The problem with everything-Dawkins (as I see it) is that he appears to be the epitome of the egotistical academic who is bright, but not nearly as bright as he assumes himself to be. Often, their so-called "intelligence" is apparent only with regard to their deep-diving into a speciific, often very narrow, subject of academic endeavour, success in which leaves many academics with the assumption that they are thereby very well equipped to pronounce on any of a huge variety of other subjects, leaving one to wonder if any of them actually understand what REAL ":intelligence" is.
I see the Dawkins mentality as an extreme example of such a faulty assumption.
The problem with everything-Dawkins (as I see it) is that he appears to be the epitome of the egotistical academic who is bright, but not nearly as bright as he assumes himself to be. Often, their so-called "intelligence" is apparent only with regard to their deep-diving into a speciific, often very narrow, subject of academic endeavour, success in which leaves many academics with the assumption that they are thereby very well equipped to pronounce on any of a huge variety of other subjects, leaving one to wonder if any of them actually understand what REAL ":intelligence" is.
I see the Dawkins mentality as an extreme example of such a faulty assumption.