Playboy ran an interview with Richard Dawkins in their September 2012 issue. In this regard, Dawkins joins many illustrious persons throughout history, including Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, former U.S. born-again President Jimmy Carter (before his election), the late evangelist Jerry Falwell, anthropologist Margaret Meade, James Baldwin, Frank Sinatra, and countless others.

Dawkins is widely regarded as the most famous atheist activist in the world. He is a very divisive figure. Like the Dallas Cowboys, Muhammad Ali at his athletic peak, or Tim Tebow, most people tend to love him or hate him.

The major criticisms that atheists have of him is that he allegedly has a superficial understanding of religion; he is allegedly ignorant about philosophy; he is too hard core in his criticism of religion; he does not acknowledge the positive aspects of religion and the reasons so many people need to believe; he does not understand the sociological reasons why religion persists, he provides no secular ethical system as an alternative to religion, etc.

His detractors and defenders have tirelessly debated these charges. However, what most of his critics fail to understand is that no leader—atheist or otherwise—should ever strive to be all things to all people.

Dawkins does his job extremely well. It is highly unlikely that anyone has ever done more to popularize non-belief than has Dawkins. Indeed, according to the Playboy interview, his 2006 bestseller, The God Delusion, can be bought in 31 languages, and has sold a whopping 2 million copies. Moreover, due largely to his rock star-like popularity, tens of thousands of nonbelievers attended the Reason Rally on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. last March. Conversely, when I addressed the Godless March on Washington at the same place in 2002, there were only a few thousand in attendance.

When I was the executive director of African Americans for Humanism (AAH), the organization I founded in 1989, there was a noticeable jump in interest about our organization after the publication of The God Delusion. This was because Dawkins was good enough to include our organization and contact information first in his list of non-theistic organizations at the back of his book. The fact of the matter is that, after the publication of The God Delusion, AAH received more interest from African Americans than at any time during my 21 years as head of the organization. (I strongly suspect that many, if not most, other humanist leaders could say likewise about their organizations if they are honest.)

At one point, Dawkins seemed to be strongly influenced by his atheist critics. He suggested that he would seriously consider becoming a kinder, gentler atheist, etc. However, I was appalled at that idea. I sent him an email. The subject line read, “Don’t let ‘em do it!” My advice to Dawkins was to never let others tell him how to lead, or how to express himself. I quoted comedic icon Bill Cosby, who once said, “I don’t know the secret to success. But the secret to failure is trying to please everybody.” I wrote about the differences between Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, and how critics and defenders of both insisted upon a one size fits all garment of leadership. I noted that there are “different strokes for different folks,” and that different leadership and communication styles needed to be accepted and respected.

Dawkins stated that rarely had he been moved so much by a letter. I do not know how much of an impact that my letter had on his decision to stay the course. However, I am happy that he has not changed.

Many secular humanists, evolutionists, and others claim that Dawkins makes it difficult for them to do their job. They claim that he alienates too many people with his abrasive style and his unapologetic defense of atheism. On the other hand, however, his critics must acknowledge that he is also reaching millions of others. Moreover, it is not Dawkins’ responsibility to make other people’s jobs easier. After all, he could claim that those who bend over backward to please religionists are making his job more difficult. The marketplace of ideas is real, and it is highly competitive. If Dawkins is making your job more difficult, you will simply have to work harder and smarter.

When Dawkins is defending good science—particularly evolution—he is at his best. For example, in the Playboy interview, he discusses the claim that “Science cannot at present—maybe never— answer the deep questions about existence and the origins of the fundamental laws of nature. But what on earth makes you think religion can? If science can’t provide an answer, nothing can.” (p. 65)

This kind of refreshing challenge to religionists is rare among scientists. Yet, Dawkins has courageously stood up to the religious know-it-alls. For this, he richly deserves to be recognized as a sterling role model of his times.