Cult of Sundries

More thought experiments. [This is a simple courtesy to those who have no interest in participating in one.] Recently, a friend sent me this video: It is a common example of someone trying to reason with a deeply religious person and the eventual failure to convince the religious person despite rational discourse. The host, Maajid Nawaz, attests to being a Muslim himself. The point of contention was the hijab.  The entire exchange is focused on why the caller would believe she has to wear one. An argument offered is that the hijab is not required by the Quran, but instead imposed by some male in a hadith  somewhere.  The conversation then descends into a series of fallacies and the call ends without a resolution. Normally, I would love to dwell on the caller, but this time I want to focus on an argument by the host. To stress this, I'll provide another example. This time from my main man John Fugelsang, on Twitter.  Those of you who do not have time to waste, Fugelsang is

[Fair warning: this includes a thought experiment.  Those uncomfortable with the thought of one should probably sit this out.] This subject comes up a lot. If you are an atheist, it resonates irritatingly as I think it takes more faith to be an atheist than to believe in God. I'll leave aside the irony of a believer having less faith in God than atheists having faith in themselves. Okay, after a brief sneering chuckle. But what does it mean? The assertion is predicated on ex nihilo creation of the universe, life, and species. The Big Bang, abiogenesis and evolution are apparently so incredible that they could not possibly have happened by chance accident luck non-supernatural causes. In short, it is a daily double: argument from design and an argument from incredulity . The notion being that because none of us "were there" at inception, we are speculating and taking things on faith. "Were you there?" is a familiar challenge. Well, obviously