Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy Exist
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 ก.ย. 2024
- We help people understand how beings that are not concrete and measurable, can nonetheless exist, and inevitably so.
Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are often the examples used by atheists to explain how they have come to not believe in imaginary beings who do not exist and that it was the same process which led them to stop believing in God.
patreon: / pageauvideos
paypal: www.paypal.me/...
website: www.pageaucarvi...
facebook: / jonathanpageau
twitter: / pageaujonathan
All those years not believing in Santa Claus. All those wasted years...
Roy The Mac
Hahaha I love this comment.
Good one haha
anything we give energy to in this MATRIX becomes real.
did women become gods as satan promised eve? sure they did. we give them all our energy...even worship
Brilliant angle to take. Makes so much sense this way. Thank you!
The virgin santa denier vs. the chad santa believer.
the Pageau fairy puts insight and understanding under my pillow every week
This is the most perfect comment. I lolled :)
Hahahahahahaha!! 😄🤣😄🤣
Same
"The phases of life: You believe in Santa; you don't believe in Santa; you are Santa."
The third stage comes about by looking in the mirror and screaming as it begins to snow outside
This is the plot to the film Santa Clause
@@MachoMaamRandallSandwich right except it’s the horror film it was always meant to be
@@XmassWraith why would santa claus scream at snow?
@@notloki3377 He isn’t screaming at the snow. See, once he screams it’ll cut away to a shot of outside and the snow falling as his screaming is heard in the distance.
Now I have a great way to explain Santa to kids WITHOUT lying to them! Gracias Jonathan.
This is a long video about nothing.
“Santa Claus” was based on a real person. His name was St. Nick and he was said to be a legend for traveling around and giving away his inherited wealth. He was a Greek bishop born around 280 AD in Patra (Roman Empire) near Myra which is now in modern-day Turkey. Nick was a fiery defendant of the Christian doctrine, especially in 303 AD when bibles were burned and priests were forced to renounce a Christianity or face persecution. The name Santa Claus means Saint Nick (Klaus/Claus is an anglicized abbreviation of the name Nicholas or Nikolaos in Greek). He is depicted as Northern European even though it’s the opposite of reality/history.
@@ImOk... That really has nothing to do with the video.. It seems you missed the point completely
@@7ilver Are you sure you’re not understanding correctly?
@@ImOk... Im sure. I watched countless of his videos and read the book his brother wrote. The point of the video exists independent of Santa that's why he was able to use the Tooth Fair or a Chair as an example along side Santa. Providing historical context behind the origin of Santa is nice but doesn't relate to the point of the video whatsoever.
The Truth Fairy puts wisdom under your pillow.
The video succinctly describes my suspicion on the flaw of objectively viewing the world. I was an atheist(as in I want to view the world as objectively as possible). But I encounter the "rock" problem. Let's ask the question if a rock exists? Technically, no. What you really have is a collection of quarks arranging themselves into protons and neutrons circling by a cloud of electrons that arranged themselves into an energetically stable configuration that gives rise to their periodic structural lattice which we then calls a crystal and the collection of crystals that clumps together through Van der Waals force is what known colloquially as a 'Rock'. A rock is merely the conceptual representation of the arrangements of quarks in a very very very specific ways, just like Santa Claus is a conceptual representation of a very very very specific network of electrons moving around in the neurons of around 2 billion people(Christians). A rock's existence is no more valid than the way we perceive it and if our perception is what makes something real, the permanent rise of something like Santa Claus must therefore be real too by definition. You can say its not real because you can't weigh it.
There's something you can't weight too. TH-cam. Does TH-cam exist? What TH-cam really is from an objective point of view is a collection of sequentially firing of nano-sized transistors in a computer/server. You can't measure TH-cam nor can you weigh it. You can obviously weigh the electrical charge on all the transistor that involved in generating TH-cam, or the staffs from the Janitor to the CEO of TH-cam, or perhaps the weight in gold its revenue represents. But is TH-cam merely the firings of transistors, or the company staff that runs it, or the staff that runs its parent company Alphabet Inc., or is it the culmination of our collective consciousness manifesting via the generation and viewership of TH-cam content that makes up TH-cam? Or is it just Quarks? Technically yes. But it's not a helpful analysis.
"Let's ask the question if a rock exists? Technically, no."
It exists. The fact that the rock can be ontologically reduced to quarks doesn't mean the rock doesn't exist, which is our denotation for that collection of quarks in that manner. That reference however, is not the referent itself, nor relevant for the actual existence of the referent.
You guys wouldn't pass a graduate level ontology class and are impressed by postmodern blabbering. It usually ends the minute physical harm or money is involved.
Wow man that's really helpful way of explaining it, thanks
There's two categories ; everything and nothing; and the latter doesn't exist... Go ahead point to nothing ...
@@malchir4036 This comes down to materialism vs idealism and that argument is a little bit older than postmodernism.
@@malchir4036 how does this refute the existance of Santa? If your argument is denotation, than it's just a definition problem. Well, we define Santa therefore he exists.
I _really_ loved the story of your daughter and the tooth fairy. Thank you Jonathan. Sometimes children are much wiser than we think.
Makes you wonder if age brings us anything that we don't already own.
Your mouth is your helper, and the mall Santa is... Santa's helper.
This brings so much more depth to “god is dead and we’ve killed him” and “there is no such thing as govt, just people acting as govt”...among others. Thank you.
This is without a doubt one of the best videos I've seen in a very long time. I've not yet come across any thinker who explains these concepts with the wit, brevity and humour that you do, Jonathan. All of your work should be compulsory viewing for anyone remotely interested in the times we live in, because your videos above all others that I have seen truly shine a light on the dark age we currently live in. By which I mean that the world as presented by the materialists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins is so drab, 2D and lifeless in contrast to the rich tapestry of being that you describe.
