Frank Schaeffer is all over the map with his comments in this interview. It’s apparent at the very least that he doesn’t actually listen to Richard Dawkins much. To equivicate the rhetoric of Dawkins to that of Pat Robertson, Richard Dobson, or Sarah Palin (for example) is I think nothing but a convenient marketing ploy; completely without merit. Maybe I’m wrong on that account, but Schaeffer himself provides no basis to support the equivication.

When pressed to do so by Flanders, at first Schaeffer suggests that it is Dawkins’ harsh choice of words … but then Schaffer displays no less direct and harsh in his choice of words. Then Schaeffer criticizes Dawkins for promoting a point of view (”evangelizing”), but it’s clear throughout this entire interview that Schaffer is no less “evangelical” in his approach to promoting his “theology of not knowing” and selling his book on the subject (and there’s nothing wrong with either of these things in my opion) … but most ironically, Dawkins would I think fully embrace such a theology. Dawkins celebrates the ideal of “now knowing”, more so than Schaffer apparently. Anyone who had ever listened to Dawkins talk on the subject of faith would know, the main message that Dawkins promoted is that “faith is not a virtue”, in other words, claiming to know something when in fact you don’t know it, is not virtuous.

Schaffer in the end says: “Be tough on the lies”. I think we can all agree to that principle. Isn’t claiming to know something, when you dont’ know it, a lie?