Yeah, I read him a good amount and think that if you analyze his arguments they're very solid. But I understand how he comes off as arrogant.
Well, tbh, not much concrete, since I haven't gone through his books with a fine tooth comb. I just think there is a bit of arrogance about the natural sciences that translates into real systemic and structural inequalities both about how (specifically natural) science is done, but also how science (in general) is understood. Basically, "the ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class."
Out of curiosity, what do you have against Dawkins?
