The Enemies of Reason, Channel 4

by | Aug 13, 2007 | All, Reviews

Following a viewing of Dr Richard Dawkins’ polemic on The Enemies of Reason, Dr Obadiah Infancy, a professor at the University of Modern Life and Learning, seeks to answer the real question that arose from the documentary: Does Dr Richard Dawkins actually exist or is he merely a phantasmagorical manifestation of the futile will of conservative thinkers eager to cleanse the universe of all imagination.

The evidence that Dr Richard Dawkins exists:

If Dr Richard Dawkins didn’t exist nobody would have to invent him.

The evidence that Dr Richard Dawkins is a fortuitous figment of the moribund imaginations of dogmatic scientists eager for their next research grant:

Since he appeared from almost nowhere about a decade ago, Dr Dawkins has been the totem for all the forces in opposition to anything that cannot be proved by ‘scientific tests’. Yet Dr Dawkins’ very existence is inured against those same ‘tests’ that he champions as the arbiters of truth leaving him a senselessly venerated figurehead of this empirical piracy.

“We live in dangerous times when superstition is gaining ground,” proclaimed Dawkins at the start of his hour of hogwash. ‘Dangerous times’ is the nebulous favourite masthead of governments that desire to squeeze the wonder from their subjects with vague threats of doom – is 2007 only considered more ‘dangerous’ than 1907 because the folk in ‘danger’ are wealthy Caucasians resident in Western countries?

He also seeks to corral everything that isn’t scientific into one homogenous pen called ‘superstition’ in the same way embittered right-wing newspapers diagnose left wing lunacy and efforts to reduce Third World misery as all suffering from the universal ailment of ‘political correctness’.

One of Dr Dawkins’ gravest errors was the laud the advent of SatNav as one of science’s greatest contemporary innovations when in fact it is a heinous crippling of the imagination in which car drivers are programmed to follow a specific route and not allowing their own instincts to supplant the orders from a cold metal box. In fact Dawkins is very much like SatNav – a frigid, clinical mouthpiece barking orders honeyed by the twin comforts of ‘science’ and ‘reason’ to oppress any other viewpoint than his own.

“A full quarter of Britons believe in astrology,” he harrumphed, never quite dis-closing what proportion followed their horoscopes with a lazy eye of things that they can subconsciously trace as they go about their daily business, and what proportion adhere to these snippets of harmless fun with a zeal equal to a professor who wishes to flagellate anyone who doesn’t want to see the world through his eyes and so who embarks on a decade of mercilessly shredding the beliefs of those sceptical of his theories.

Dawkins elicited a confession from the Observer’s astrologist that it was all “a deep, dark mystery”. Now in those of us for whom molten imagination runs through our arteries and veins doesn’t that phrase evoke a sense of awe and wonder? Not for Dawkins, who took this as a monk would extract a confession from a tortured suspected heretic in the Inquisition as incontrovertible evidence of sacrilege. A thin smile and astrology was led out to the flaming pyre upon which ‘reason’ will burn everything wondrous until all that’s left is a world of test tubes, mathematicians and rulers.

Perhaps envy is at the root of Dawkins’ bitterness. He asked a jovial, honest-looking medium why he didn’t ask those spirits he contacted “What’s it like being dead?” or “Can you see the whole of the Universe?”.

Maybe Dawkins seeks to discredit honest folk born with a special gift because they have an insight into the sort of answers to quandaries that Dawkins has spent much of his illusory existence forlornly trying to solve. And that he ruthlessly desires to hunt down every last vestige of mystery in the Universe to blithely catalogue it with a number and florid Latin name to make it devoid of imaginative interpretation and let it march in the exercise yard of science rather than wander in the wilderness of imagination.

But Dawkins also showed he only has a fabricated understanding of humanity, endemic in manufactured deities, by ignoring the habit of most folk who want to know how their deceased loved one is, not entertain some fuddy-duddy notions of scientific grandeur.

