[UPDATE: Turns out that TrapperJoe is 'Yus', some jerk who used to hang out at DBs blog. He wasn't really interested in making any real arguments, just jerking people around. I haven't actually ever seen a skeptic do that, it always seems to be some moronic believer who plays that game. But of course not all religious people are jerks, and not all skeptics are not jerks., just when it comes to debating on the blogs, the religious side always seems to field more jerks. Being charitable, perhaps this is because the smart ones are all learning, or doing something more productive. And by definition, the skeptics tend to be the smarter ones. So it makes sense actually, and should not be seen as reflection on religion as a whole.]
I thought I'd seen all the bad arguments for religion, but this one takes the cake. Trapper Joe is proposing the following argument (I'm paraphrasing):
'It's true that religion rests on unprovable or seemingly untrue faith. However many people have faith in all sorts of unproven or untrue things, e.g. certain aspects of Origin Sciences, or unwarranted faith in Professors or other academics, so my faith is legitimate!
Or, to put it more cynically, as anony writes, 'other (stupid) people have absolute faith in unproven or seemingly incorrect things, so why shouldn't I?' I guess it kinda works. Maybe Trapper Joe should write a kiruv book - 'Permission to be stupid'.
But is there anything actually wrong with TrapperJoe's argument? Well, I think his argument actually does work, but I would have put it differently. I would say that believing in fantasy, especially religious fantasy, is part of the human condition. Possibly the human race will evolve beyond that one day in the future, but for right now, the alternatives are far from being proven, and could even turn out to be worse.
I think the focus needs to be on refining people's religious fantasies, and ensuring that they don't cause any undue harm, rather than trying to make people give up their fantasy.
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
