The other day as I was perusing the small Bible section of my large Christian Books and (Especially) Gifts Store I happened upon a tome that arrested my attention. It was plain and unadorned. A simple red book with the title and nothing else. I was immediately offended by the cover, because it was politically […]
In the last three posts I have demonstrated that If Santa ever existed, he’s dead now, And then I demonstrated that he did and does exist and pitiful is the man who can’t understand it. In the last post I pulled the two perspectives into a single article to show the controversy in tension. In this article I intend to resolve it.
The resolution of course will prove more fantastic than the problem. How could a problem like this have a simple resolution? If I gave a simple scientific answer I would fail to acknowledge the significance of the Virginia Letter. And if I insisted despite evidence that Santa exists despite overwhelming evidence and consensus to the contrary I would have to acknowledge that that is indeed the definition of “psychosis”
If I had to pick one, I’d be Psychotic. hands down. I’ve read Don Quixote, I know what’s up. But I have something else planned.
But I don’t have to choose. I say both are true! A and Non-A. Belief in Santa is both foundational and ridiculous. disbelief is both reasonable, and small minded.
How is that? how can it be that I can so brazenly affirm a contradiction? That I can violate a fundamental law of logic? Well I’ll tell you.
Hopefully it’s clear that what we’re dealing with here is an epistemological clash (big words, I know, I’ll explain) The argument consists of “ships passing in the night”. The don’t really argue against one another, only for themselves. The reason they don’t refute another is because they can’t. And the reason they can’t is because they don’t understand one another!
The Savvy Santa Advocate, and the Savvy Santa Denier think differently on a foundational level. Their ideas about what truth is and how it is obtained (their epistemologies) are contrasted.
In this particular case it’s easy to recognize, all the talk about sentimentality and magic on one side versus all the math and physics on the other makes it obvious, but epistemological clash is actually a common problem (Here’s an example with two kinds of math geekery)
So if I want to pick a single conclusion. I need to pick a single way of looking at the world. Is the world best understood through Sound logic, good reason, and mathematics. Or is there something beyond and besides that which is much grander and yet much more basic, something touched by poetry and music.
And both are true.
They’re true each in their own way, and both are right about Santa, each in their own way.
No Homo Sapiens come down the chimneys of the good gentile children on christmas eve. The flues are usually shut. But it is NOT just a lie we tell children. No way! It’s much much more than that.