I must come to edsheppa's defense on that claim. I know that is very true of others, but my dealings with edsheppa do not have any evidence of such attitudes.
All I know about him I learned from my contact today, since we have not communicated before and I am unfamiliar with his posts. If he is not among the callow confident on these threads, I welcome the news. But he might find it useful, before he goes defending Dawkins and criticizing those who attack him, to read more of Dawkins' work to learn just who the man is --- a man of the most irksome smug, pompous and snotty self-assurance, in a style only the British have mastered, who very much fits Montgomery's definition of a "provincial mind." Men like Dawkins and Dennett limit their worldviews to phenomenological simplicities and dazzle the easily impressed by rolling arcane, and, in the end, not very interesting, data about biophysics, biochemistry and geology, all the while ignoring the 800 pound ontological gorilla in the middle of the laboratory. They dare not address questions of being --- the only questions that really count --- because they know those questions are just as mysterious and confounding in a post-einsteinian universe are they were in a pre-socratic one.