No, I don't think they're knuckle-draggers either, but we are talking about beliefs people hold because they hold them to be true, not merely useful. The claim is being advanced, more or less, that we, the enlightened, have no need of such illusions, but that it's useful for others to continue to believe in them, despite the fact that we, the enlightened, know those beliefs to be false. I think it's not too hard to see why some might find that claim rather offensive - it's good for you to believe in this lie, as one of the unenlightened, so just go ahead and carry on there, Charlie Church. I mean, the wording may be deliberately provocative, but isn't that what we're talking about, when you get right down to it?
Maybe, but it is to some extent semantics. We ALL, if we are other than sociopaths, make a priori leaps of faith about morality. We can and must.
Well put. This is also what Jacob Sullum addressed in his column Thy Neighbor’s Faith, especially in the last few paragraphs:
So what does it mean when a Jewish politician tells Christian voters that "we" need to reaffirm "our" faith? The message, apparently, is that any faith will do, provided it keeps people out of trouble.But anyone who values religion because it promotes morality must value morality on nonreligious grounds. Hence this argument does not tell us why we should be religious. It tells us why other people should.