Humanities and Science Struggle for Power, Recognition

"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," wrote Terry Eagleton in his review of The God Delusion.

Fighting words, too be sure, and the conflict between the two figures enscapulates much of what is frustrating on both sides of the intelligent design debate. Asad Raza of Three Quarks Daily writes this up nicely:

... none of Eagleton's criticisms of
Dawkins score direct hits on the central matter of disputation, except insofar as he tries to change the relevant genre of conversation from a scientific to a historico-theoretical one. But that's neither here nor there, and the debate between the two of them should not be construed as an argument conducted on one playing field. Each, of course, picks the ground that is most conducive to the discipline they profess:
Eagleton avoids specificity when discussing the core of monotheistic faith, preferring to reiterate his quasi-Marxist version. [...]

For his part, Dawkins makes religion into what suits him; he avoids discussion of figures who would complicate his somewhat simplistic faith in the power of the scientific method to verify phenomenological events such as beliefs.

In the end, writes Raza, the "rhetorical excess" that's passed between Eagleton and Dawkins has less to do with a debate about God than "their competing disciplines, which struggle for social capital and resources."

In other words, deconstruct the figures behind any argument, be it scientific or religious.
Dispatches: Eagleton Versus Dawkins [Three Quarks Daily]