Dawkins on the Late Late Show

Myksyk

Schuhart wrote:

But Gerard Casey seemed to have a point on the use of the world 'probably' in the book in the context of life on other planets. Its not as if there's stacks of evidence, so a word like possibly (as Casey suggested) would look to be more appropriate. Richard Dawkins did seem to squirm on the hook on that point, almost as if inside his head he could recognised it as a slip up - but he still didn't concede that there's hardly evidence that turns 'possibly' into 'probably'. That's a potential black mark, although I'll reserve judgement until I've read the book and seen exactly what he says and his evidence.

I was frustrated when Casey made this argument, which seemed either naive or mischievous. Dawkins answered it poorly too.

The point is that Casey was making a comparison between religious faith and Dawkins 'faith' in the probability of other life on other planets. The comparison is entirely bogus.

Religious faith means believing (i.e. without doubt and without hope of changing your mind) in something which has never been witnessed and is completely and wholly supernatural. Comparing this to the perfectly reasonable hypothesising of the scientist about the statistical 'probability' of life (which we know exists on at least one planet) and about which we have no vested interest (if it does it does, if it doesn't it doesn't) is a vacuous argument which looks good on the surface but has no substance whatsoever. I guess it impressed the masses and Dawkins' stumbling answer didn't help. To give him the benefit of the doubt I think he was so taken aback by the inanity of the comparison that he just blustered a bit. That said, this particular type of comparison is common in public debates about religion/atheism and perhaps we should expect him to expect it and have a reasonable answer for it.

Schuhart

Zillah wrote:

Life is far less fragile than it might seem, it just needs to be in an environment where its ancestors developed.

Pragmatically, that all makes sense to me. I would expect the sheer scale of the universe to mean that even if only one in a million potential stars has a suitable mix for life, and in only one in a million of them does that suitable mix actually produce life, that’s enough to guess that somewhere in the universe there’s life. (Plus isn't there a divergence in thought between EO Wilson and some other guy about whether intelligent life is a more or less likely outcome of evolution).

However, you’ll understand that before this can be turned into a reliable statement that enables us to say ‘probably’ with any authority, there has to be some systematic evaluation of that pragmatic statement. It’s not as if SETI has found our immediate surroundings to be swimming in broadcasts of the equivalent of ‘Home and Away’ from the Crab Nebula.

Maybe this has been done systematically and convincingly. I can recall seeing some programme on TV about this a while ago (Arts graduate, hence the cheery vagueness about all this stuff). If I recall, they were suggesting the ‘fertile’ band that the planet needs to orbit in would be quite tight. They also ran up against a couple of pure judgement calls – one was the chance that a intelligent life might destroy itself – nuclear war being the concern of the time; global warming might be now. (Yes, that means life would have been produced - otherwise how could it fight a war. But you get the main point.)

In the end, the sheer vastness of the Universe meant that, however low they set the probability of intelligent life evolving and surviving, it produced a positive result. That might be enough to go on – but I’m just registering the doubt at the moment to see if he actually footnotes that statement to some reliable source.

Myksyk wrote:

this particular type of comparison is common in public debates about religion/atheism and perhaps we should expect him to expect it and have a reasonable answer for it.

I agree the comparison is not identical, and a reasonable response is possible. We know life evolved here, so a natural consequence is to speculate if it evolved elsewhere. We don’t know if there’s a god here, so assuming there must be one somewhere in the universe is quite a different proposition.

However, I think what’s at issue is if, sometimes, statements are made based on judgement calls rather than evidence. Once judgement and intuition comes into the picture, it is quite hard to distinguish it from faith.

DaveMcG wrote:

Religion explains it all. That's until science comes along and explains it properly.

I’d agree with that perspective that religion is essentially about people making sense of their environment, reflecting that their intellect had developed to an extent that raised these questions in their minds.

Kwekubo

im_invisible wrote:

but then youve got the question of where did life come from, what was the very first 'cell' and how did it come into existance

Read The Selfish Gene by Dawkins. I read it last December in preparation for interviews for medical school; little did I suspect how profoundly it would alter my views on the nature of life and religion.

Sangre

lazylad wrote:

Many Atheists would love a world of total freedom to do what you want without any moral obligation. It's a cold festiveless mentality that strips the world of its right to religious beliefs and evolutionary safety(eg evolution wouldn't include those with genetic defects as viable to procreate). Atheism is cold and clinical, not somebody I want to marry.

