The wish-fulfillment critique of religion is self-refuting for its users.

Evidence

The usual Christian argument that Muhammad taught what his, or the Arabs’, natural desires disposed him to teach could have been applied to motives: appropriate to Christians, or any other body of believers, as well as to the alleged Islamic propensity for violence and sexual laxity. … Yet if a lover of goodness gave a religion only because it was good, there would be no necessity to accept it as true. — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1447

Categorization

• APHORISMS: The compressed point — ‘if a lover of goodness gave a religion only because it was good, there would be no necessity to accept it as true’ — is a genuinely elegant philosophical trap worth returning to.