Richard Dawkins decries religion because it makes a virtue out of the willingness to leave things unexplained. Science, however, boldly knows of no such willingness. It marches forward relentlessly, seeking to explain away everything in its path.
But not every object or event can or should be explained. It is not insufficient of religion to stop short of some explanations (which, lamentably, is something that religion often fails to do). It is insufficiently human to seek to explain everything.
Barth's theology is a theology of God extra nos - God outside of us. We do not begin with a our explanations of the universe that lead us to posit the existence of "God". We begin with the God who cannot be explained by us outside of His own revelation to us that is grasped in the obedience of faith. Any other God is no God at all. Or, anything that Dawkins' net catches isn't God.
It is not God who stands before us if He does not stand before us in such a way that He is and remains a mystery to us.
So much for 99.9% of apologetics, then.