I am a big Dawkins fan, but I can see the reasons (some justified, in my opinion, and others not) why he attracts so much criticism:
1. He is, arguably, the world's most famous atheist. (I'm sure there are more famous people who are atheists, but he may be the person most widely known to be an atheist.) That alone is going to attract attention.
2. He does not have much good to say for religion. Many atheists will defend the proposition that "there is no [evidence for] God" just as doggedly as Dawkins, but make conciliatory statements about how religion may be a good thing, etc. -- what Dan Dennett has called "belief in belief."
3. More specifically, he repeatedly challenges the social convention that you don't question people's religious beliefs or subject them to the same scrutiny as other statements about the world. When you challenge social conventions, some people are going to agree with you that the conventions are wrong and should change, but others are going to think you're rude.
4. At times, he can be a little tone deaf, and/or simply doesn't seem to care how he is perceived. Thus he says things that tend to antagonize people or be easily misinterpreted in a way that does. For example, I think the whole "bright" campaign was ill-conceived, and am shocked that people as smart as Dawkins and Dennett thought it would work. Similarly, Dawkins' comments about "child abuse" were probably a little reckless; yes, they've mostly been misinterpreted, but when you use inflammatory phrases like that you open the door to that kind of thing. Titling his book "The God Delusion" was deliberately provocative. You can explain all you want in the foreword about the dictionary definition of "delusion," but you can hardly be surprised that many people are going to interpret it as a slam on the intelligence and/or sanity of religious people. Ditto for the title of his BBC documentary "Root of All Evil?" (And yes, I know he says it wasn't his idea, but he still bears some responsbility for it.)
5. Most of us like to think of ourselves, and want others to think of us, as moderate, reasonable people. So there's a natural tendency on any issue, whether it's atheism, political ideology, Star Trek fandom, or whatever to point to someone else on "your" side and say, "look, I'm a reasonable, moderate person, not a fanatic extremist like that guy." Mostly by virtue of points 1-4, Dawkins gets put in that role for a lot of people. I'm not saying it's dishonest for people to do that; most of them probably have real, substantive disagreements with the guy.
1. He is, arguably, the world's most famous atheist. (I'm sure there are more famous people who are atheists, but he may be the person most widely known to be an atheist.) That alone is going to attract attention.
2. He does not have much good to say for religion. Many atheists will defend the proposition that "there is no [evidence for] God" just as doggedly as Dawkins, but make conciliatory statements about how religion may be a good thing, etc. -- what Dan Dennett has called "belief in belief."
3. More specifically, he repeatedly challenges the social convention that you don't question people's religious beliefs or subject them to the same scrutiny as other statements about the world. When you challenge social conventions, some people are going to agree with you that the conventions are wrong and should change, but others are going to think you're rude.
4. At times, he can be a little tone deaf, and/or simply doesn't seem to care how he is perceived. Thus he says things that tend to antagonize people or be easily misinterpreted in a way that does. For example, I think the whole "bright" campaign was ill-conceived, and am shocked that people as smart as Dawkins and Dennett thought it would work. Similarly, Dawkins' comments about "child abuse" were probably a little reckless; yes, they've mostly been misinterpreted, but when you use inflammatory phrases like that you open the door to that kind of thing. Titling his book "The God Delusion" was deliberately provocative. You can explain all you want in the foreword about the dictionary definition of "delusion," but you can hardly be surprised that many people are going to interpret it as a slam on the intelligence and/or sanity of religious people. Ditto for the title of his BBC documentary "Root of All Evil?" (And yes, I know he says it wasn't his idea, but he still bears some responsbility for it.)
5. Most of us like to think of ourselves, and want others to think of us, as moderate, reasonable people. So there's a natural tendency on any issue, whether it's atheism, political ideology, Star Trek fandom, or whatever to point to someone else on "your" side and say, "look, I'm a reasonable, moderate person, not a fanatic extremist like that guy." Mostly by virtue of points 1-4, Dawkins gets put in that role for a lot of people. I'm not saying it's dishonest for people to do that; most of them probably have real, substantive disagreements with the guy.
