Comment 20 by Starcrash

I don't see how expressing Dawkins' credentials as a scientist helps in bolstering his authority in secularism, though; it's like the same fallacy in reverse.

Not just his credentials, but his contributions. Not only do people who dislike Richard Dawkins' message fail to acknowledge his contributions to the world through science and through the communication of science but the very few who acknowledge it say, "Granted, he's a heck of a scientist but he's no philosopher." What does that mean?

He thinks. He thinks clearly. He evaluates evidence. He considers every argument against his point of view in every possible way. He does this in a highly trained and disciplined way. He seeks more evidence. He is willing to abandon his point of view if he encounters evidence that should force him to abandon it.

The arguments against him are that he's egotistical, insane, irrational, militant, cranky, puerile, philosophically weak, strident, naive, etc.

He's showed no sign of that in his career in science, in his communication of science or in his battle against the unwarranted privilege of religion.

I think his credentials and contributions as a scientist need to be brought up more often. The discipline of science is a crucible through which religious arguments cannot pass and survive. That's why most of them don't even try.