This criticism misrepresents the focus of the atheist critique. Atheists are not interested in critiquing theology, which assumes (at some level) truths about God. We are interested in critiquing apologetics, which at least purports to establish truths about God. Typical atheists, myself included, do not seem particularly interested in digging into gazillions of words of
If these supposedly sophisticated theologians wish to be evaluated as apologists, they need to present their work as such directly to a skeptical audience. All I ever see — from Orr, Garrison and various bloggers — are vague references to particular authors with dozens of books to their credit or simply to an enormous body of
Apologetics achieved its zenith in medieval times. The arguments employed by Aquinas, Anselm and Pascal are still in wide currency; only a minuscule fraction of today's religious believers are (unlike most atheists) even aware of subsequent philosophical apologetics, such as Gödel's ontological argument, James' "leap of faith", Van Til's presuppositionalism, Swinburne's "least explanation", or Plantinga's modal argument. The only contemporary apologetics which receive much popular currency among believers are the Kalaam Cosmological argument ( just a tweak of Aquinas') and thoroughly discredited pseudo-scientific apologists such as Josh McDowell and William Lane Craig. If these sophisticated modern theists have contributed anything of substance to apologetics, they are keeping their contributions well hidden not only from atheist critics but also religious believers.
I'll repeat my request to those who claim that atheists are ignoring modern apologetics. Show me a link to a modern apologetic argument which is presented as apologetics. It would be nice if you could summarize the argument, but I'll just take a link. Hell, just give me the title of a book that I can purchase for $20 or less. (If it costs more than $20, buy it yourself and mail it to me.)