Can I just add that I became a Christian in my late 20s because all throughout my childhood and early adulthood, although it was cool to be atheist, I couldn't help but intuit that there was much more to this universe than meets the eye. It is such a relief to find that I am not the only person who has noticed this, and a pure delight to have its geography laid out in so lively and vivacious a manner. Thank you, brother!
What? His argument is that Santa exists because the little girl believes he does for a brief moment in a shopping mall. For something to "exist" it needs to satisfy the full definition of the word, not just a warm and fuzzy moment in time. The little girl's belief in a fairy tale is not enough. She isn't aware the adults made up the story, and paid a man to dress up in a suit. When Santa only exists for an ignorant child at the shopping mall, Santa most certainly does not exist. As for God, we don't have higher intelligent beings to ask, but if we did, there's a very good chance they'd inform us that God doesn't exist in the way described by popular religions.
@@chaiTV I agree his take falls short, cuz while we collectively co-create a giant world-spanning puppet-ghost of "Santa" who exists, for sure, in the realm of "mankind's imagination" or something, that puppet has no agency of it's own, so is a bad springboard to argue for the reality of a human Soul or an Eternal God...
@@Lu11abi This is phenomenology. You're coming at it from a materialist view of consciousness, which is metaphysical, not scientific.
@@Lu11abi he has no agency? Where is the pattern of the Santa Claus located materialistically? Is the whole santa in my head? Are the parts of the Santa distributed through all of our heads, and their sum is the whole?
Its not in the little girl's imagination. It came from outside her
@@chaiTV that's not what he said.
I actually shed a tear at the tooth fairy story. Beautifully put.
The fact you can talk that way with children makes me smile
About Santa - good demonstration of how phenomenological method works.
Скрытый смысл how exactly does the phenomenological method work? I know it starts with from the first person perspective.
Nico Dez - I can't answer this question, but this conversation between John and his brother might come close: th-cam.com/video/0VIRA6T33o4/w-d-xo.html
His book seems to provide a profound mindset shift to be able to see the world in a phenomenalogical way (in a way that not even John understood before reading it).
I haven't read it myself, but I'd like to.
Nico Dez, it is a consistent reduction of the semantic layers - "levels of being", as a result of which we come to the essence (Santa) that is manifested in them.
I thought phenomenological observation Just means the way it is observed.
So for instance the earth is flat, phenomenologically speaking...because that’s how we observe it when walking around on it.
The question is...do parents exists?
waterglass21 - does DNA exist?
Parents are a tool of the patriarchy, a social construct. ;)
Parents are merely a medium for Santa Claus to touch our hearts.
Yes, but we speak merely to the mouthpiece of the meta-parent.
They don't wanna include me in their superhero web cosplay.
I suppose things would get too heavy.
Being cross +rigger
I recently discovered your channel thanks to a tweet from J.B.Peterson. I'm glad i found it, your videos are so interesting.
Your analysis are easily understandable and brilliant.
I was as an adolescent a deep nihilistic atheist and as i'm growing up, i'm more and more fascinated by the meaning of life, the symbolic of human experience. What does it mean to be part of the human being journey. As you open my understanding, i'm more and more agreable with faithful people. Faithful people who understand why they believe, who thought hard about what it means to believe.
I can't find pleasure anymore to speak with a nihilistic guy who has no purpose in his life.
You have my thanks from France, more people here should see your work as we are the European champions of nihilisim, materialism and post-modernism mixed chaos.
Have a nice day Jonathan
"To me it seems completely absurd to say Santa Claus doesn't exist. Because, obviously, Santa Claus exists."
*cut to intro*
Well played, Jonathan. Well played.
I really like your videos, man; very insightful, each of them. Keep at it; keep doing God's work.
You just changed my life. Merry Christmas!
You know, I never really stopped believing in the Three Wise Men even when my mother told me that she was the one placing the gifts. I knew their spirits existed, and my mother placing the gifts was a consequence of their existence.
This video is highly underrated. It actually summarizes The Symbolic World in a way anyone can understand. Btw, check out Akira the Don's music video of this too :D
Please pray for Joe everybody, he’s had a rough year
My neighbor told the Christmas story to her 3 year old son at the time, then when they went to the mall and he saw Santa there he said "Look mommy! It's Jesus!"
"Because obviously Santa Claus exists"
rap_battle_black_people_react.mpg
Empire of Autism lmao
PSYCH_das_the_wrong_number.mpg
@@mrwtfwhy lol
Santa Claus is not one physical deity. But instead is made up of the carols and the laughs who are in reference to Santa Claus. Santa Claus is made up of the people who dress up as him, the figure in children's minds who put the presents under the tree (the mystery and delightful anticipation accompanying the night before Christmas) - the old man on the street who wishes you a merry Christmas and as you walk past him, laughs; oh oh oh oh. Santa Claus is the personification of Christmas, and to say he doesn't exist is like saying Christmas doesn't exist. Santa Claus is the spirit of Christmas.
I never thought of it like this; thank you; insightful video and you put a smile to my face.
I've always given my children presents under the guise of being Santa, and now I realise I was Santa; I was a manifestation of him. I'm always going to play Santa and when my children grow old I'll tell them what you have told me in the hope that they shall do the same.
I now believe again in Santa.
This is the best video (of those I've seen) by you so far.
Great job!
I think the same pragmatical argument could be made to rationalist types in this way "Are numbers real? If not, why do you insist on using them? Does the amount of utility you get out of treating them as something 'real'-like make them more or less real?"
I think this would be effective as most of them are sciency types and have lots of experience with numbers.
That is a very good way to look at it.
lajexander
Numbers are only a concept in your head. If you want to include concepts in your head as being real, then they are real. The same goes for santa and god, as they are only concepts in your head. Why would the utility of an idea have anything to do with how real it is? Is a number more or less real than a Realicorn? If utility equals realness then why are we talking about ideas being real? We should be talking about their usefulness.
Santa (the idea) is useful because it keeps children in line during christmas season. God (the idea) is useful because we don't want people masturbating or being gay. They are watching.
