Commenter Sastra, replying to my previous post on this subject, offers what I thnk is a perfect characterization of much of the response to Dawkins’ book:
From what I can tell, most of the sophisticated critics of Dawkins feel that he failed to address what I like to call the Argument from Generalized Vagueness. God is something so great, so other, so important and significant and unlike anything in our experience, that the only way we can bring it down to our level and understand it is by referring to it in veiled metaphors. It’s all very vague, and encompasses all sorts of general things like thoughts and emotions and morals and meaning, but not specifically being any of those, of course.
Therefore, there is no actual content to the concept which is firm or clear enough to criticize. Whatever you think God is, it isn’t really that, that’s only an analogy. It’s deeper and better than that.
Clearly Dawkins has only an incomplete, childish, unsophisticated understanding of a straw-man God. The Argument from Generalized Vagueness makes God bullet-proof against his clumsy scientistic attacks.