There is a crisp logic here. I agree with Dawkins. But in another interview, this time with a fierce critic of New Atheism, Terry Eagleton says: "Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology." Put this way, Eagleton seems right. I agree with him, too.

They all do, Caspar. Every theologian wants to belittle Dawkins harsh criticism by saying he's merely a biologist, and therefore can't have a comprehensive understanding of theology. I can surely understand it must be hard to be thoroughly demolished by someone who hasn't spent year after year paying for an education to prove nothing. Yet they hardly ever seem to criticize Dawkins arguments, only that he's not an authority on the matter and should therefore shut up.

By belittling Dawkins expertise instead of counter his arguments they are making a huge mistake. Dawkins comes through as easy to understand and logical, that will win the crowd. The reason they don't respond to his arguments instead, is of course - because they can't.