So, there is a big difference between saying, "This is a fact," "I believe this is a fact," and "I've heard this is a fact." Or, would you contend that Dawkins consciously lies through his teeth, just to score points for the anti-religious side of the debate?
How does his knowledge of psychology play into it? Does he have expertise in presenting untruths (or unsubstantiated rumors) in such a way as to impress/sway the average reader? So, he is not using psychology to search for science, he is using it to make up science?
I am convinced that there are anti-religious crusaders who manipulate fact and rumor to bolster their own case, just as I'm convinced that there are pro-religious crusaders who manipulate fact and rumor to bolster their case. And sometimes the easiest way to procure a rumor is to make one up.
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"