Final answer:
To determine if Richard Dawkins qualifies as a member of a religion under Gasters definition, one must consider the broad definitions of religion by scholars like Clifford Geertz and Émile Durkheim, which consider belief systems and social behaviors that share characteristics with traditional religions. Dawkins, known for his secular beliefs, could be seen as a member of a non-traditional 'religion' if his beliefs align with these broader definitions.
Step-by-step explanation:
Understanding Richard Dawkins as a member of a religion under Gasters definition requires examining the broader definition of religion. Traditionally, religion has been understood as a system of beliefs connecting humans to the supernatural, comprising rituals, sacred texts, and a community of adherents. Clifford Geertz further elaborates religion as a system of symbols that foster powerful moods and motivations by formulating a general order of existence. Given these parameters, a case could be made that certain secular systems that have text, rituals, holidays, and special figures or gatherings can exhibit religious characteristics. Thus, if Dawkins subscribes to a secular system with these elements, he might be qualified as a member of a religion in a sociological sense, despite his known advocacy for atheism and scientific rationalism.
French sociologist Émile Durkheim's definition of religion focuses on beliefs and practices related to sacred things which create a moral community or church. Durkheim suggests that societies distinguish the sacred from the profane and nonbelievers such as atheists and agnostics can also have a moral framework without subscribing to a divine entity. By such a sociological analysis, even non-religious beliefs can have sacred aspects, and thus people like Richard Dawkins might be considered part of a 'religious' community if their secular beliefs exhibit similar components.