Killface Killer That was a great reply until the last seven words. Then it became the best 🤣
There are massive differences between believing in God and Santa; Santa only exists as a role/character because humans invented him, God is more than a role or a character and exists regardless of humans. The reason an Atheist said to me that he rejected Christianity was because his parents, like you, treat it with the same level of realness as Santa (and so he never had the motivation or divine experience to make his faith personal). Unless I remember incorrectly: Jesus is a separate entity from the church (also called the Body of Christ). Yes people can characterize Christ, fulfill his roles, be his tools, but they're still physically parts of the Church. The Church is joined/married with Christ, but that doesn't mean the members of the Church have become Christ.
Jonathan, I think your argument is pretty solid, but it left me wondering about consciousness. Surely we cannot deny the existence of a BELIEF in the spirit of a culturally-dependent entity called Santa Claus, nor the fact that people who adhere to that culture act out his existence, in Petersonian terms. What I don't understand - and I'm not saying you've implied that this is possible in the video at all - is how one could make a leap from a phenomenological existence of a belief in Santa Claus, and the fact that he does have objective properties, to the conclusion that this entity possesses consciousness or, if you will, a soul. I ask this, of course, because this leap would be necessary in order to formulate a phenomenological claim of the existence of God, which, again, I don't think you're explicitly trying to prove here. Do you think that leap is possible or is consciousness not encompassed in this ontology?
Thank you for the video. Great stuff.
Good Q
I think that maybe Saint Nicholas existed and that Santa Claus is somewhat/somehow tied to that spirit/soul. The life of Saint Nick and the mythos of Santa are from the same spirit. Saint Nick did not know that he would become Santa after his death, but his hope/prayer for the world encompassed such a heart and idea for the whole world. Maybe, just maybe, his prayers for the world were answered and He is able to still use his hands and his feet today after his death...through his soul/spirit.
You could argue that the collective mental effort and physical actions of people believing in Santa Claus forms a distributed mind/soul. Kind of like how an ant hive has a distributed mind that vastly exceeds what any individual ant has going on their individual nervous systems. If the combined efforts of ant minds can form such an impressive super-mind, just how impressive is one formed by human minds?
I love the intro. Always gives me the chills :)
I have been falling in love with your channel and content. Some of it is over my head in understanding, but there's a spark of curiosity and a sense of truth that seems to settle into my being. Especially during these dark times, it was your videos that i was guided to watch that helped me come out of a dark spell that i had been stuck in for a few weeks. I began knowing nothing about Orthodox faith, and now I find myself asking all sorts of questions to my inner dialogue. Thanks for sharing your light. Merry Christmas.
Dear Journal. I have reached the pinnacle of enlightenment. I now believe in santa claus and the tooth fairy.
Don’t try to explain this in a first date.
Love your work, Jonathan. This is a unique channel with an important scope of content.
This video transformed my life from atheist materialism Orthodox Christianity, ultimately. It wasn't overnight. And it wasn't easy. But this video played a pivotal role. thank you, Jonathan!
So basically he’s a social construct
Not completely, because "societal constructs" necessarily flow out of the structure of reality in which society exists. For a society to function it cannot be structured in any which way, but rather there are certain patterns by which functional societies exist, so too a society has expressed the being and pattern which makes us recognize Santa Claus as an important being, a desired story and trope which is remembered and passed on by all.
I understand now
Kinda like the relationship between nature and nurture and how that expresses itself as lived experience. There is physical, phenomenological, individual and social components etc that express themselves. The brain can be reduced to an individual but the mind cannot. This does not mean by default supernatural. But that our sense of being does not end at the skin. it includes the relationship we are in with others and the culture we are embedded in. These Tooth fairies can be as real as our hand or internal thoughts or feelings. But expressed through cultural tropes. Because they cannot be reduced down to one person individually.
Jonathan Pageau Santa Claus makes more sense to me but why is the tooth fairy an important being? What sort of value is gained from believing a fairy gives you money for losing your baby teeth? Does it have something to do with growing up?
Adrian H I think it may have come from the idea that teeth falling out is a scary thing for kids. Important bits of your body, for no apparent reason falling away. Unlike hair or fingernails which don't hurt when you cut them losing a tooth hurts and it bleeds. Parents tell the child it's ok, this means a new tooth will grow -- But we don't know how long it'll take. A fairy that gives you money the very next day is sort of like a deposit on the idea that you'll be getting a newer, better tooth. Plus it acknowledges that a tooth is valuable and needed as it'll be difficult to eat for some time.
"The Hogfather" by Terry Pratchett is a very interesting fantasy novel that approaches this argument *from* the absurd. There's even a SkyTV made-for-TV movie that wasn't too bad.
An excerpt from the book to entice:
“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."
REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.
"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little-"
YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.
"So we can believe the big ones?"
YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.
"They're not the same at all!"
YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET-Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.
"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point-"
MY POINT EXACTLY.”
Very clever and emotional writing by a true master Psychopomp, Terry Pratchet...
But I don't buy it um...ontologically.
Justice, Mercy, Duty...these things have some sorta "form" like light...they are a part of us, at least, if not the Universe itself, whether we were here or not.
@@Lu11abi I’m agnostic and I love his idea.
I have never been able to explain to people what i mean when i say i believe in santa. This is brilliant.
This is really fascinating. It’s funny because I remember being sort of a Santa agnostic as a kid lol My parents never told me one way or another but I would sometimes leave cookies out just in case. As for the Tooth Fairy, on some level I always knew that my dad was the one putting the money under my pillow, but at the same time I knew “the tooth fairy” was the reason in an abstract sense. This is the first video to put that into words
Once a man who roamed and gave
Who rung his bells through night and day
A spirit absorbed and played each year
Removing winters touch of fear
Out from the hearth and into the hand
We spread this love across the land
The gift of giving has no bounds
The cycle goes around and round
To feed the deer to feed the hounds
Never forget the man that sounds
This is absolutely brilliant! Really opened my mind to a concept I hadn't thought of before. Thank you Jonathan Pageau.