Hmm, and here was me thinking that all the charity work I've done is because I'm a warm and fuzzy person inside.

A side note regarding S&M, consent isn't a defence to serious assault except where public policy allows e.g. boxing or surgery.

Myksyk

However, I think what’s at issue is if, sometimes, statements are made based on judgement calls rather than evidence. Once judgement and intuition comes into the picture, it is quite hard to distinguish it from faith.

It may be hard for some to distinguish these but that is there failing as they are completely different. An absolutely essential part of the scientific process is the inital (and ongoing) process of speculation and creativity. All good science begins with observation leading to speculation which directs the type of observations you might want to make next or the type of data you want to collect. This is not faith. There is no 'belief' here in the religious sense of the word.

People of religious faith are not proclaiming their conviction in the statistical probability of something. They are not proclaiming an objective stance where they are happy to abandon the idea if the data doesn't come in to support it. What they have is Faith. Conviction without evidence ... and in no need of evidence.

Scofflaw

lazylad wrote:

Many Atheists would love a world of total freedom to do what you want without any moral obligation. It's a cold festiveless mentality that strips the world of its right to religious beliefs and evolutionary safety(eg evolution wouldn't include those with genetic defects as viable to procreate). Atheism is cold and clinical, not somebody I want to marry.

Ah, the old arguments. Why not, after all - they smell so ripe? You are thinking of Social Darwinism, I'm afraid. No-one needs to assist evolution - and in any case we appear to have evolved to take care of those with genetic defects.

As for the "festiveless" - not at all. After all, any day could be your last.

coldly and clinically,
Scofflaw

Schuhart

Myksyk wrote:

It may be hard for some to distinguish these but that is there failing as they are completely different.

I’m not convinced the distinction is necessarily that clear. I’d distinguish between two situations. One is someone using intuition to suggest that a certain proposition is true. They then go off and prove it. Intuition might be what set them on that course, but they don’t expect you to take their assertion on trust.

The second situation is using intuition as a pragmatic tool to identify what seems reasonable in a situation. Life on other planets seems a reasonable example of this – we just trust that the universe is so large it must contain more monkeys with typewriters than you can shake a stick at. That’s actually not a million miles away from the theist claiming his proof of God is the order in the universe. They are both conviction without evidence, just using intuition to make an inference.

When we mention statistical probabilities in this context, I suppose what on my mind is where is the sample coming from. Fair enough, if we test a hundred light bulbs and calculate from that the chance of how many will be faulty in a batch of a thousand. But if all we have is a sample of one, then its hard to see how a probability can be worked out.

Bear in mind, this is a question that can be settled very satisfactorily simply by pointing to a reasonable systematic evaluation. If that exists, the whole point falls as the ‘probably’ statement is then reasonably sound. If we can’t point to such an evaluation, then Dawkins has reason to be defensive.

Scofflaw

Schuhart wrote:

I’m not convinced the distinction is necessarily that clear. I’d distinguish between two situations. One is someone using intuition to suggest that a certain proposition is true. They then go off and prove it. Intuition might be what set them on that course, but they don’t expect you to take their assertion on trust.

The second situation is using intuition as a pragmatic tool to identify what seems reasonable in a situation. Life on other planets seems a reasonable example of this – we just trust that the universe is so large it must contain more monkeys with typewriters than you can shake a stick at. That’s actually not a million miles away from the theist claiming his proof of God is the order in the universe. They are both conviction without evidence, just using intuition to make an inference.

When we mention statistical probabilities in this context, I suppose what on my mind is where is the sample coming from. Fair enough, if we test a hundred light bulbs and calculate from that the chance of how many will be faulty in a batch of a thousand. But if all we have is a sample of one, then its hard to see how a probability can be worked out.

Bear in mind, this is a question that can be settled very satisfactorily simply by pointing to a reasonable systematic evaluation. If that exists, the whole point falls as the ‘probably’ statement is then reasonably sound. If we can’t point to such an evaluation, then Dawkins has reason to be defensive.

