The Great Pumpkin and Other Silly Arguments Against Christianity

October 12th, 2012 Post by

Every year when All Hallows Eve comes around I look forward to It’s the Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown.  Clever wit. Humor and fun-loving characters.  Nostalgia.  Charlie Brown has it all.  But it’s not all tricks and treats when it comes to this cartoon classic.

 The Great Pumpkin also happens to be a great illustration for evaluating and making truth claims, something all world religions, and even atheists, make on a regular basis.  The Great Pumpkin has been used by some as an argument against Christianity.  It is entirely characteristic of character caricatures made to mock Christian faith while dismissing the actual truth claims. A few other notables include: Antony Flew’s parable of the “Gardener,” the various manifestations of Grilled Cheesus, Daniel Dennet’s tea pot and, of course, Richard Dawkins’ favorite, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Poor Linus; he anxiously waits, hoping to finally see the Great Pumpkin rising out of the pumpkin patch, bearing gifts of candy and toys for all the children.  How does Linus approach the truthfulness of the Great Pumpkin?  How does he know the Great Pumpkin actually exists?  On what basis does Linus determine the truthfulness of his claim that the Great Pumpkin will come to the pumpkin patch he sits in?  Listen to his explanation:

Each year, the Great Pumpkin rises out of the pumpkin patch that he thinks is the most sincere. He’s gotta pick this one. He’s got to. I don’t see how a pumpkin patch can be more sincere than this one. You can look around and there’s not a sign of hypocrisy. Nothing but sincerity as far as the eye can see.

Unfortunately for Linus, sincerity of faith does not determine truth, religious or otherwise.  One can be very sincere about many things but that does not in and of itself mean that it is true.  What is of the utmost importance is the object of one’s faith.  I may zealously believe that one of the Redeemer’s Preschoolers could drive me safely from Huntington Beach to the Grand Canyon.  But, my faith would be terribly misplaced.  Or, on the other hand, I may have serious doubts that Martin Luther really did write the Ninety-Five Theses and start the Lutheran Reformation.  In either case, however, neither my faith nor my doubts change the underlying facts.

Religious truth claims are a dime a dozen.  And you can find as many methods for determining the answer to “what is true?” as you can find people making truth claims.  Here is a quick review of a few popular ways people argue for the truthfulness their respective assertions:

a)     Common sense and intuition.  Common sense isn’t really that common.  Not to mention people who believe incompatible things all claim to have common sense on their side.  And if intuition were a suitable source of truth, then this article wouldn’t need to be written because we would all have the same religious convictions.

b)     Authority.  Be careful.  Just because you make a claim to an authoritative source doesn’t mean it’s true.  Many people use this argument to their detriment: “fill-in-the-blank holy book is the Word of God because it says it’s the Word of God;” that’s circular reasoning.  Another example: try citing Wikipedia in your scholarly journal paper.  The trustworthiness of the source of authority needs must be evaluated.

c)      Religious experience.  This usually involves some kind of subjective experiential or testimony-drive claim to truth.  Experience and sincerity are kissing cousins; they both require no objective means of investigation or evaluation.  There’s no way to tell if you had a vision of the Holy Spirit or just bad sushi at lunch.  Another example: “Go ahead.  Try the kool-aid; you’ll have a religious experience.”

So, how does one evaluate truth?  How do you know what you know?  The highfalutin word for this is epistemology; and now you can impress all your friends.  When it comes down to it, there are three main categories of truth claims: analytic, synthetics and nonsensical/meaningless.

1)      Analytic truth claims.  These truth claims are true by definition, like a math equation, 2+2=4.  Or, “all unmarried men are bachelors.”  There really isn’t any need to test the truth claim.  Why?  They are by definition true, 100% certainty.  Religious claims do not fall into this category of truth claims.

2)     Synthetic truth claims.  Here, claims are considered to be true of false after the facts have been examined, the evidence weighed and the case deemed probable or improbable.  This is how you do simple things like, cross the street and more complex things such in the fields of science, history and law.  For example: Pearl Harbor was attacked on December 7th, 1941; The tallest man in the world is 9 foot 11 inches.  There is one religious truth claim in this category.  Care to guess?

3)     Nonsensical/meaningless truth claims.  This does not mean, “It has no meaning to me.”  Rather, it lacks content or substance.  These claims to truth are neither true nor false.  There is no way of proving or disproving them.  For example: all evil and illness are an illusion; Santa Claus (sorry, kids); the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Great Pumpkin (sorry, Linus), and phrases like: “It’s Tuesday so it must be Belgium.”  This is where atheists want to place all religious truth claims.  Are they right?  Well, yes and no.  Every religion, save one, falls into this category.

Regrettably, many Christians also fall prey to this same type of logic.    Christians need answer one basic question: what would make you stop believing in your religion? Is there any set of circumstances and evidence, which if proven true, would overthrow your religious truth claim? Both the religious person and the atheist must answer this question.  How would the Christian answer?  Some have replied: “No. There’s nothing.  I’ll have faith no matter what they say.”  Really?  Even though they may be well intended, they’ve just placed Christianity in the one category it doesn’t belong, the meaningless, nonsensical category of truth claims.  This is where atheists bring up the worn out parable of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  “There’s an invisible flying spaghetti monster on the other side of this wall and he really wants you to believe in him or else he’s going to throw beef meatballs at you.  You see, it’s nonsense just like your god.  Therefore, you shouldn’t believe in any god; all religions are fairy tales.”

