Dawkins loses humanist title

[Anomalocaris]

I think that you're missing the forest for the trees.  There are a huge number of potential facts which would be, assuming that they were both factual and relevant to any given societal discussion, problems for humanist ideology.  Dawkins has not only been a loud advocate for some of these, he's been their originator.  He's also had some truly bad takes that were neither factual, or, if they were, relevant.  I agree, for example, that religions are a mind virus - but the description of something so fundamental to humanity is, objectively, an issue for humanist ideology.  Two things can be true.

Here, in this case, I think that what Dawkins got right was that he would be vilified for making his comments, though he got the reason wrong, and he completely blew the fucking pooch on context and framing.  I expect one of those clarifications that the aha specifically referenced from past instances of the same.  At some point, we have to decide whether dawkins is a doddering geriatric with a bad mouth - or if it's truly his opinion that the bad take is true and relevant.  Sometimes, it certainly could be, and sometimes in that case, the bad take would be true - and still a problem for humanist ideology.  Two things, can be true.

No, I think I am seeing the forest of the general societal attitude towards intellectual honesty and broad minded appraisal of greater good, and not obsessing over the trees of this particular pet issue or that.