Jeremy Stangroom

How is philosophy equivalent to religion though?

It isn't, but the relevant point is its difference, and it's utility, not the fact that lots of people are patiently explaining why he's wrong. Argumentum ad populum.

Yeah this misses the point. The point is that Dawkins makes error of fact and logic; people provide him with that information; yet his beliefs don’t update.

And there is in fact an analogy with religion: if Dawkins is presented with solid evidence that contradicts his stated beliefs about religion, then rationality requires him to update those beliefs too. Right?

Yes, but that's question begging. The suggestion, I think, is that Dawkins is betraying his commitment to rationality by not updating his beliefs. My view is that's not true if he doesn't consider the evidence to be persuasive (even if he's actually wrong about that).

Of course, there must come a point at which one says not being persuaded amounts to a betrayal of rationality. But I'm sceptical that one gets to that point as a result of tweets, especially if the people making the tweets have a large stake in the game.

Not because that means their evidence counts for less - it might count for more (if they have expertise, etc) - but because if you're Dawkins it's inevitably you're going to get 1000s of responses disputing just about anything you say. So what are you going to do?

Moreover, people don't treat Dawkins with anything approaching a principle of charity. I've not paid much attention to this stuff, but didn't Bertrand Russell say something very similar about Aristotle and evidence? That his teleological approach held back intellectual progress?