Specifically, Robbins accuses Dawkins of using his widely-read Twitter feed to promulgate a lot of "vaguely racist bigotry," of the kind that you used to hear only when visiting your aged grandparents. (That's Robbins' image.) He points to a couple of insipid tweets about Muslims, whose failure to win Nobel Prizes is apparently, according to Dawkins, a reflection of their belief in God.
As Robbins sees it, Dawkins is an old New Atheist headed toward inevitable conflict with the newer New Atheists. He says:
Dawkins remains a powerful force in atheism for the time being. Increasingly though, his public output resembles that of a man desperately grasping for attention and relevance in a maturing community. A community more interested in the positive expression of humanism and secularism than in watching a rich and privileged man punching down at people denied his opportunities in life.Honestly, you know what this makes Dawkins sound like? The Jerry Falwell school of Christian preacher -- the sort that rose to fame on a wave of resentment among the faithful, and can only retain power by stirring up more resentment. It's not just preachers, of course, who do this sort of thing; it is all reactionaries.
That said, we hope that Robbins is correctly predicting the path that modern atheism will take. We have certainly read about people calling for a move in the direction of "positive expression of humanism and secularism," but the evidence of our own eyes suggests that they are still vastly outnumbered by vulgar, intolerant white men more interested in running down their perceived opponents, and harassing their handful of female associates than much else. At this stage of its development, the atheist movement strikes us as something like the Rand Paul school of libertarianism. In which case, Dawkins remains a suitable figurehead.
But perhaps Robbins is correct. We certainly hope so. Spero meliora, as Cicero says.