• Twitter
  • Facebook
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Opening Arguments

Santa science

I know there are a lot of you Santa deniers out there. How can one person possibly keep track of all the boys and girls in the world? How can he make all those toys? Most absurdly, how can he deliver all those toys in one night? The people trying to sell this nonsense must have cooked the data.

But, I tell you, the science is settled, OK? He uses the Internet. A lot of the Elves are really automation. Santa makes use of science and technology the rest of us just don't have at our disposal yet:

For instance, Santa's red suit: It's designed for the extreme conditions he encounters while traveling at warp speed and bending space and time. And, Mone says, "Santa's suit is laden with what are called metamaterials, which have the effect of bending light around a person so that they turn invisible" — which can come in handy if there are curious children peeking during his Christmas deliveries.

Santa's reading glasses, which contribute to his quaint image, are actually equipped with what's called a "heads-up display." When Santa looks through the lenses, he sees a range of information about the residents of the house he's visiting, the presents to leave, directions to the next house and more.

Oh, all right, I confess. I'm trying to get you to buy into the "science" of something that's really a religion. But we shouldn't dismiss something just because it requires a little faith. As I explained several years ago, in an article on the ontological proof of the existence of Santa Claus (sorry; our archives don't allow links):

It is logically contradictory to deny Santa's existence. Santa is that Christmas gift giving being than which no other greater can be conceived. If Santa existed only in the mind, he would not then be the greatest conceivable Christmas gift giving being, for we could imagine another being that is greater because it would exist in both the mind and reality, and that being would then be Santa. Therefore, to imagine Santa as existing only in the mind and not in reality leads to a logical contradiction


Fri, 12/11/2009 - 12:51pm

Clearly you are not familiar with Bertrand Russell's refutation of Anselm of Canterbury.
Now, let's wait a few minutes for Bob and Tim to Google all that and figure out what I just wrote. I'm betting they'll side with St. Anselm.
I will then return and prove that unicorns, the most perfect horses conceivable, necessarily exist. Ho hum.

Leo Morris
Fri, 12/11/2009 - 1:07pm

I prefer Kant's rejection, because as involved and complicated as his reasons seem, they boil down to "Our puny minds are too limited to know anything beyond human experience," and any time spent in the blogosphere will convince most people that knowing even that might be a stretch for the human mind. I love unicorns. Do you love unicorns?

Bob G.
Fri, 12/11/2009 - 1:59pm

Hey, I'm just sticking with the theory of the MULTIVERSE, as proposed by William James (1895).
And toss in good old Michio Kaku, for good measure.

Santa probably exists in a parallel dimension and just "visits" here one time a year.
Since he can overcome bridging "universes", time-travel is a snap to get "all the goods" to all the kids in ONE night.
Bada bing...bada boom.
Seems like a plan...just ask ANY reindeer...lol!

(yawn...yeah, celestial teapot, St. Anselm...crossed the Alps like Hannibal, nice guy, bad haircut...yada, yada, yada....old news)
Aw, yeah...we're SO erudite, it's painful.
(and all with one hand tied behind our backs..to make it fair)

Damn shame NOAH didn't like unicorns, though...ROFL.


Fri, 12/11/2009 - 9:30pm

Of course I love unicorns, but not in *that* way!
Did you know that Descartes fell for the ontological argument? He seems more analytical than that.
I understand Catholic seminaries still teach it, despite its current ill repute among philosophers.
BTW, Kant is overrated. He seems erudite, but most people don't realize he invented the pink plastic lawn flamingo. He defended it in his little-read "Critique of Pure Crap."