I simply don't understand how Dawkins can give a real life example of a person very successfully keeping his beliefs totally separate from his related work and

I simply don't understand how Dawkins can give a real life example of a person very successfully keeping his beliefs totally separate from his related work and still say that we should care what that person believes. If being an "honest astronomer" doesn't make you a better astronomer, then why concern ourselves with it, at all? What I find alarming is that nothing in this argument really conflicts with Dawkins. He accepts that these beliefs can make no measurable difference, and maintains that they're important anyway. He seems to think that it doesn't matter if an astronomer can advance our understanding of astronomy by leaps and bounds, if the astronomer doesn't update his own beliefs too, and that society should therefore refuse to let itself benefit from what he can offer. Why? Who wins in this scenario? FWIW, I do agree that religious beliefs should not be considered distinct from "non religious" beliefs (with obvious exceptions for e.g. clergymen).