More On Dawkins' Presuppositions

If you listen to this clip, you will hear Dawkins ask a very good question about religion. You get a feel that McGrath's opening presentation didn't challenge Dawkins' pink elephants or unicorns at all. Dawkins asks basically, "So what?" So what if religion may cause people to do good things. The real question is "Is it true?"

McGrath leaves himself wide open to criticism at this point in the discussion. If you have listened to the Bahnsen/Stein debate, Bahnsen starts off with a much clearer opening statement. He sought not to prove theism in general nor even monotheism in particular. He only sought to demonstrate the Triune God of the bible. This was stated up front and for all to see. Bahnsen then demonstrated Christianity with far more certainty than McGrath's position ever could.

Back to McGrath's answer. Dawkins asked the question several times and even the moderator attempted to do so. "So is Christianity true?" "Well all of the evidence is best explained by Christianity" was the response. But again, is it true? I agree with McGrath that Christianity is the best explanation of the evidence, but Dawkins act of moral neutrality is a charade. This is where the discussion should have gone, and McGrath missed it.

Notice the question asked by Dawkins. "Is it true?"

1) How may Dawkins' world view ask such a question? This is where the Christian must expose the supposed moral neutrality of the unbeliever. Dawkins, like all atheists, must borrow from the Christian world view. He must borrow from the Image of God within him that would even cause such a question to even be thought of.

Truth is something only accounted for in the Christian system. Only a Creator that is eternal and self existent could even make such a question meaningful at all.

2) The question presupposes the Laws of Logic (or to even ask the question itself requires they exist). How does Dawkins know these laws exist? Did he scientifically test them? Can he smell or taste or touch or see or hear them? Why does he get to presuppose these laws without demonstrating a consistent world view? Why does the Christian have to prove things while he gets to borrow from the Christian without explaining himself?

3) This question is also in the middle of discussing morality and good works. How in the world may Dawkins ask a question about morality? His empty world has no ability to explain morality at all. So again, asking the question borrows from the Christian religion in assuming morality exists. If only Bahnsen had the opportunity.

This is still a great question though, and if McGrath answered it, I missed it.


This clip Dawkins basically uses logic to show that just because science can not answer questions, why in the world is it a logical necessity to go to Religion?

1) I have been called arrogant, but this takes the cake. What makes him think science had any right to answer the questions of our universe in the first place? Was there some logical necessity that science had already proved itself over and against any other forms of knowledge? If so, how did it do so? We are not told by Dawkins. It is just assumed!

2) I agree with Dawkins that religions often are man-made. But how does he know all religions are man-made?

3) This assumes naturalism and then proves it. If I use the Bible to demonstrate Jesus rose from the dead, I am accused of assuming what I am proving. He assumes science as the ultimate authority and then proves it, and that is just hunky dory.

4) This assumes God can not exist and use religion, or it assumes that if God exists, He is not able to speak to His creatures anyway. So God is just some mute Being that has no ability at all (assumption here is that evolution is true and the universe need no God).

Christianity, however, has more than demonstrated that God has spoken in the Person of Jesus Christ. He was raised from the dead. Dawkins is not some morally neutral creature just wanting to know what is true. His presuppositions are active, and he is actively suppressing the truth of God and exchanging it for a lie.

Dawkins is a bright man. Perhaps the brightest in our day. This only shows that the brightest minds are just as hostile to God's truth as the worst pharisee or pagan of Jesus' day.