His cruellest gambit was reserved for dousers, those folk who CAN divine the source of water through their own supernatural instincts. However, Dawkins harshly made them all participate in experiments conducted in a wholly natural artificial environment. These saints of England were humiliated, abased to humbled, mumbling wrecks of wrinkled, gibbering flesh as they strove to find the one bottle of water contained amongst five bottles of sand – most scored the ‘predicted’ one of out six.

Anyone truly born of Mother Earth would have the decency, the humanity (which Dawkins is so proud to lay claim to) to not to specifically destroy the lives and imagination of so many of his fellow humans all to promote his one-eyed view of the world. Hellfire, why didn’t he just line them up in a field and rain down artillery fire on their heads as they searched for water as this would have done less harm.

The dousers were distraught with one kind-faced man acutely noting that “the whole test is wrong”, while a truthful-sounding woman stated that she had trouble detecting the water because she can only detect it vertically and not horizontally, as in the test. While Dawkins merely smarmed: “These dousers choose not to face up to the truth but persist with their delusion.”

Dawkins also sought to claim some mechanical kinship with the rest of humanity who don’t share his dogma, only to then soothingly imply that everyone else is wrong except him. “We don’t want to believe things just happen. We want to think there’s some kind of deliberate intention behind everything” and “We desperately want to feel there’s an anonymous force at work in our complex world”. But he is not part of that ‘we’ he is a leering, sneering moon of mendacity orbiting the rest of humanity sporadically deigning to ejaculate some scornful sagacious saliva to ‘educate’ the rest of us.

He is also guilty of employing tactics that would shame those whom he calls ‘frauds’ if they were really were frauds and not pioneers of human evolution who are thwarted by emotional luddites like him. He blames the supposed erosion of reason on, and this is a cheap shot, “the sandal-wearing and green movement” he believes (he is unable to prove this yet sees nothing wrong in subjective beliefs when it suits his own purpose) is to blame for “the white heat (of reason) of the 1960s” diminishing to “a white elephant”.

And when a philosophy not rooted in science presents an impervious barrier to his conniving whining he simply resorts to the kind of pseudo-scientific babble that estranges folk from thinking Dawkins’ beloved ‘reason’ is the be-all and end-all of being with such flights of ‘intellectual’ whimsy as “the fashion for students to value private feeling over the science-based reason. This is rooted in the post-modernist relativist agenda.” ‘Post-modern’, the concept upon which Dawkins bases his invective is as outdated and ridiculed as the belief that the world is flat, Mankind was born in the Garden of Eden that or fairies live at the bottom of the garden.

Dawkins noted that ancient mankind used to think that phenomena such as storms were caused by gods and the like – but what he fails to recognise is that much human understanding comes from those innovators who refuse to believe the status quo and who challenge it with both imagination and ‘science’. The folk today who question the absolutism of science are not a ‘danger’ moreover, they are the future; folk who will against all rationality and common sense persist with their own beliefs and will one day be able to prove them probably using equipment developed by the advance of science to specifically to prove their falseness in today’s suppressed world.

In conclusion then, we believe that through our exhaustive independent analysis that Dr Richard Dawkins does not exist but is a fleshy effigy brought into being by the frustration of ‘scientists’ unable to convince a liberated world of their closed-mind theories. Dawkins’ purpose in life is to dispel all wonder and imagination with snide comments and logical arguments that swim against the great tide of human endeavour. But Arians like him are stubborn and quick to rage – but they are also very remorseful when they have been proved wrong. We expect an apology from Dr Dawkins for his abominable assassination of ‘superstition’ in the near future once Jupiter enters the sphere of Mars, which is traditionally a time of regret and reflection.

Luke Knowles

Luke Knowles

13/08/2007

Editor of the website and host of the podcast. A general TV obsessive. I've been running the site since 2008 and you can usually find me in front of the TV. My Favourite show of all time is Breaking Bad with Cracker coming a close second. I feel so passionately that television can change the world and I'm doing my little bit by running this site. You're Welcome!

Tags:

Follow us:

Our Latest Posts:

0 Comments

Submit a Comment