no better place to find out about the power of myth than our relatively harmless old friend, the Coca-Cola Santa.

Certainly I am as guilty as many other atheist or agnostic parents with this. I played along with this myth to my son. When (at 5 years old) he managed to figure out that there was no Santa (that bastard Bart Simpson told him! ) this presented him with no emotional scars. This was especially true when he also was informed that his gift quotient would be unaffected.

IMHO the positioning of religious indoctrination has far more to do with general family upbringing. My son has been brought up in a non-believing family, and has just turned 21 without a religious bone in his body. I wouldn’t have objected to him joining a church, he just doesn’t seem to need the crutch.

I can offer no evidence other than my own personal experience for the above. I can’t see how a question like this can be tackled any other way.

meldroc wrote:I'm coming at this, having read The God Virus by Darrel Ray.

What I have here is a hypothesis for the real reason why kids are taught to believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny...

Mythological children's figures, like Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny are used to prime children's minds to make them ready receptacles for the God virus. It plants the idea in their heads that it's OK and encouraged to believe in fantastical figures with absolutely zero evidence, and rewards them for doing so with toys and games and candy and fun!

Eventually, when they're a little older, the kids learn that the mythological figures aren't real, but by that time, the damage has been done, the mind has been primed for unquestioning belief, and if they question Jesus the same way they question Santa Claus, the God virus's defense mechanisms kick in, and out come the punishments, the threats of Hellfire, the ostracism, etc. etc. etc.

That's my hypothesis. Am I close to the truth on this?

It does not seem very likely. To start with Santa Claus and Tooth Fairies appear to be post christian inventions- can you imagine they would have sneaked past the Inquisition? I would think that they are examples of 2 natural human impulses, firstly to exert parental control without instilling terror and secondly to re-enchant the world when most of us live in cities in thrall to consumerism.

Children live largely in a world of fantasy, enjoying imaginative games, imaginary friends, and imaginary stories/movies/shows. The imaginary and supernatural has a natural (albeit irrational) appeal to them.

I've been introducing my 7 year-old to magic and teaching her magic tricks in order to develop a healthy skepticism about magical claims, showing her that what appears to be magic is actually tricks - illusions that take advantage of perceptual biases. We talk a lot about how the magician's art fools our eyes.

Even though she recognizes the difference between the real and the fantastical on a rational, conscious level, she sometimes gets quite upset at me when I go the whole nine yards and state that I don't believe in magic. I worry that disabusing her of certain beliefs too suddenly may be a bit too emotionally upsetting for her. Thus I try to lay the groundwork, and let her work out her own solutions when she's ready. I suppose that I should read up on developmental psychology, but I assume that magical belief is a perfectly healthy, normal and harmless thing. It only gets kids primed for religious belief if there's no skeptical intervention somewhere along the way (or if the family is religious, of course).

Last night, while we were reading a book about a magic pony, we talked again about magic, and she got angry - because if I didn't believe in magic, then I can't believe in Santa Claus. I wormed my way out of that one, mainly because Xmas is close, and I'm perfectly fine seeing her delight in a little harmless fantasy. Ultimately, I want her eventually to come to the conclusion herself rather than simply believe everything that I say is true.

I'm no psychologist (thats for sure ), but allowing children to make up their own minds in as many things as possible is the very essence of good mental health IMHO.

Good points - Playing with the Santa myth with the kids can serve as innoculation against the God virus - sort of like immunizing against smallpox by infecting with cowpox. If I ever have kids, I'll probably do that.

I do still wonder if theistic parents still use these myths to prime kids to believe in God - making it acceptable to believe in things without evidence. If a kid can believe in Santa using faith alone, he can believe in Jesus on faith alone.

Yeah, I could also see it as a way to build critical thinking as they get older. They will begin to doubt and ask questions, and I would think that would be a great time to develop some of the skills they will need to determine BS in the future.

I notice that most contributors in this thread have titled their posts "Santa Claus used to prime children to accept the God Vir".

I have to say I am quite insulted, I exist! Don't you dare try and downgrade me to god status, thank you very much!

Ian Tattum wrote:It does not seem very likely. To start with Santa Claus and Tooth Fairies appear to be post christian inventions- can you imagine they would have sneaked past the Inquisition? I would think that they are examples of 2 natural human impulses, firstly to exert parental control without instilling terror and secondly to re-enchant the world when most of us live in cities in thrall to consumerism.

I agree. Humans enjoy storytelling and make believe, especially as children.

I got called a bad parent for saying that I will educate my child to accept Santa Claus as a fiction story to be enjoyed like any other. For example, kids pretending to be Ben 10 and such. There's no need to lie for your child to enjoy the story and wonder of the christmas holiday time.

To extend my comments above:

My daughter and I had a lovely chat last night about Noah's Ark - we just couldn't figure how Noah got down to Antarctica to save all those penguin species. Of course, 'tis the season, so the conversation got around to Santa Claus: she says that some kids at school say that he's not real. She smiled and said that she knows he's real because he gave her a kitchen set at Mommy's house last year. Not wanting to be a grinch (and wishing to avoid a confrontation with my ex), I just smiled back and said nothing.

