Richard Dawkins is one of the pre-eminent scientists in the world. An Oxford professor and paleontologist by training, Dawkins is, because of a series of vigorously argued books and numerous speaking appearances, a famous public figure. But his atheism owes not just to his hard scientific evidence.

Dawkins believes that religious belief is fundamentally irrational and has ravaged mankind from the Crusades to the attacks on September 11. Religion continues to lead to war, bigotry, sexism, and child abuse.

Dawkins's books and lectures have drawn letters from people reminding him of the less extreme forms of religion, such as the views expressed in the writings of Paul Tillich and Diedrich Bonhoeffer. But he claims that the decent, understated sort of religion is “numerically negligible.” What predominates instead are the likes of Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell, Ted Haggart, Osama bin Laden, and Ayatollah Khomeini.

It isn't just fundamentalists and fanatics who rule the roost either. There are nonviolent but fundamentalist Christians who are so passionately opposed to evolution and any science that threatens their worldview that their minds cannot be changed. He quotes Kurt Wise: “If all the evidence in the world turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist, since that is what the word of God indicates.”

Dawkins provides his own version of the same words: “If all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it and I would immediately change my mind. As things stand, however, all available evidence — and there is a vast amount of it — favors evolution.”

One of the common ideas that Dawkins hears is that people need religion. Humanity has a need for comfort. But he asks: Isn't there something childish about the notion that the universe owes us comfort? In fact, he quotes Isaac Asimov in saying that if you inspect every piece of pseudo-science — from astrology and tarot cards to contacting mediums and palmistry — you will find some kind of comfort too. Asimov's remark about the infantilism of pseudo-science is just as applicable to religion. Inspect every bit of pseudo-science and you will find a security blanket — a thumb to suck on or a skirt to hold. Moreover, it is astonishing to find how many people fail to understand that X is comforting does not imply that X is true.

A related complaint to the notion about comfort is the idea that life must have a purpose. The human soul requires that X has a purpose, Dawkins's readers tell him. This provides consolation for the believer. But “the consolation content of the belief does not raise its truth value,” Dawkins observes. He adds that if the consolation that religion offers is founded on the neurologically highly implausible premise that we survive the death of our brains, do you really want to defend it? Due to the failure of many people's educations to provide palatable alternatives, nonbelief is not an option.

On the matter of religious belief, an anthropologist quoted former Israeli leader Golda Meir: “I believe in the Jewish people and the Jewish people believe in God.” The anthropologist added his view: “I believe in people and people believe in God.” Dawkins offered up a different version: “I prefer to say I believe in people and when people are given all the information and encouraged to think for themselves very often turn out not to believe in God and lead fulfilled and satisfied and indeed liberated lives.”