Religion
In reply to the discussion: How To Identify A Hoax Religion [View all]Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)It's a way of hiding the fact that you cannot attack religion in any meaningful way, so you just say "Courtier's Reply" and slink away.
The "Courtier's Reply" is merely a way of saying "I don't know what I am talking about, and this is fine".
The idea is that complaining about an atheist's lack of theological knowledge is no better than the courtier's complaint that the naked emperor's critics haven't read an imagined defense a sycophant might give of the naked emperor of Hans Christian Anderson's story: "Haven't you read the discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots?"
How does it work? Well, suppose an atheist is confronted by saying that his "objections" to Thomas Aquinas (or whomever) are as impressive as the fundamentalist's "chicken/egg" objection to evolution. What's he going to do? Say, "OK, I don't know the first thing about Aquinas. But I'm not going to let that stop me from criticizing him!" So he just says, "Oh dear, not the Courtier's Reply" followed by some derisive chuckling. Of course, his opponent will be baffled, wondering how saying "Courtier's Reply!" is supposed to excuse not knowing what one is talking about.
One of my main objections to this sort of thing is that Dawkins, P.Z. Myers et al correctly criticize creationists for their ignorance of evolution. They believe -- rightly -- that creationist ignorance of evolution is inexcusable in someone discussing evolution; but ignorance of theology is acceptable in discussing religion. In other words, your ignorance of subject X is bad; my ignorance of subject Y is OK. It's called "having it both ways". Or, as a better-known exercise in doublthink put it, "Ignorance is strength!"