Hmm. I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the Drake Equation yet. In a modified form, this encompasses the following variables:

(number of stars in the Milky Way) = 100 billion
(fraction of stars that have planets) = c. 50% recent estimates
(number of planets per star that are capable of sustaining life) = say 0.1
(fraction of those planets where life actually evolves) = say 1 in a million

This gives you an estimate for "life evolving" of about 5,500 planets in our galaxy alone.

The full Drake Equation goes on to estimate the chance of intelligent life, communicating, and existing at the same time as us, but the estimation involved becomes more and more a matter of taste.

The shorter version above will do for approximating the chances of any form of life, even if it's very simple. The estimates for the figures above can be firmed up a bit as planet detection methods get better - it should get easier, in particular, to put a figure on the average number of planets in the habitable zone.

A lot rides on that final figure. There are those who reckon that life will always evolve given the right conditions, in which case the number of planets with life in our galaxy suddenly jumps to 5.5 billion. Equally, there are those who reckon it's virtually impossible (trending off towards Special Creation, of course).

If you don't buy Special Creation, then there is a non-zero probability of life getting started on any planet that supports it - of which we are the proof. Given a non-zero probability, the Universe is so huge that it overwhelms even a large improbability of life.

Estimated number of galaxies: 125 billion
Estimated stars per galaxy: 50 billion
Estimated total stars: 6250000000000000000000

So, using the same figures as above, but plugging in the figure for all stars in the Universe this time, we can do a very rough calculation to show a possible 343,750,000,000,000 (343 trillion) planets with life on them, if the chance of life starting on a hospitable planet is 1 in a million.

To put it another way round, if we are to be the only planet in the Universe with life on it, then the chance of life starting must only be somewhere around 1 in 343,750,000,000,000,000,000 (1 in 343 quintillion). This figure would also apply to life on Earth, of course. Given the things life on Earth is known to have survived, this seems ludicrously low.

As far as I can see, then, the chances of us being the only life-bearing planet in the Universe are exactly the same as the above - one in 343 quintillion.

You can safely say, then, that the chances of Earth being the only life-bearing planet in the Universe are literally astronomically low, unless of course Special Creation is correct.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Myksyk

Schuhart wrote:

That’s actually not a million miles away from the theist claiming his proof of God is the order in the universe. They are both conviction without evidence, just using intuition to make an inference.

But 'proof' of God is simply not the same as 'belief' in God.

The Faithful believe God exists. There is no doubt. Proof is not an issue. They require no evidence (this actually defines Faith). They may be very happy if someone were to prove he exists but it is not a requirement. They may have built up rational arguments based on facts about the world (complexity etc) to bolster their position or to convince you or I but again these are not necessary and are, in important ways, redundant when one has Faith.

Believing that there is probably life on other planets is a completely different use of the word belief (and I believe that this comes down to obviously different uses of the words 'faith' and 'belief'). Here it obviously signifies, not a conviction, but a speculation. The degree of confidence expressed in the speculation (i.e possibly, probably) will depend on certain data already existing (the existence of life as a reality on one planet, the existence of billions of galaxies, quintrillions of star systems etc). There is no fundamental committment to this type of belief. It could be wrong. In fact for it to be right absolutely requires that evidence is produced at some stage. One can never say, in the meantime, that life definitely exists on other planets.

Not so for the Faithful. They say God definitely exists. No data required. No proof needed. No argument.

Dawkins does not have faith in life on other planets in the same way that the religious have Faith that there is a God. To compare the two types of 'belief' or 'faith' is glaringly bogus.

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote:

As far as I can see, then, the chances of us being the only life-bearing planet in the Universe are exactly the same as the above - one in 343 quintillion.

That post answers the point at issue - thanks.

Myksyk wrote:

Not so for the Faithful. They say God definitely exists. No data required. No proof needed. No argument.

The particular issue address here is now resolved. However, I think its overstating the case to say that the theist position is 'no data required'. Many theists go into elaborate 'proofs' of their position (I'd have in mind here things like all the energy spent identifying 'scientific miracles' in the Quran i.e. suggestions that the text might reflect an understanding of the material universe in advance of its time.) Others are not very definite that God exists, or that he gives a toss if he does. There is a distinction in the quality of faith not being caught here.

Tim Robbins

DaveMcG wrote:

Hey folks,

anyone catch this? It's still on as I type, but I doubt it will be when you read this.

What did ye think of it? I have to say I'm shocked by the extremely religious response from the audience and texters.

