Gary Gutting who teaches philosophy at the University of Notre Dame puts up, at of all places the NYT online, a pair of spectacular philosophical pieces on belief, non belief and agnosticism.
The first from Aug 1st is called Philosophy & Faith:
At this point, the class perks up again as I lay out versions of the famous arguments for the existence of God, and my students begin to think that they’re about to get what their parents have paid for at a great Catholic university: some rigorous intellectual support for their faith.
Soon enough, however, things again fall apart, since our best efforts to construct arguments along the traditional lines face successive difficulties. The students realize that I’m not going to be able to give them a convincing proof, and I let them in on the dirty secret: philosophers have never been able to find arguments that settle the question of God’s existence or any of the other “big questions” we’ve been discussing for 2500 years.
One of the things that Dawkinsites tend to forget is that great thinkers and scientists and people of reason have been debating, writing on and discussing the existence of God in general and the truth of Christianity and Catholicism in particular for centuries before Guttenburg’s first bible rolled off the presses. Their image of the believer is a straw man.
His second part went up three days ago to respond to the Dawkinsites who were dismayed at his critique of the man they follow (we Christians are used to it, part of the job description you know) another peek:
My August 1 essay, “Philosophy and Faith,” was primarily addressed to religious believers. It argued that faith should go hand-in-hand with rational reflection, even though such reflection might well require serious questioning of their faith. I very much appreciated the many and diverse comments and the honesty and passion with which so many expressed their views. Interestingly, many of the most passionate responses came from non-believers who objected to my claim that popular atheistic arguments (like popular theistic arguments) do not establish their conclusions. There was particular dismay over my passing comment that the atheistic arguments of Richard Dawkins are “demonstrably faulty.” This follow-up provides support for my negative assessment. I will focus on Dawkins’ arguments in his 2006 book, “The God Delusion.”
For “unbelievers” they sure get their knickers in an uproar when someone questions what they think.
As I’ve written my own Catholicism is primarily based on experience, reason and history leading to my conclusion that it is true as a fact. The faith part of my equation is pretty weak by comparison and I need to work on it.
It’s worth noting that Gutting doesn’t argue for God but looks at the various arguments being made. Argument and rational debate are very important in this field, because if your arguments are worthwhile, they will stand up under fire. If you are unwilling to brave that fire then you might want to take another look at those beliefs.
I’m sure there will be later chapters that I have more issue with but that is the beauty of debate and through. Can’t wait for them. And to those who think it’s the wrong way to go I say anyone who thinks Christianity can’t be reached through reason or that Christians should not embrace reason needs a stronger faith and/or a more open mind.
Catholicism has stood this fire for 20 centuries and will likely be doing so for 20 more.
Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog 
Excellent post. Orthodox Christians look at this in a very similar way (our histories are, after all, entwined, and were in fact merged up until 1054). I don’t think atheists “get” that our churches have been asking these questions for far longer than they have. Hell, most of the great philosophers that atheists love to quote were Christian! William of Ockham, anyone? I agree with the premise of your post, though. Those that think Christianity means a lack of reason need to be educated, and those that fear reason for their faith need to strengthen that faith.
Yeah, I found religion thru reason long before I felt God’s love, or experienced any of that “relationship with God” stuff. It’s still my weak point. I feel more comfortable in the land of the rational argument.
Your post reminds me of a book I recently finished, The Devil’s Delusion by Berlinski. I’ve never read Hawkins, or any philosophy really (Does CS Lewis count?), so I found myself a little bit lost from time to time. But it was still good. I bet you’d like it. The author describes himself as a secular Jew, and he argues against the atheists, but from a nonreligious point of view.