Santa Claus and the Problem of Evil

The two are closely related

Become a paid 💰 subscriber. This Substack is a labor of love, but the coffee ☕ it takes to write the Substack ain't free. Did I mention I'm only a poor professor? Thanks! 🙏

---

While there is clearly no Santa Claus, the reasons usually given for this disbelief are less sound than is often appreciated. Consider some of the reasons that are typically given for disbelief in Santa Claus. Some say that disproving the Santa belief is a simple matter of visiting the North Pole and looking for him. There would be no Santa to be found. However, it could be that Santa’s workshop is disguised to avoid detection, even by the most sophisticated methods; after all, Santa is supposedly capable of doing all sorts of other extraordinary things. So, even if Santa resided there, he might not be easily detected.

Others say that it would be impossible for Santa to deliver gifts to children around the globe within the space of a single night. This is only a difficulty if we think that Santa is an ordinary human. But that can’t be right. Santa cannot be merely human; after all, he relies on flying reindeer for transportation! If Santa had extraordinary powers, then he might be able deliver gifts, the world over, in such a short time. We might for example suppose that Santa has the ability to slow down time.

Other people might object that clearly, guardians and family members provide the gifts come Christmas time. Unfortunately, while they’re often responsible for buying the gifts, this is insufficient to prove that all gifts come from them. However, the claim is not that Santa is the only source of gifts at Christmas. Rather, Santa is only supposed to be the source of some gifts.

Clearly there is no Santa Claus. Perhaps, though, there is a better reason for Santa disbelief, one related to the problem of evil. First, though, we should briefly review the problem. Philosophers right back to Epicurus (341-270 BC) have grappled with the problem of whether it’s possible to reconcile the existence of widespread and horrendous evil (plagues, genocide…) with the existence of an all-powerful, perfectly benevolent God. Atheists hold that apparently needless suffering is good reason to doubt that there is an all-powerful, perfectly good God.

However, theists have a number of responses to the problem of evil. Some argue that suffering is the product of people exercising their free will; after all, if humans have the ability to choose between good and evil actions, then some of them will choose to do evil. And because the ability to choose, even if the choice is evil, is supremely valuable, God must not interfere; if He did, then it would undermine the value of freely making good choices. Atheists respond the there is just too much apparently pointless suffering to take the claim that God exists seriously.

One plausible essential property of Santa is that he distributes gifts on the basis of moral desert. When philosophers use the term ‘moral desert’, they mean what people deserve based on their actions. So it is also plausible to suppose that an essential property of Santa is that he rewards good children with gifts, but doesn’t so reward naughty children. There’s some evidence for this suggestion in popular culture, for example, in the lyrics from the song ‘Santa Claus is Coming to Town’:

He sees you when you’re sleeping; he knows when you’re awake.

He knows if you’ve been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake.

Here we would expect that only good children would receive presents from Santa—they may still get presents from their family, however. So the mere presence of gifts under the tree for bad children isn't a good treat of whether or not Santa exists.

A better test is whether Santa exists, based on who receives gifts under the tree, would be whether there are good children who don't receive any presents at all despite deserving them. That is, we would predict that if Santa exists, then good children would at least receive gifts from him. But instead we find that there are millions of good children around the world who receive nothing.

We can run our anti-Santa argument as follows:

A. If there is a Santa, then all deserving children would receive something for Christmas.

B. But there are plenty of deserving children who receive nothing for Christmas. So,

C. There is no such person as Santa.

The pattern of gift distribution among good and deserving children is a serious evidential challenge to justified Santa belief.

Ho ho ho. What do you think?