Lovely Jonathan, just lovely. Thank you. Came back here as Christmas is coming. - I'm going to come here every year around Advent.
Your idols that can neither hear, nor see, nor walk... No, Santa Clause is an idol that people make believe is seeing, hearing and walking. You can't philosophize him into being by saying the guy in the suit IS Santa Clause simply because he acts the part. Santa only exists as a construct of human imagination. He exists in people's minds and they act that out. That is the difference between God and Santa. God DOES exist and it can be proven when you experience Him personally as, for example, a response to prayer or the moving of His Spirit. Santa's "spirit" is moved by men and resides in the heart of men, manifesting from the human heart as an image (yet Santa is not an actual spirit like demons, for instance, who are disembodied souls). Don't confuse the "spirit" of an idea with an actual spirit. In contrast to Santa's spirit being moved by men, God is moved by no one. He manifested His heart in His Son, His Eikon, His Logos, who is very real and descends, extends and exists apart from God the Father. Man imposes himself on the idea, or "spirit" of Santa. God exposes Himself to man through His Son and His Spirit. Big difference. So when God says in Scripture that the Israelites were bowing to idols that can neither hear, nor see, nor walk, He is acknowledging they exist only in the minds of men. They are illusions just as Santa is, even delusions. Here is the heart of idolatry. It begins in the human heart and serves only a humanist purpose, especially if we try to impose that idea on God (golden calf - feast day unto Yahweh...). That is why anything that arises out the human heart is filthy rags to God. Only thoughts and actions which are led by His Spirit are just, worthy and good.
The term "god" comes with denotations that are demonstrably inaccurate. Nature is real. Anything you don't know about it is ignorance. Figure out what you can, and let it go at that.
It really makes sense. I can’t get enough. I wish i have seen your site long ago. Thank you.
How is Joe doing 3 years later? Just curious? Is he still playing Santa? Did his girlfriend come back? Love your work, Johnathan. Thank you, for what you are doing.
Now there's no Joe, only santa
@@TakiGosc427 in harmony with santa
Even things with out physical form exist.
He touched on that love exists. We can feel love. We can see the effects of love. Even when we can’t understand love, for example, when two people love each other and we can understand why they love each other, we can still see the love they share.
Love exist separate to those who share love. When a person you love dies, you can still feel and see the love they had for you and you can feel the love you have for them. The love two people have is felt for generations after two people die in their children and grandchildren.
Items can be imbued with love. When you look at a picture, a homemade sweater, a baseball glove, or even a something a trivial as a comb, you can feel the love, experiences, and memories emanating out of them.
Metaphysical things exist just as much and often last longer than physical things.
This is exactly why i convinced my wife to NOT promote Santa in our home. And if my Kids asks i will tell: Well, santa is as real as Mickey Mouse. But not real like mom and dad, or Jesus.
I've been watching this channel for a couple days straight. I love your analysis. I feel like the more diverse your understanding of Christianity, or anything really, the more you start to see the patterns. I'm an artist as well so I can relate it to when I started to paint the figure and still life with only color. The patterns and relationships started to reveal themselves the more intensely I looked for them. And I literally mean patterns in color. Similar to pointillism, I started to separate out local color then mold the forms based on a sort of wrestling with the truth of what I was seeing. My work is now completely different and much more abstract expressionistic but I do have a very serious understand of drawing and painting realistically which helps to make sense of the chaos. I think knowing the "scales" is essential when venturing out into a more chaotic forms of image making like abstraction and expressionism. A good foundation in anything will help you when you wander off into the unknown. You'll have a sort of tool kit to make it more real, or at least bring something back from the void. I feel the same way about the search for what Christianity means in the modern world.
Santa deniers be like "it was your mom and dad that punched Arius at the council of Nicea"
I love the slightly maniacal cackle that Jonathon gives when he talks about the 'voice of the United states' near the end of the video ... where he realizes that he is communicating a form of realisation that is both essentially true and yet can be taken as literally false. Really think this video hits it out of the park.
For the material realist/neuroscience/new atheists a way of understanding this may be we, as a species, seem to be able to orient our attention to different levels of neuroprocessing (E.g I can see Santa Claus, the Joe who is dressed as Santa Claus, the Santa Claus as a representation of category called mall workers or mall Santa clauses or mall members of public or out of mall member of public or member of human race or member of life or member of the universe of material things. To do each of those requires a variance in brain processing which can be seen by different patterning on mri, as an example. This different patterning also facilitates and inhibits over areas of brain function which has a top down sequential change on other cellular function (tissue/organ etc) and thus they process differently and achieve different states of being. Consciously while we can cognitively differentiate or highlight or attend to aspects of experience (what I see or hear or even within the realms of sight such as colour or movement) this is always contingent upon synthesis or synasthesia (some brain parts get direct connection from multiple sensory organs). If we were to synthesize a person in a community in a world of beings in a world of animals in a world of material in a world of forces in a world of flux/interactions and encapsulated that process we could envision a unity. Some people envision this as a form of being (gods etc) and some folks don't (atheistic ultimate causation).
But ultimate causation is not the same as ultimate Reality - see The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness and Bliss
Hmm by this logic all the Hindu gods and the Greek and Roman gods exist. I am guessing JP would actually concede this. The question is then, does Zeus still exist? Does that mean if me and my buddies make a story about the „thief fairy“ and then say; „I stole the car because the thief fairy made me do it“… what happens to free will and responsibility? Also, you have a false equivalency between the me and my mouth and Santa and joe, because joe has free will whereas my mouth does not.
You didn’t really get the argument. Yes, these beings exist but in different levels. And God is something different. He is beyond being, the source of being. This is Aquinas’ divine simplicity. Or St. Maximums, when he says God is both imminent and transcendent.
He believes they exist but by setting themselves up as gods they draw away from the most high God and thus become demons.
