It is a bit daft to be pushed onto the ground of whether god exists or not at all, which is obviously a hiding to nothing. I thought the strongest critique of religion was Feuerbach's, precisely because it does not disprove god, so much as explain the meaning of the concept god, and its earthly origins. I think that is what Eagleton means when he says that Dawkins Nay Nay to the priests' Yeh Yeh is peculiarly obtuse.
You do need to know science studies if you're engaging in a critique of science studies.
Yes, but you don't need to know it all that well to hoax it, apparently. More to the point, do you need to know science to do science studies? Isn't the critique of science a bit metaphysical, like asking what is is, or questioning questioning. I can see how you could criticise a particular finding of some scientists, but then that generally is what we call.. science. But to critique science as such seems a bit like critiquing breathing. There is some good scholarship explaining how social questions are falsely subordinated to natural science, but usually the expansion of that point to a critique of science as such is just quixotic.
Natural scientists often make the point that they have noticed no discernible advantage arising out of the philosophy of science.
On that, sad to say, Norman Levitt died last week.