I'm very disappointed with Dawkins' "performance" tonight, I have to say. It probably wasn't helping the way Pat was moderating the discussion, but Richard also appeared very lacklustre too. Considering he is the face of modern Atheism

Why are you shocked? Most people in Ireland are theists / Catholics what do you expect them to say to a militant atheist who can't debate very well?

Dawkins is not the face of modern atheism, he may be the face of militant atheism.
A subsection of atheism.

lazylad

Well Dawkins is kind of a selfish man himself, imagine how somebody dying of lung cancer in hospitals who's last hope is the afterlife and their faith when they hear his trash on tv! Do you think it's fair? Religious arguments at least left you with a choice to believe or not to believe in what you were brought up as but Atheism is saying to people dying "your dying, that's it, goodbye". Sounds like Ann Robinson on the Weekest link. And I'm not surprised Dawkins is English either, English people don't tend to be as warm hearted as the Irish so that's why there were many reactions from the audience you "humans" would classify as silly.
And for the man who said two consenting adults could have sadomasochistic activities together well you have to think when laws are laws, people get an inch and tend to take a mile. If you legalise something that society regards morally wrong, people will take advantage of that. I don't agree with your disgusting view on what should be accepted.
You people don't relise if society becomes light on everything that "adults should have choice to do", eventually society will become so corrupt we won't be safe anymore. Think about it. How many murders were in Ireland in the 1950's and how many in 2006 so far? Think about it. I only speak for Ireland so keep that in mind.
The last thing I would advise anyone to do is listen to an English man on this. We are not English, we are Irish yet Atheists are looking up to this man. Would a world without national culture and identity be better place to live? What about if every country lost its accent and we all spoke a universal language? My point is religion gives us our individual beliefs. An atheist is nothing more than someone with no religion. Just like warm water without instant coffee powder. Would you drink warm water every morning before work everyday or would you like a choice of coffee in it? Would you think that because you don't believe in God or aspects of religion that the word would be a better place? If so explain what the world would be like without religion?
And first of all, from judging the posters who are atheist here, you seem to be a lot less "fun" and "imaginative" than the general poster on this boards. Atheists don't put themselves across in a good way or maybe they can't help it.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

BURN!!!!

Crucifix

lazylad wrote:

Well Dawkins is kind of a selfish man himself, imagine how somebody dying of lung cancer in hospitals who's last hope is the afterlife and their faith when they hear his trash on tv! Do you think it's fair? Religious arguments at least left you with a choice to believe or not to believe in what you were brought up as but Atheism is saying to people dying "your dying, that's it, goodbye". Sounds like Ann Robinson on the Weekest link. And I'm not surprised Dawkins is English either, English people don't tend to be as warm hearted as the Irish so that's why there were many reactions from the audience you "humans" would classify as silly.
And for the man who said two consenting adults could have sadomasochistic activities together well you have to think when laws are laws, people get an inch and tend to take a mile. If you legalise something that society regards morally wrong, people will take advantage of that. I don't agree with your disgusting view on what should be accepted.
You people don't relise if society becomes light on everything that "adults should have choice to do", eventually society will become so corrupt we won't be safe anymore. Think about it. How many murders were in Ireland in the 1950's and how many in 2006 so far? Think about it. I only speak for Ireland so keep that in mind.
The last thing I would advise anyone to do is listen to an English man on this. We are not English, we are Irish yet Atheists are looking up to this man. Would a world without national culture and identity be better place to live? What about if every country lost its accent and we all spoke a universal language? My point is religion gives us our individual beliefs. An atheist is nothing more than someone with no religion. Just like warm water without instant coffee powder. Would you drink warm water every morning before work everyday or would you like a choice of coffee in it? Would you think that because you don't believe in God or aspects of religion that the word would be a better place? If so explain what the world would be like without religion?
And first of all, from judging the posters who are atheist here, you seem to be a lot less "fun" and "imaginative" than the general poster on this boards. Atheists don't put themselves across in a good way or maybe they can't help it.

