Johnny-Dee argues that the existence of humor is better accounted for by theism than by naturalism. My philosophical interest in humor notwithstanding, I never thought of this before. Johnny-Dee himself admits that the argument isn’t very pursuasive on it’s own, but suggests that it may “add confirmation in an overall cumulative case for the existence of God.”
I’m generally inclined to believe that the great variety and intensity of human emotions is best explained by theism but I think this kind of argument often makes a false dichotomy. Johnny-Dee characterizes naturalism as the view that “the world is composed entirely of matter following laws of physics”. While many scientists and philosophers hold such a view, it is certainly conceivable to to reject it without embracing theism. That said, I’d prefer to limit the argument from humor to an argument against naturalism.