The basic problem with this parable is that it fails to take the Christian truth claim seriously.  Christianity is unique.  It is a synthetic truth claim (point #2 above) because it hinges on one event that occurred in history, in reality, approximately 2000 years ago.  And that means it can be investigated. It is falsifiable.  This is what St. Paul is writes in 1 Corinthians 15; the Christian faith stands or falls on the Jesus’ death and resurrection from the grave.  This is what separates Christianity from the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Grilled Cheesus, the Great Pumpkin, the Muslim or Mormon Jesus, Brahman and Santa Claus.  Christianity centers around the fact that God entered time and space; He became tangible.  God took on human flesh in the person of Jesus (John 1).   “That which was from the beginning, which we have HEARD, which we have SEEN with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have TOUCHED—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life” – 1 John 1:1.  This is the Christian truth claim.  Your Christian faith does not rest on meaningless claims, silly cartoons, or even emotional feelings, as good as they might be; it’s founded on the fact of Jesus’ substitutionary death for the world – and for you – on the cross and His glorious resurrection from the dead.  Knowing that we can have a blessed All Hallows Eve and Reformation Day.  Christianity doesn’t pass out tricks or treats, just the facts.

 


Categories: Steadfast in Defense Tags:




Rules for comments on this site:


Engage the contents and substance of the post. Rabbit trails and side issues do not help the discussion of the topics.  Our authors work hard to write these articles and it is a disservice to them to distract from the topic at hand.  If you have a topic you think is important to have an article or discussion on, we invite you to submit a request through the "Ask a Pastor" link or submit a guest article.


Provide a valid email address. If you’re unwilling to do this, we are unwilling to let you comment.


Provide at least your first name. Please try to come up with a unique name; if you have a common name add something to it so you aren't confused with another user. We have several "john"'s already for example.  If you have a good reason to use a fake name, please do so but realize that the administrators of the site expect a valid email address and also reserve the right to ask you for your name privately at any time.


If you post as more than one person from the same IP address, we’ll block that address.


Do not engage in ad hominem arguments. We will delete such comments, and will not be obligated to respond to any complaints (public or private ones) about deleting your comments.


Interaction between people leaving comments ought to reflect Christian virtue, interaction that is gracious and respectful, not judging motives.  If error is to be rebuked, evidence of the error ought to be provided.


We reserve the right to identify and deal with trollish behavior as we see fit and without apology.  This may include warnings (public or private ones) or banning.

  1. October 12th, 2012 at 12:10 | #1

    Nice article and I agree that the historical basis of Christianity is a solid foundation upon which our faith rests. I would disagree, however, with your critique of the appeal to the authority of Scripture. It is not circular reasoning to appeal to the authority of Scripture.

    Pieper puts it this way:

    “True, objections are raised against this self-attestation of Scripture. Rome, in the interest of the supremacy of the Pope over Scripture, and modern theologians, in the interest of severing faith from the written Word, accuse us here of arguing in a circle (idem per idem). This objection is groundless, for the method objected to, that we become certain of a thing through perceiving it, is in universal practice. He who seriously questions this method has become a hopeless agnostic. Now, faith in the written Word is nothing more or less than the perception, called forth by the Word itself, through the operation of the Holy Ghost, of this Word as being the Word of God. Philippi (Glaubenslehre, 3d ed., I, 136) mentions the fact that Strauss calls the doctrine of the testimonium Spiritus Sancti internum “the Achilles’ heel of the Protestant system” and also speaks of an argument in a circle. Philippi answers: “That is the same thing as when a blind man accuses his seeing neighbor of arguing in a circle, claiming that the sun shines, since he sees by its light.” That is the answer which the old Lutheran theologians gave. Gottfried Hoffmann (d. 1728) writes: “As the first principles are known of themselves and shine in their own light, and as in the realm of nature light bears witness of itself and has no need of an outside light, so, too, the testimony of the Holy Ghost has no need of outside testimony, but shines in its own light and abundantly proves itself to be divine by its own divine efficacy and power, in which it rejoices, although another cannot be persuaded of this unless he himself attentively reads Scripture and thus shares in this internal testimony” (Synopsis Theologiae Purioris, p. 86).”

    Pieper, F. (1999). Vol. 1: Christian Dogmatics (electronic ed.) (309). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

  2. helen
    October 12th, 2012 at 12:47 | #2

    I’ve never thought of “the Great Pumpkin” as an argument against Christianity. To me, it’s a commentary on the fuzzyheadedness which says, “It doesn’t matter what you believe, as long as you are sincere.”
    That isn’t Christianity, (no matter where it’s said or who said it).

    Linus just wants to have “Santa Claus” twice a year. Indirectly, perhaps, it’s an argument against Christian families teaching untruths… even about “Santa Claus”. (If you teach them nonsense about a “person” who is never seen, how are they supposed to distinguish between that and God, who is never seen either?)
    [Oh, yes, we did it, but not past 6 yrs, I think.] :( And we had Easter eggs, because they were pretty, but the children helped dye them, pretty young, so the “easter bunny” was out.

  3. October 12th, 2012 at 14:28 | #3

    You stole my idea for an article!!!! ;)

    Seriously though, very good piece. Well done.

  4. PPPadre
    October 12th, 2012 at 17:21 | #4

    Thank you for this clear articulation debunking what I call “Bye, Bye Birdie” Christianity.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhjoCtBqR_k&w=450&t=1m13s

    (Not sure why I can’t get it to start at 1:13, but you can watch the whole clip.)

If you have problems commenting on this site, or need to change a comment after it has been posted on the site, please contact us. For help with getting your comment formatted, click here.
Subscribe to comments feed  ..  Subscribe to comments feed for this post
Anonymous comments are welcome on this board, but we do require a valid email address so the admins can verify who you are. Please try to come up with a unique name; if you have a common name add something to it so you aren't confused with another user. We have several "john"'s already for example. Email addresses are kept private on this site, and only available to the site admins. Comments posted without a valid email address may not be published. Want an icon to identify your comment? See this page to see how.
*

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.