Why the inverted commas around human?
Why shouldn't we listen to an Englishman? We're all the children of God here, no?
Finally what a sweeping generalization. Do you expect the atheism and agnosticism forum to really portray the imaginitive fun side of people?

lazylad

By the way, Ireland is better to live now than 1950's but because societies morals are becoming less off a priority, and individual choices are becoming more accepted think of the conflict. Nobody all has the same views, that's why we have laws and laws and morals need to be strict to keep everyone on a similar understanding. If there was no faith, people would not value human life as more than just born eat and die. There is no real value on life any more than a dog in that case! You are all nothing, just flesh! So if faith in the value of life other than just being human, why not just wipe out a few extra dogs and humans to get rid of our global warming problem? After all what's the value in being human we are just here to be born, eat, reproduce and die? No meaning in anything after, so why are people valuable other than their intelligence and life? Faith did put more than the conventional value on human life itself! We are all equally loved; even if its not true its nice to believe in it right? Or maybe for Atheists believing we're all here and that's it. I know of people who would feel noting to live for in life who would like to think they are loved by a higher power. That's not delusional, its making their life more comfortable. Don't dismiss peoples so called silliness. You are a bunch of cynics. Let me guess the typical boards Atheist profile: middle aged, lonely, not and never was attractive, average or above average intelligence, little respect for people in general, angry at their society being happy.
I'm just asking really. People have the right to give their views.

lazylad

Crucifix wrote:

Why the inverted commas around human?
Why shouldn't we listen to an Englishman? We're all the children of God here, no?
Finally what a sweeping generalization. Do you expect the atheism and agnosticism forum to really portray the imaginitive fun side of people?

On a different level, would you imagine people that get a kick out of pain to be warm hearted friendly people?
Fine listen to an Englishman. Inverted commas just define what species we are, instead of being a dog and a cat to which inevitably we are equal to 100%. They are born equal and die like us too. Why not destroy films atheists don't agree with like "all dogs go to heaven"? Of course that was one of my favourite films growing up but why have it if heaven doesn't exist yet it made me feel good?

lazylad

Can any scientist prove we are not dreaming our life?

Webmonkey

Calm down lazylad, 3 posts in a row - there is such thing as the edit button

Anyways, you think that being an atheist is:

You are a bunch of cynics. Let me guess the typical boards Atheist profile: middle aged, lonely, not and never was attractive, average or above average intelligence, little respect for people in general, angry at their society being happy.

How dare you judge me or us like that. I am an Atheist but that doesn't make me a bad person or anything you describe there.
I happen to be a well like person, I am extremly obliging. I always go out of my way to help others. I respect people so much, more than myself.
My grandmother is extremly religious , like a nun and she wouldn't be the most honest person at times.

How can you put a label on Athiests like that?

Crucifix

lazylad wrote:

Why not destroy films atheists don't agree with like "all dogs go to heaven"? Of course that was one of my favourite films growing up but why have it if heaven doesn't exist yet it made me feel good?

What? I hate to make a sweeping generalization of my own, but I would say the amount of atheists and agnostics who believe in such censorship is very low. Censorship by religions would probably be far more common, such as with the Life of Brian.

Dave!

Tim Robbins wrote:

Why are you shocked? Most people in Ireland are theists / Catholics what do you expect them to say to a militant atheist who can't debate very well?

Dawkins is not the face of modern atheism, he may be the face of militant atheism.
A subsection of atheism.

I'm shocked because I didn't realise the level of religosity that the Irish public have. I personally don't know anyone who goes to mass on a regular basis, for instance. Most people seem to be Roman Catholic on paper (and in the Census), but haven't really given it much thought, it was just a default position. And the Census is skewed anyway, as I think a thread in this forum showed -- the parents in the house fill in the Census, and everyone is Roman Catholic.

But when provoked by a 'militant atheist', the religosity really becomes evident in the general public. Shocking.

edit:

IGNORE LAZYLAD -- he's a troll. He will be banned shortly. Just don't respond to his posts.

lazylad

Webmonkey wrote:

Calm down lazylad, 3 posts in a row - there is such thing as the edit button

Anyways, you think that being an atheist is:


How dare you judge me or us like that. I am an Atheist but that doesn't make me a bad person or anything you describe there.
I happen to be a well like person, I am extremly obliging. I always go out of my way to help others. I respect people so much, more than myself.
My grandmother is extremly religious , like a nun and she wouldn't be the most honest person at times.

How can you put a label on Athiests like that?