To summarize - there is a world of objects and matter (phenomenon, concrete things as they present to us) and a world of ideas and meaning (noumenon - abstract things in themseves) and they both form what we call reality. The respective schools of thought are materialism and idealism and the argument is which takes precedence in forming reality.
Atheists and the "modern man" is concerned with materialism and is contented with the answers science provides, regarding it as the bringer of "objective truth" or even the only truth there is. He treats science as religion while failing to acknowledge the irony and is blind to the one-sidedness and impotence of science when dealing with problems within the world of ideas and meaning.
Here exactly on 25th July 2024 after 6 years
This ties in so much to what I've wanted to say to people but always fumbled; magic exists, but it's not how you think it is.
So there is a degree of existence that goes beyond the material, and influences our actions by allowing us to embody their being. So are you a Christian mainly because you believe the best embodiment for humanity is in the narrative of the story of Jesus?
Would you say there is a problem with the religious people that are more concern with the material existence of Jesus and his return rather than trying to embody Jesus? I think those are the people the new atheist types are criticizing.
I think this video made things a bit more clear for me. Thanks Jonathan.
God not becoming flesh=>No resurrection & afterlife=>No objective reason to embody Jesus.
There would no way for us to embody Christ if He had not also been embodied. Does that make sense?
Fibius Maximus
I didn't say those realities are mutually exclusive or even in conflict. I was looking for some common ground between the people like Jonathan and Peterson that have a more sophisticated view of religion and the new atheist types. Discussions between these two groups never get anywhere because they are always talking about different aspects of religion. It would be interesting to see where the conversation would go once each group acknowledges the other side of the coin.
AdHominus
Could you explain your reasoning for saying that? Santa Claus did not have to exist in any point in time in order for parents to embody a Santa Claus and give happiness to their children. Why would it be any different for the story of Jesus?
Space Man
Santa Claus is conceived of as an incarnate being. Christ without a body would be a purely spiritual being. You cannot "embody" an unincarnate being by definition. Christ represents both God's incarnation and Man's deification. Without both processes occurring simultaneously, there can be no face-to-face relationship between Man and God. Only signs and symbols.
I loved this and the second part as well... you should have a ton more people following your content.
Absolutely love this video!! This form of love is one that exists within me....lol
Great video Jonathan. Thank you so much for what you give here. You add so much to my journey.
Then you’re good people.
Does this explanation not have a negating effect on the Christian worldview if you are relating the way in which Santa and the tooth fairy exist to the way that God or christ exists? In this sense anything we can imagine would technically exist. Any God or character in literature or film would technically exist if we embody their characteristics. This suggests that Santa exists in the psyche, but not the physical world. Are you saying that God exists in the psyche but not the physical world? This makes the existence of God contingent on our existence.
Santa Claus dropping the gavel. Judges Angels and praying to the spirit of the United States...
Thoroughly enjoy your work
Jonathan, love the story about your daughter and the tooth fairy!
That was an a-ha moment for me (and I'm 24) It explains the magic of the game. Also I enjoyed the part where his daughter carried the game on to another person. I explains so well where traditions come from and how they function.
This seems to imply that God is not self-sustained, and did not exist before revelation and time. Santa Clause's existence is sustained by his social construction. He did not exist in any sense before the origins of his Christmas mythos, no? Making an effort here...
Really finding your ideas and studies on symbolism fascinating . Keep up the good work .
Mr. Pageau, would you say that if all human beings ceased to exist, then it would no longer be true that "God exists"?
Did you just assume Santa's gender?
The MORPHOGENIC Field of an Energy stream/ consciousness/ being etc... One taps into that frequency hence the being..
Brilliant video! This reminds of my favorite comic book writer Grant Morrison’s perspective on comic superheroes as well. Of course, the difference with God is He doesn’t just exist not on that level, but above it. He’s more real than we are.
My goodness this is so freaking helpful
This reminds me of CS Lewis essay on Transposition. I guess how higher abstract medium transpositions into the lower physical medium. Something like that, lol
While I appreciate how you've laid this out, (I dig the concept of non-corporeal memes/archetypes/myths having actual physical impact here on earth) I worry about how unconstrained this explanation seems to be, and how it can essentially be applied to anything thereby effectively able to be redefined in whichever way one deems it.
How might one avoid this problem?
120%
God is love. Period.
@@josephtravers777 but what does that mean realy?
@@empcat1254 He made us for Himself and wants us to know Him
The definitions humans create are not arbitrary. So if you try to redefine something in a way that is not in line with reality your definition is less likely to sustain the more time passes.
So all you've said is that Santa Clause exists in the collective imagination, not that Santa Clause exists in reality. And you also said that this helps us to understand how God exists, so you mean that God is just an idea that exists in our collective imagination and that God does not have any real existence outside of human imagination? This seems like a really silly way to show that God "exists".
It's an error to distinguish collective imagination and what exists in reality. We categorize things that is in reality with our collective mind, even a rock is a collective category which an individual left on his own won't have.
100%. The magic is in the worldwide game being played for all the kids. And then when they grow up and figure out the game, THEY get to play the other side. It is so fun.
I figured out at age 6 that my mom was the one making presents and she told me to not tell my brother and to play along. And it was fun like I was part of the game! To make it a fun Christmas for the family.
It isn’t lying unless you think playing games and make believe is lying… in which case, I’m sorry you never had a childhood.
I’d like to thank you. You have brought me back to Christianity after nearly 10 years of being an agnostic. Peterson definitely did start me on my path back to faith and he deserves a lot of credit but listening to his reasoning I still considered myself agnostic. But your recent video with that pastor Paul was incredibly enlightening and finally helped me make the final connection and take that last step into actual belief . The way you described God , I was finally able to wrap my head around it and listening to that video had a profound impact on me. And I was at one point really into Sam Harris and Dawkins, hitchens and I was at the point where I believed religion was an evil force in the world I would even try to convince my friends of this and I really regret that now. I have been having a very hard time battling depression and addiction for years and still am and I just want to say I really appreciate your videos. Your insight into religious belief is helping me tremendously right now. And trust me I need all the help I can get I am really struggling with serious demons
Thanks for your story, Christopher. I am happy if I could play a small part in it.
