Dawkins used to be a biologist who wrote some popular-scientific books about evolution theory, which I read. His ideas were generally well received among his fellow biologists, though not found explaining as much as sometimes claimed.

Starting with "The God Delusion", he switched to becoming an activist. He does not claim any scientific knowledge about his new subject (philosophy, sociology, and psychology of religions), and indeed deliberately boasts the opposite - see his famous "leprechaun" comparison. He is proud to fight religion, in other words, he is a militant atheist. Whenever he criticizes aspects of particular religions (which alone would make him merely a critic of religions), he describes them as consequences of religious faith.

The following is important and not known to everybody: his original starting point was a speculation about the biological evolution of religious predispositions in humans. It sounded somewhat plausible (though not to scientists who are long past this sort of "Darwinisms"), and led him to his new ideas that religion is no longer favorable to the survival of mankind, on the contrary. "Like the dinosaurs" - as another popular biologistic superstition says.

In the light of evolution theory, his present efforts can well be compared to cutting the tails of mice.

I wrote a similar post, but shorter, to a Mudcat thread last year, and found that some replies defended Dawkins in the style of some Muslims defending Muhammad - "sainthood" indeed.

I do not want to be part of ideological disputes, but I would like to emphasize that they must not be confused with science, even when led by (former) scientists. The great successes of science have brought about an aura (now somewhat crumbling, but still considerable) which attracts all kinds of superstition, with or without traditional attributes of religion. "Scientology" is the ultimate such label.