On the one hand, I feel a touch guilty. On the other, I know that when she's ready, she'll drop the belief, and we can talk about Santa as a fictional character, just like the unicorns she knows aren't real. For now, she's having a lot of fun with the fantasy. And as a parent, having invisible elf spies peeking in the windows now and then is useful in modifying any occasionally recalcitrant behavior. Cynical, I know...

I am inclined to agree with the voices that disagree with the OP - the Santa belief is a false belief that children are taught, and one which is exposed (or they figure it out themselves) pretty soon. That's likely to teach children that 'everything mom and dad says is not true', rather than the idea that you should consider everything they say infallible.

i sussed the tooth fairy first. little fucker never paid me for me teeth.

jaydot wrote:i sussed the tooth fairy first. little fucker never paid me for me teeth.

My kid recently lost a bottom tooth and accidentally broke it in two. She really pulled one over on the Tooth Fairy at her mom's by putting a half under her pillow one night, and the other half the next - double the profit for one tooth.

Agreed,

You cannot teach critical thinking without introducing some of the common falsehoods. It probably doesn't matter too much whether it is ghosts, goblins or santa claus, children can hardly be expected to appraise their own and others assertions without the valuable lesson of believing something that just ain't so.

The question arises as to whether as a parent you should be seen to be directly involved in promulgating said myths - since this helps undermine your childrens' trust in you, so encouraging rebellion? But perhaps it is a good thing that children reject their parents worldview!

ChasM wrote:
My kid recently lost a bottom tooth and accidentally broke it in two. She really pulled one over on the Tooth Fairy at her mom's by putting a half under her pillow one night, and the other half the next - double the profit for one tooth.

cute. kid's a smart cookie.

That's the best thread Title I've seen all day apart from my own.

Triffic. I'm going to bed, it's always good to quit while you are ahead.

jaygray wrote:To be honest, I’m not really sure where the truth lies (if it's anywhere at all).

If the truth lied then it wouldn't be the truth.

On a more formal tone, you're "hypothesis" is wrong because young children, who actually believe Santa exists, obviously have not clearly defined fiction and reality in their minds. This is a developmental stage in life. So there will be many ideas which they believe to be real, which are just fiction. For instance young children often assert that monsters (which they have mentally designed) are real. And if you were to ask some children whether they think that Peppa Pig or a toy of Buzz Lightyear could actually come to life, they would respond affirmatively.
However, as people develop and get older these old ideas are abandoned simply because the child's reasoning skills have developed and they ideas have not been reinforced by authoritative figures which they trust. Therefore, Santa primes children for the "god virus" no more than Peppa Pig or Toy Story does. The reason why the "god virus" is not abandoned is because the concept is reinforced and not negated by their parents e.t.c
So, perhaps we should also say: the "Peppa Pig virus" and the "Toy Story virus" and the "monster-under-the-bed virus"?

YHWH wrote:

jaygray wrote:To be honest, I’m not really sure where the truth lies (if it's anywhere at all).

If the truth lied then it wouldn't be the truth.

Aha! A humorous (almost Shakespearian) pun: I hope you feel better for it. If you were not being humorous, perhaps the use of a decent grammer or semantics book will assist you with the context of my sentence?

YHWH wrote:On a more formal tone, you're "hypothesis" is wrong because young children, who actually believe Santa exists, obviously have not clearly defined fiction and reality in their minds. This is a developmental stage in life. So there will be many ideas which they believe to be real, which are just fiction. For instance young children often assert that monsters (which they have mentally designed) are real. And if you were to ask some children whether they think that Peppa Pig or a toy of Buzz Lightyear could actually come to life, they would respond affirmatively.
However, as people develop and get older these old ideas are abandoned simply because the child's reasoning skills have developed and they ideas have not been reinforced by authoritative figures which they trust. Therefore, Santa primes children for the "god virus" no more than Peppa Pig or Toy Story does.

I don't think you've demonstrated that anyone's hypothesis is wrong (in inverted commas or otherwise), you have merely provided variations on themes already raised.

Incidentally, my 'hypothesis' was about bringing my own son up, and I was not addressing the so-called 'god virus' in the main body of my post. The only time I addressed it was in the context of religious indoctrination:

jaygray wrote:IMHO the positioning of religious indoctrination has far more to do with general family upbringing.

which also appears to be what you are saying:

YHWH wrote: The reason why the "god virus" is not abandoned is because the concept is reinforced and not negated by their parents e.t.c

So if that part is wrong (as you seem to suggest in your unjustifiably sweeping assertion), you are either contradicting yourself, or you are also unaware of where the truth lies.

It's etc. by the way. Looks like omnipresence doesn't quite stretch to syntax

YHWH wrote:So, perhaps we should also say: the "Peppa Pig virus" and the "Toy Story virus" and the "monster-under-the-bed virus"?

Heck, why not? It would make the title more cumbersome though. I recommend we stick to the 'god-virus': It is the Christmas season after all.