Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off. Note: Dawkins was quoting a former editor of New Scientist Magazine, who is as yet unidentified (possibly Jeremy Webb)

The line is typically deployed as a deliberately abrasive defense of scientific curiosity against anti-intellectualism or demands that science justify itself in terms of immediate utility or entertainment. Its shock value functions rhetorically: it frames interest in science as a baseline expectation for an engaged, rational public, and treats outright dismissal as willful incuriosity rather than a legitimate stance. At the same time, the quote’s profane gatekeeping can be read as satirizing the culture-war posture around science communication—suggesting that some resistance is not about evidence but about attitude. Because Dawkins is said to be repeating someone else’s quip, the remark also illustrates how aphorisms circulate and become attached to prominent figures.