I don’t believe in Pat Robertson’s God either. But it’s odd, I think, that Dawkins is so insistent that everyone else must choose between believing or not believing in the same monstrous caricature. The fundamentalist account of God is monstrous, but it’s not the prevalent view by any means, and it’s certainly the least interesting kind of theology. Has Dawkins not read Gerard Manley Hopkins, Coleridge, Tennyson, Dante, Chaucer, Moltmann, Rahner, Schleiermacher, Brueggemann… ? I guess not. Perhaps it would be too much of a challenge to listen carefully to another kind of account. Much simpler to insist that the only options are Robertson’s God or atheism.

George Pitcher mocks gently, and concludes: “Dawkers is a great recruiting officer for faith. He repels tolerant atheists and inspires uncommitted inquirers to look further into what he so ludicrously and entertainingly misrepresents. I think he should be made an honorary bishop.”