To follow up what I said in my last post, Terry Eagleton is apparently British but from an Irish family and spends at least some of his time teaching at an Irish University. His views of religion are an interesting mix of an apparent attraction to some Roman Catholic thought (especially Aquinas), viewing religion and the Gospel through something of a Marxist lens (he seems a staunch Marxist, but his temperament is completely opposite the stereotype about Marxists being belligerently antireligious), and a pick-and-choose approach to the application of certain (one might call them) secular ideals. I disagree with a fair amount of what he says, but I must admit that he actually says some very insightful things about faith and religion. Odd that my faith (or is it hope?) is actually being helped by an atheist writing about religion
Interestingly, the people he is primarily arguing against, Dawkins and Hitchens, he is far less insightful about. In fact, his entire critique seems to be almost completely based on a mere two books. He also has apparently read at least one book by Dennett, though he is rarely brought up. Sam Harris, Victor Stenger, and other "new atheists" are not even mentioned in passing. He also rarely quotes from Hitchens or Dawkins, but instead gives summations (sometimes vague) of what they are said to believe. And this book has plenty of endnotes, so it's not like that is the reason for the lack of references.
Still, like I said, he says some very interesting things. It is also a very enjoyable text to read... I haven't worked my way this quickly through a book in years.
EDIT--Actually I don't know that he is an atheist, that is just the impression that I get. The jist of his arguments seems to be: there may not be a God, but religion has its positives, and anyway Dawkins and Hitchens are not truly engaging with religion and are merely beating strawmen. Something he has said (I think) three times is that he is against people "buying their atheism on the cheap," or in other words being nonbelievers because they have only been willing to face a weak or easily-refutable version of Christianity or religion, when in his view much better versions of it are out there.