If it appears irrational to ascribe the acquisition of the watch to Santa Claus, why is it not equally irrational to ascribe it to God? In short, what makes the Christian any more rational than Alfred (who invoked Santa as the one who gave him his watch)?
OK, I'll take the bait. It is really quite simple. In the first instance, the writer makes it very clear that the interviewer is of the understanding that the adult person who says Santa Claus gave him the watch literally believes that some guy in a red suit came down his chimney and left the watch under the tree. So, of course the interviewer thinks the guy is crazy - who wouldn't.
But within the context of modern human society, adults of normal intelligence understand that people often thank the Lord, or explain that something they achieved was a result of prayer, or inspiration from some spiritual process. If the interviewer were to actually think that the person who says his watch was a result of praying for it, or the Lord's grace, was stating that the watch literally came from the Lord -- as in it was handed to him by God or Jesus himself -- then the interviewer would be more crazy than the fellow who believes in Santa Claus.
The person who relates his possession of the watch to his spiritual activities is making a statement about himself and his beliefs in the context of well understood shared aspects and norms of our culture. That isn't irrational at all.
So the hypothetical is really about a much different question than the author purports it to be. It is just one of many attempts to use clever wording and shallow logic to attempt to avoid facing the reality and power of spirituality.
I was searching this thread for someone to say something like you just said. Bravo. I may add a bit more if anyone cares.
I’m glad that the thread originator (SeekAndFind) prompted you to answer in comment number 7.