Our whole culture is permeated by the psychoanalytical ideology which, despite its increasingly revealed empirical and other flaws, wanted to be, tried to be, scientific. In fact, his position here has to do with what Dawkins calls the 'whole thesis' of his book. When I said he didn't 'really' have a thesis, I meant it didn't seem to me to be very real. What is significant in Dawkins's discussion of this is that he never uses the word 'create'. Art is essentially creative, and its essence is unpredictability.
Predictability is what it seeks.
Dawkins is completely impatient of any desire to transcend our finite, fact-limited world, no matter that the facts are fascinating. It is this desire, I suspect, which lies behind the X Files television programmes about the paranormal. He also seems unaware that people can hold totally contradictory views at the same time. It would not be difficult, even from this book, or rather especially from this book, to argue that it is an instinctive need, bred into us over millennia. All of this, to me, diminishes Dawkins's 'thesis' and some of the discussion, but perhaps not his book as a whole.