Should the Christian William Craig be disqualified from debate or discussion because of his religious commitments/presuppositions? Well, should the atheist Christopher Hitchens be disqualified because of his commitments to naturalism? And should anyone be disqualified because of their commitments or presuppositions? Of course, not!
Related to this question, does Hitchens’ assertion that science is built on doubt, but the Christian’s mind is already made up, disqualify him from science? However, we ALL approach science with doubts about its workings. That’s why we do science!
Besides, we ALL approach science with our paradigms, presuppositions, and tentative hypotheses. In fact, it is often correctly stated that science is built upon the shoulders – their “findings - of the prior generations. No one approaches science with an empty mind, and no one should leave it without new questions demanding answers.
PROOFS OF GOD – ARE THEY INADEQUATE?
This is the contention of many atheists, including the late Christopher Hitchens. However, whatever “inadequacy” there might be in the proofs for God must be weighed against the adequacy of proofs against God. Ironically, most atheists concede that there are no substantial proofs against the existence of God.
Besides, the “inadequacy” of the proofs for God must also be weighed against proofs for the existence of the alternative worldview – naturalism. Does anything happen naturally and without design? In other words, is there any evidence that the causal laws of science naturally occur or are naturally sustained?