Hmm. Are you sure you're being altogether nice Mr Kedrosky?

BlackSun - the answer to your question lies in the text of Eagleton's article - which, with the greatest of respect, you quite simply have not read closely enough and/or don't understand. What you are attempting to do here (as with most of Dawkins' disciples) is insisting that you define the parameters of the debate so it fits into a forgone conclusion to suit your own convictions. Any discussion of anythng outside that small box appears to be lost on you. I have no intention of proving the existence of God any more than you can prove that there is no such thing. All I can do for you is to explain how I see it and ask you to respect that - just as I respect your right not to believe in God and to reject religion. Neither of us has any way of knowing whether we are right, ultimately.

(Rest of comment to follow)

"In the very first sentence, Eagleton makes the most common mistake: he places theology on a par with science—the study of the unknowable and invisible equivalent to that which has helped humanity understand nature and build the modern world."

And there in the very first sentence of your 'rebuttal' is made explicit your failure even to begin to understand what Eagleton wrote. You cannot prove a point by referring to your own convictions as if you they were absolute givens. Eagleton's review has simply flown way over your head. This piece is as lunging and flailing and mispunching as Dawkins' book.