Why is Dawkins so hated?

Many believers have a special place of hatred in their hearts for Richard Dawkins (Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens may get squeezed in there too). I think part of the reason is that in his attempt to dismantle the truth claims of religion, Dawkins fails to recognize the many positive social benefits that religion provides.

Referring to the previous post, here is an example of where Dawkins misses this critical idea. A questioner in the discussion asks:

...another thing that the religions do is give comfort to people if they lose people in car accidents or to cancer and so on, and as far as I've experienced it, the scientific view cannot give people this kind of comfort...

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2580,Is-Science-Killing-the-Soul,Richard-Dawkins-Steven-Pinker-Edge

In his response, Dawkins does not acknowledge the fact that religions are very good at consoling people. He also misses the fact that there are two ways to console someone: one is to tell them false things about what has happened to a deceased loved one (they have ascended into heaven...). The other is to make the grieving person feel loved by their community, in other words to surround them with people who show that they care about the grieving person.

I've never read anything by Dawkins that I don't agree with. I think the God Delusion is a pretty water-tight case against all the truth claims of religion.

Where Dawkins misses the boat is in the fact that there are lots of other things that religions do besides offer an explanation for the natural world. They bring hundreds of people together every week; they foster creativity, art, music; they provide time for reflection and ethical introspection; they provide economic support networks for the needy. I could go on. The point is that all of these social benefits of religion are very real and very valuable. The fact that the truth claims it makes about the universe are unsupported by evidence does not diminish from all the good social benefits it provides to a community.

By ignoring these social benefits, Dawkins is able to write of religion as a whole as mistaken and malicious. I think he would have made a much stronger, and more persuasive argument if he had instead said, "The claims that religion makes about how the world works are unsubstantiated. But many religions foster community spirit and moral reflection, which are certainly positive contributions to society. But there is no reason why religions need to hold on to their antiquated dogma in order to continue supporting their social good works."

Of course, anytime you tell someone that the thing they believe in doesn't exist, you're going to ruffle some feathers.