An Answer to Richard Dawkins

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

I am indifferent to Pascal's wager. But it seems to me that Dr. Dawkins is wrong. Would those who argue against the wager want us simply to say to Dr. Dawkins, "You're wrong" rather than asking the question? What I am trying to figure out is how to adequately answer Dr. Dawkins' response to the question. Do you think that the answer given in the OP is sufficient? How would you respond to Dr. Dawkins' tirade above?

Thanks in advance,

Rob

 

[steadfast7]

Dawkins is in no place to accept our confessional presuppositions. Telling him You are wrong would probably eliminate further discussion. Besides, Christianity does not require us to be so brash. We believe a very rational faith that is not devoid of answers and not scared of questions.

My strategy with Dawkins would be to keep dialog going and questions. What do we, or he, have to gain by doing anything else with someone so intellectually wired?

 

[Peairtach]

Hi:

I am indifferent to Pascal's wager. But it seems to me that Dr. Dawkins is wrong. Would those who argue against the wager want us simply to say to Dr. Dawkins, "You're wrong" rather than asking the question? What I am trying to figure out is how to adequately answer Dr. Dawkins' response to the question. Do you think that the answer given in the OP is sufficient? How would you respond to Dr. Dawkins' tirade above?

Thanks in advance,

Rob

Pascal's Wager is inadequate (at least on its own) because as Dawkins points out, there are more than two options.

John Frame's argument in "Apologetics to the Glory of God" is that there are three "types" of deities, absolute and impersonal, non-absolute and personal, and absolute and personal.

To account for the fundamental realities of the Universe, e.g. laws of logic, nature and morality, God must be absolute and personal.

The only gods/God that are absolute and personal, are those associated with biblical revelation, namely the god of the Muslims, the god of the Jews, and the God of the Christians. He then shows how the god of the Muslims and the god of the Jews don't add up philosophically.

I'm not doing justice to Dr Frame here, and you'd have to read it for yourself, and see if you can make the argument as simple as possible.

I'm disappointed that the presuppositionalists haven't yet got to work and built on Van Til's intellectual legacy, by publishing books which deal with all the major false religions. I believe that this may be something to be desired and very useful for the Church.

Maybe someone who has Dr Frame's or Dr Oliphint's ear can suggest this to them as a good idea to advance the philosophical study of religion and Christian apologetics.