75% down the page, para above Point 7: Again, philosophy and theology aren’t even in Dawkins’s book. Gray’s captious remarks simply reflect his irritation at his having a hair up his fundament about Dawkins and atheism. Yes, religion is a supernatural belief that is irrational, and Dawkins, in his other writings, makes a good case that we’d be better off without it. That case goes far beyond the mere assertion that religion is irrational and dangerous. As for the “crudity” of The God Delusion, had Dawkins written a dry tome contesting the arcane claims of people like David Bentley Hart, Alvin Plantinga, and Karen Armstrong, it would have been neither successful nor effective.
The writer, Prof Jerry Coyne, is defending Richard Dawkins, yet how do you determine/deduce if Coyne writes that Dawkin's case improves or worsens the mere assertion...? Beyond implies either direction?