Anthony Flew, the prominent philosopher and former atheist who created the "weak atheism"/"strong atheism" distinction, has recently taken Dawkins to task in print.

For one, Flew points out that Dawkins has been engaged in a straw man argument with his opponents, particularly regarding his failure to be honest about Albert Einstein's views:

"The fault of Dawkins as an academic was his scandalous and apparently deliberate refusal to present the doctrine which he appears to think he has refuted in its strongest form. Thus we find in his index five references to Einstein. They are to the mask of Einstein; Einstein on morality; on a personal God; on the purpose of life, and finally on Einstein's religious views. But he makes no mention of Einstein's most relevant report: namely, that the integrated complexity of the world of physics has led him to believe that there must be a Divine Intelligence behind it.

"An academic attacking some ideological position which s/he believes to be mistaken must of course attack that position in its strongest form. This Dawkins does not do in the case of Einstein and his failure is the crucial index of his insincerity of academic purpose and therefore warrants me in charging him with having become, what he has probably believed to be an impossibility, a secularist bigot.

Strong words. Flew also finds it odd that Dawkins went to print with words that seemed to imply that Flew's conversion was only "alleged":

Professor Flew also takes issue with Dawkins over an allegation in the book (page 82) that 'we might be seeing something similar today in the over-publicised tergiversation of the philosopher Antony Flew, who announced in his old age that he had been converted to belief in some sort of deity (triggering a frenzy of eager repetition all around the Internet).' Flew says:"What is important about this passage is not what Dawkins is saying about Flew, but what he is showing here about Dawkins. For if he had had any interest in the truth of the matter of which he was making so much, he would surely have brought himself to write me a letter of enquiry."

From this, Flew takes it that Dawkins was not much interested in the truth of this particular matter, and thus perhaps the broader question as well.