Jonathan (though you probably will not read this), I think I understand the argument, but I don't feel it does justice to the idea which the atheists, or the most convincing ones at least, are trying to get at. More precisely, I don't think you give the idea of God any kind of objective existence by this argument, which is what I feel they are arguing. In short (because arguing in YT comments is not the point in this instance), it seems to me like they argue Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy do not objectively hold power in any real sense, which you have not addressed. The idea of God or these characters, they are not the same as the-glue-of the-universe-which-would-still-exist-if-no-one-believed-in-it, which seems to be the way many if not most believers understand the divine. Am I getting you wrong? Or them?
I remember arguing with empiricists who accepted my formulation that the only thing that exists is that which is perceived by the 5 senses. I then said terriffic, we must now investigate if science exists:
1. The only things that exists are things which can be perceived by the empirical method
2. I can not perceive Science with my senses
3. therefore science does not exist.
It then ended up in a wierd argument where, I a theist, was arguing that science does exists, and people who think science is the be all and end all of human achievement, weren't so sure it existed.....
Sounds like you're trying to find excuses to ignore science. Your brain can handle the concept of science, and your brain is a physical electrical neural network where impulses pass between nerve cells. Just because your hands are not feeling your own neurotransmitters, doesn't mean your perception is not working to perceive science and validate its existence.
@@chaiTV that is not at all what his comment sounded like.
@@sonicnarutoTDpg Actually it's exactly what he is saying. He literally sets a false premise, requiring you to believe it: "nothing can exist outside of what the 5 senses perceive" which is a really bad way to begin a discussion, requiring that everyone agrees with some ridiculous condition. BTW your reply is very simple, like a child wrote it, contrary with no evidence, no reasoning, no point. I suggest adding more substance to your contributions, otherwise you're wasting everyone's time.
@@chaiTV I'm pretty sure he's not denying that science exists, hes just pointing out their flaw in worldview.
Science goes beyond your 5 senses. If you're such a dunce to think that everything is to be reduced to physics and chemistry, and say thats the epitome of reality, you have quite a serious problem. You don't actually exist at that kind of level, so its a non-starter.
_"It is patently absurd to say that Santa Claus does not exist"_
Really though? That's like saying It's patently absurd to say that Harry Potter does not exist. Just because there's stories of something and that another thing of the same name exists, doesn't make all those stories or traits of that thing to be true/valid/accurate. Things don't just exist by name unless the name defines everything about them. Saying that "Joe" exists is improper, because we don't know what they mean by "Joe". Same thing with a god. There are thousands of different gods that are purported to exist. Even the god that is supposedly the same among different religions, such as among all the Christian denominations, are actually describing different gods, because they're ascribing different traits to the entity; it cannot be the same entity if it has different traits associated with it, despite the fact that it has many things in common, or the same name.
It's _NOT_ about _how_ something exists, no. It's about _how_ you define and describe what you're talking about. Did a man named Saint Nicholas exist a long time ago who was a mortal bishop who did good thing exist? yes; does he still exist? no. Does a supernatural being that uses flying reindeer/sled, elves, a north pole base, and other similar things exist? no, not unless you count people's imagination. In other words how do you think that Santa Claus exists? Are you going to claim a Santa Claus that has flying sleds, reindeer, and a north-pole elf base exists because a bunch of people pretend to be him? pretty silly argument.
By that argument everything ever portrayed in any fictional work exist. It's meaningless to say.
Santa exists in different manners across the globe. The tooth fairy also manifests differently across the globe. So does God. If Santana and God exist in different manners and sometimes in manners that are very opposed and contradictory (forgiveness vs. revenge, for instance,) then many many Santas and many gods exist. Based on this argument we should accept that all gods worshiped by humans exist and either that they are not all manifestations of the same God, or that they are all a manifestation of the same ‘God of contradictions’. Either explanation may be a new basis of a new religion/belief, which adds a new God to the collection.
The interpretation of Santa Claus as someone who wants to put children at ease when you talk to them reminds me of the old version of Miracle on 34th Street with Maureen O’Hara. It also makes me think that my mom didn’t push me to go over and sit on Santa’s lap because I was too scared to speak to strangers. Prayer works the same way I’ve read; we are taught we need to speak out what is on our hearts, and we gradually become ingrained in a silent meditation of our life’s work. The Tooth Fairy also really worries me because I’d be afraid of waking my child to put a coin under their pillow. I wouldn’t even begin to know where to store or what to do with the baby teeth afterward.
I do like that he is called "Santa Claus" and as I've been living in Greece "Agios Vasilis" that also is a saint. It makes the association with the message of Christmas and "goodness" better. In Sweden we call him "jul tomten" wich actually means something similar to the Christmas elf, but not exactly. People used to believe that it existed small grumpy figures (very small) that you had to please during the years in different ways. Otherwise the harvest might go wrong or you could have bad luck in other ways. Anyways, that is not of course the "tomte" that we tell our children about. He still stands for goodness joy and gifts. When I was a kid my grandmother used to tell me "if you are not nice "tomten" will not come. Only when I was up to something bad of course. It is not really "political correct" to tell your children something like that today. When I was younger I took a college course in Psychology. I read some theory that claimed something like to tell kids those things could cause deep trauma. I feel stupid to say, but I was young, insecure and had some issues, so for a brief period of time I actually belived that I was traumatized from it. Today I find it quite ridicoulos. Even if I never said it to my own kids, I certainly didn't take any damage of it. Quite the opposite I would say. Because it was a very effective way to teach me right from wrong.
I admire you very much for articulating belief so that even a modern person like me can grasp it. It's really cool that you laugh so much, too, because it shows you know how counterintuitive it is for us to consider this seriously, but we gotta get over ourselves to get to the good stuff!
