Religion is wrong in the sense that it is based on incorrect assumptions, namely that God exists. This is not a moral statement. Whether or not it is harmful is

Religion is wrong in the sense that it is based on incorrect assumptions, namely that God exists. This is not a moral statement. Whether or not it is harmful is to be decided by the evidence (many terrorists are religiously-motivated etc.), and I agree this point is harder to establish, because religion also brings comfort and so on. Anyway for Dawkins this issue seems secondary to the first one. As for your second paragraph, but of course this is advocacy! Dawkins is not acting as a scientist here, I think this much is clear. He is an advocate who draws on his scientific knowledge and his rational philosophy to make his case.