Read this long article and the comments that follow.
For those who don't have the time to read a long article, I'll try to sum it up:
A "religious studies" professor states that he is completely different from a theology professor because he focuses on how and why religions exist (from a social level) whereas theologians focus on defending a made up set up beliefs (from an errant view). He is thus, naturally, frustrated that the two are so often lumped together. There's also a bit about how theology leads to no knowledge but only lies because god doesn't exist...
The comments tear this article apart (for the most part), though there is a rather interesting comment that seems to agree.
I've not really had an idea of what to say about all this, but it reminded me of a debate recently held at my alma mater. Now, people can disagree that God exists, but I think Craig did a good job of showing that God does exist. And, from the articles linked at the bottom of the announcement, Craig had the better argument.
But, as Doug TenNapel points out:
Hitchens won the debate. It's not the argument of the debaters, it's the condition of the audience that wins the day. While few of Dr. Craig's arguments are dispersed through culture, even religious culture, I've been raised on most of Hitchens' arguments. Dr. Craig's arguments are true and well-reasoned by difficult to comprehend on a first hearing. Hitchens' arguments are what we'll find spoken against God on prime time television, at the water-cooler, I've even heard some of them on Animal Planet. Culture generally makes Hitchens' argument by default. And it's easier to claim the skeptic's nothing than affirm the something of God...
I find this kind of thing fascinating, and important to consider.
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father
P.S. There is a new Box Day Flair at the bottom of the Widgets page.