This reminds me of what the Bible refers to as "false gods." Santa is the god of toys for little children. But Santa does not bring the children the love, joy, and peace that the Most High God delivers. No, he brings them idolatry (the toys).... and we eventually realize that Santa is a fraud as we mature past toys.
Nobody worships Santa Claus.
@@christophersnedeker2065 Worship is defined as the reverence or adoration of a deity. Little children who believe in Santa Claus absolutely revere and adore him.
@@redeemed7188 But he directs us twords love joy and peace. He is a Christian saint after all.
@@christophersnedeker2065 Santa Claus is not St. Nicholas anymore. He's a toy-making spy who gives toys to the good kids and not the bad kids. If you are really well-behaved this year, he will reward you with toys. But since he's a work of fiction, the parents give all their kids toys in his name... which steals the glory of giving from the actual givers, the parents, who are displaying a greater, unconditional love to their kids.
Jonathan, this whole video is brilliant and 100% matches my own views on this topic that I had come to independently before watching it. I was super distraught when I got to that certain age and other kids started saying Santa Claus didn't exist, because he so obviously does.
Similarly, the worst mistake atheists make is saying “It's not literally, materially real, so it's NOT REAL!”. That's the intellectual level of a 10-year-old.
It seems everything exists.
bluemeeni I’ve always thought similarly. It started with hearing so often as a child “it’s just your imagination”. I used to think, well my imagination exists, it has a purpose and a meaning, I know it’s my imagination and I’m not deluded so I can’t discount it as part of reality and my experience of the world.
To me, this comes down to the question of why people say governments exist, but Santa Claus doesn’t. There are many similarities between them regarding their existence and non-existence, but I think what causes people to see them as existing differently lies in the presumed indivisible nature of each one.
While people often talk about the government as being an indivisible thing, they too frequently encounter its fractured nature to truly think of it that way. If you ask someone about the parts of government, they can immediately say something about how its made of different people, procedures, parts, locations, etc.
But the same thing won’t happen if you ask people about the parts/nature/make-up/etc. of Santa Claus. Confusion is going to be the most likely response because they imagine Santa Claus as a single human doing fantastical things entirely on his own. Some people will answer technically regarding the component parts of the Santa Claus myth/tradition, but most people are either going to ask, “What do you mean?” or they will take extra time to interpret the question (far more time than interpreting the same government question.)
If the working parts of something can be identified, people freely accept its existence because it’s merely made of parts doing a bunch of different things. However, if the working parts of something can’t be identified, it’s interpreted as an indivisible will that must either obey the constraints of other indivisible wills or have supernatural powers.
Normal indivisible wills are subject to the constraints of material logic while divisible wills aren’t. A government can be in multiple places simultaneously while an individual cannot. A government can “hear the prayers” of hundreds of people simultaneously, while an individual cannot. If we really wanted to be fantastical we could imagine the government being competent enough to deliver presents to everyone in the country in one night, but we couldn’t imagine an individual doing the same thing.
Santa Claus exists as much as any government exists. However, that statement only makes sense if you break Santa Claus down into distributed working parts similar to how a government can be broken down into distributed working parts.
You can imagine what would happen if people were told to believe in the government in the same way that children might believe in Santa Claus. If people were told we have “Big Brother” and not a government, there would only be three possible avenues of belief for people…
1. Big Brother is an indivisible will with supernatural powers exceeding normal wills.
2. Big Brother is propaganda and doesn’t actually exist.
3. Big Brother is a system made of parts.
If there’s one truest way to exist, number 3 ends up winning in many people’s mind because of its explanatory power. It explains the extent of Big Brothers power. It explains how Big Brother can exist while also being propaganda. It explains how the people themselves are Big Brother. And, finally, it shows people that a greater understanding of Big Brother can be achieved by studying its parts.
He is saying Santa exists as an embodied abstraction that everyone participates in and it is in this manner that the character exists similarly to a government. The government as a collective entity has a body a voice, a will ect, even in modern dialouge with the presence of this personification we understand what it means. So similarly
Santa exists as a result of a given individual participating in emulating Santa's essence through their action patterns. This comes down to the fact as he said that different phenomena exists on different levels of existence. A rock, a personality trait, a government, fear/love, and Santa have different modes of existence that can be understood and evaluated differently.
How real, or in what form, is Jesus compared to Santa and the Tooth Fairy?
Not to mention Saint Nicolas was a real person
saint nicholas was a real historical saint
So to understand: Santa Claus exists because people believe he exists and enact his persona. But does that also mean that if people stop believing in God, God doesn't exist anymore?
Does Tim Allen exist?
Brandon Wilkinson Yes. He lives in Finland.
Jonathan, love your videos!
Is it your belief that God exists the same way Santa clause does? Meaning that the idea of God becomes incarnate in human beings as does the idea of Santa Clause but has no independence (or no more independence than any other idea) from humanity? Thanks in advance!
I have this same question. It seems like he's saying that God does not exist outside of man's concept of him.
@@loganwilliams6872 I think the inverse is what he’s getting at. God does exist, which is why you have a concept of him.
Oh my word... this was an actual breakthrough for me!
Thank you sooo much!
Btw love your work brother
☦️
When I say I believe in Santa Claus, this video is what I meant. That we continue to manifest Saint Nicholas' legacy thru these holiday traditions we continue to have every year. He's an example of the living myth.
Actually, I don't totally agree with your explanation of the existence of Santa Claus. We mortal creatures cannot create another entity except in our mind. Perhaps I am not totally understanding you, but you seem to imply that we can create through our culture an actual spiritual entity.