Emm was I referring to you? The above was your point that you can be religious and dishonest? OK point taken.
No, I have a degree in belief that as humans are smarter than rats that there must be something smarter than humans too, maybe that's what people with faith who say they feel good for no apparent reason can sense. A force unmeasuarble to humans. I have noticed that some very scientific people are cold and emotional and of course exceptions. Science as you well know doen'st know everything. Science basically denies everything until proven and since Dawkins mentioned about the world being flat and everybody believing it well how else were scientists and people going to prove it etc without exploring? We have not explored afterlife and may never get there after death. Maybe death is a process of change from what makes us individual into a different form of energy that is beyound human understanding and too advanced for science to ever creat a theory about. Maybe there are forms of energy we can't account for. Maybe its a design of our possible creaters from galaxies away to keep us from knowing but they make us aware of their presence. Anyway anything is possible, and as a deep deep thinker about things, I believe in chaos. I believe some people live in chaos others are organised but neither will fully understand each other.

lazylad

DaveMcG wrote:

I'm shocked because I didn't realise the level of religosity that the Irish public have. I personally don't know anyone who goes to mass on a regular basis, for instance. Most people seem to be Roman Catholic on paper (and in the Census), but haven't really given it much thought, it was just a default position. And the Census is skewed anyway, as I think a thread in this forum showed -- the parents in the house fill in the Census, and everyone is Roman Catholic.

But when provoked by a 'militant atheist', the religosity really becomes evident in the general public. Shocking.

edit:

IGNORE LAZYLAD -- he's a troll. He will be banned shortly. Just don't respond to his posts.

Banned for what? Banned for what?

I'm saying respect everybodies views. And I'm saying we can't prove anything. Science is only so far. The universe is a mystery and full of possibilities yet we haven't proven or explored enough about the universe matter and energy and who knows. We are part of it and maybe we are more than organic carbon and energy plus chemicals. Many chemicals can't think like we can life as I know it is amazing and more than life and death.

pH

Tim Robbins wrote:

Why are you shocked? Most people in Ireland are theists / Catholics what do you expect them to say to a militant atheist who can't debate very well?

Dawkins is not the face of modern atheism, he may be the face of militant atheism.
A subsection of atheism.

I call your pejorative and raise you wikipedia. Your trolling isn't even original.

The phrase militant atheist is usually used as a pejorative by critics when discussing those people who are more outspoken than the general population on subjects which explicitly or implicitly promote atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant

Dades

Goodbye lazylad.

One too many ignorant generalisations voiced.

I'll consider unbanning you in a week if you PM me with a convincing reason, and a promise to be less ignorant of the subject you are ranting about.

Scofflaw

pH wrote:

I call your pejorative and raise you wikipedia. Your trolling isn't even original.

The phrase militant atheist is usually used as a pejorative by critics when discussing those people who are more outspoken than the general population on subjects which explicitly or implicitly promote atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant

Hmm. And when the term is used by an atheist?

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

> And when the term is used by an atheist?

...about as often as "materialistic evolution" is used by biologists. Just another piece of name-calling, really, I think.

pH

Scofflaw wrote:

Hmm. And when the term is used by an atheist?

cordially,
Scofflaw

If the person/group being referred to is organising in a military structure, or advocating military action or violent struggle then the term would be accurate.

Calling Dawkins 'militant' is pure mudslinging, unless you can refer me to where he is indeed calling for atheists to take to the streets.

Sangre

Thing with broadcasting in Ireland is, by law, they have to present a balanced and impartial programme, this means that Dawkins always has to deal with someone on the other side of the fence, something which from what I've heard, he clearly doesn't excell at.

Schuhart

Sangre wrote:

Dawkins always has to deal with someone on the other side of the fence, something which from what I've heard, he clearfully doesn't excell at.

We have quite an amount of evidence to support that proposition.

Scofflaw

pH wrote:

If the person/group being referred to is organising in a military structure, or advocating military action or violent struggle then the term would be accurate.

Calling Dawkins 'militant' is pure mudslinging, unless you can refer me to where he is indeed calling for atheists to take to the streets.

mil·i·tant (mĭl'ĭ-tənt) pronunciation
adj.

1. Fighting or warring.
2. Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause: a militant political activist.

Would you not consider Dawkins the latter? I think most atheists would, although I admit I can't be sure whether it's just book marketing.

cordially,
Scofflaw