That said, I totally believe that Santa Claus exists. In the ancient Apostles Creed, we Christians profess belief in the "Communion of Saints." I remember the nuns at our Catholic school telling us that Santa Claus does exist. He was and is a real person now living in a heavenly state. Or course his name was Saint Nicolaus, a name shortened to Santa Claus. He was the generous bishop of Myra, Turkey. Many stories are told of him, especially about children and sailors, on how he raised a murdered child from the dead and how he would drop bags of money down the chimney of poor girls to help them pay their dowry and save them from a life of prostitution. BTW the money bags fell into the socks of the young ladies that they hung around the chimney to dry. I ran community centers for kids in low-income neighborhoods and spent many a Holiday season acting as Santa. You were right that the person dressed as Santa actually becomes Santa. This must be seen as a ritual, in which the main actor literally become the mythological personage. The most obvious example of this is the Eucharist in which the priest acts as if he is Christ himself repeating the words of the consecration at the Last Supper. And please I am using the term "Mythological' not in its corrupted meaning of an untrue fantasy but in its original meaning of the story of the ordering or reordering of the Universe. I always I owed it to the kids to really act as St. Nicolaus. I would not only ask them what they wanted for Christmas, but I would spend most of the time quizzing them on how they were help other people especially their parents. The kids took this really seriously. They would give me lots of love and hugs. I do have to say that one of the things I would often hear from the kids was that they wanted their fathers to come back home and spend Christmas with them. Just heart breaking. I would say that Santa would say a prayer that their wish was granted.
I’m now in a head spin of what constructs are and different scenarios in which they play out.
Santa costumes are a low-resolution representation of the idea of Santa. Santa, as a concept, is an entity with specific, supernatural characteristics. Wearing a Santa costume does not make you Santa, putting on a Batman outfit does not make you Batman.
Atheists do not deny the idea of Santa, nor do they deny the idea of God. Ideas can be brought into existence; an imagined table or a chair, for example. But you cannot bring Santa into existence, because Santa has defined qualities that you cannot physically embody.
Placing a horn on the head of a horse does not transform that creature into a unicorn; it becomes a horse wearing a horn. A unicorn has defined qualities that a horse cannot physically embody.
So we must draw a distinction between ideas and low-resolution representations of ideas. Consider the distinctions between objects and representations, too. If I, with my limited artistic skill, were to draw Jonathan Pageau by hand, the resulting image would not BE Jonathan Pageau, but a very low and unflattering representation of him.
A picture cannot contain the specific qualities which make up Jonathan in the same way that a costume cannot contain the specific qualities which make up Santa, God, or a super hero.
If John died ( god forbid ) and his kids had a picture of him. They might tell stories to the picture, talk to it, cry to it, talk to john through it on big moments. A picture can contain qualities which make up john.
Only if you only define John as his biological body and only define his qualities has how he interacts with the physical world can a picture not contain his qualities.
But if you define John as everything in his being, is thoughts, is effects on others emotions, his ideas, etc than you can see how a picture of him can contain some of johns qualities.
In biblical terms, the picture would be lacking earth or body, but it can have spirit.
The difference between Jonathan and a picture of Jonathan, is that the picture cannot respond authentically to stimuli. You may weep in the gaze of a loved one's image, but the image will never weep with you. There are uniquely human qualities which a picture cannot posses, for it is a low-resolution representation, and not a living entity with thoughts, feelings and agency.
But the image can invoke to your mind what John would say if he were there. Is that not "John talking" to you in a sense. You can clearly identify things that are and are not John based on personality and quality. So John's words in your mind (assuming you knew John well) would be capturing that spirit or essence of John. So in a way, yes the icon of John (the picture) which invokes "the spirit of John" so to speak can communicate to you.
If I see a traffic light that is red, no, it isn't physically creating sound waves through the air particles telling me to stop. But we collectively know the meaning of a red light. The law, as an entity, is communicating via the symbol of the red light, as clearly to your mind as if it had said "Stop" vocally as a singular personage. Just as much as the Police officer (who is embodying the law) will pull you over if you ignore that symbol. The Law, acts as an entity (both communicating to you and interacting with you), with the light and the police officer as its appendages.
It's the same with a picture. After all, there is a reason for the saying "A picture is worth 1000 words."
Love this video and year after year I’m sharing it to defend Santa Clause. Especially to my Christian friends!
This is one of the most interesting motions I've heard in a long time. It opens the world, by several degrees, for me. Thank you.
Yeah......within people's imaginations.
There are a lot of people in these comments who can't accept the world of man can't be defined by the material objects he's defined.
I suspect its pride preventing them from seeing what's in front of them, and what's inside them.
You have justified my naive childhood in the best way.
"New Atheism" is just a fancy phrase Christians came up as an alternative to calling them uppity atheists.
I think I understand both sides of the argument you make. Atheists, in general, seem to discount anything that is not real like a rock. Therefore, though they admit the existence of love as a concept, they deny it as a physical entity. As such, they deny the physical entity of God, the Tooth-fairy and Santa Clause. The hook is that your definition of reality as a function of how individuals act in the world (god exists if we act as though it exists) versus a reality that consists of what is repeatably provable to our limited senses.
I think this gets to the crux the pioneers of science never intended for "what is empirically verifiable" to be our entire world view. But it's become that, and now we can't see realty a part from what is empirically verifiable.
The material world does not exist as science and people describe it.
The material world is a construct of the human mind.
Surely we are evolved to perceive reality in a way that profits us the most?
Material reality is very different from the way the world really is.
Watch Don Hoffman's TEDx talk on the subject.
Without human beings there would be nothing to distinguish the boundaries between things that are important to humans. Without humans there would be no material or mathematical, conceptual, real or imaginary world's. These are all things symptomatic of the human being.
And fairies? In the old stories the "little people" at the bottom of the garden are always spiteful and malicious and if they weren't placated they would make the milk curdle in the cow, steal the babies, or make the princess prick her finger and fall into a deep sleep, just like the old gods. The tooth fairy is appropriate for a culture raised on comics and Disney, and I think you have spoken about these symbols. The tooth fairy's work is not even as meaningful but a purely commercial transaction - a dime for your tooth.
"Man some people are going to freak out at this!" No shit Sherlock, I think you blew a few valves.