Talk:The Root of All Evil?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Root of All Evil? article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
  1. May 2006 – August 2006

Contents

[edit] Areas of release

Does anyone know where this programme was aired? I know it was aired in Australia as well as the UK, but last I heard it hadn't ever been shown in the US. Does anyone have info on this that could be added to the article?

[edit] Another atheism-related TV program

I know this is off-topic (sorry) but did anyone see or, more importantly, record Jonathan Miller's Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief? I saw it when it was on but unfortunately never taped it. I mention this because the article is rather lacking in information and could benefit from some input by somebody who has a copy of the film on video (unless you have a brilliant memory). The reason I post this here is that I'd imagine the target audience for Johnathan Miller's film is probably the same or a similar audience that The Root of All Evil was intended for - so there's a chance some of you might have it on tape. It's sad that the article is so lacklustre since it was an intelligent and well-presented piece. -Neural 23:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have the DivXs somewhere. I can write a bit about the programme, and/or send a copy (it'll take me a few weeks, I have a heap of more important stuff coming up) to anyone who wants to write it. Joe D (t) 23:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
There's no need to send me anything. This is really just an invite for anyone who has the info and the time/inclination to make it a much better article. The contrast between the Root of all Evil article and the one on the Miller documentary is pretty stark. Thanks. -Neural 01:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genesis 19

First of all the passage about Lot giving his daughter to be raped is in Genesis 19 and not Judges 19. Secondly, God was not in favor of this behavior and later judged the city by destroying it.

My problem with Dawkins is that he believes rationality can come from irrationality. The Kalam Cosmological Argument has something to say.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.142.251.180 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 3 November 2006

It's known that that can happen, due to various processes. The simplest example I can think of is crystals; they are rationally laid out in hexagonal or cubic lattices, and they are formed from chaotic molecules bouncing around in liquids.WolfKeeper 22:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Methinks Dawkins perceives religion as irrationality trying to trump rationality. .. dave souza, talk 23:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I've read Dawkins' book The God Delusion and the passage about the man giving his daughter over to the gang to be raped appears in both Judges 19 and Genesis 19. He doesn't mention Lot or the destruction of Soddom in the episode. Probably due to editing constraints. Miller 14:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
In the programme Dawkins uses the Judges 19 text as relating to a "lesser character", so presumably the similar episode featuring Lot didn't fit. I've rephrased it a bit to get closer to the programme and include Moses, and have also modified the Hell House paragraph to end with scriptures and sin, as the programme does, providing a lead into the Biblical morality section. There's then no need for the bit about Christianity that's not in the programme, which I've removed. ... dave souza, talk 21:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually the story of Lot is in Judges 19. Dawkins is correct. You can check this if you like on the online bible here:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%2019;&version=31; (Simon.uk.21 17:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC))
Actually, Simaloko, that's a different event. If Dawkins does misdescribe it as being the story of Lot, it should probably be mentioned. We're not in the business of editing out errors. Gabrielthursday 18:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't be confused. Firstly, the 'Lot' story is from Genesis 19, which Dawkins doesn't mention on the programme. The 'lesser character' which Dawkins describes on the programme is correctly cited from Judges 19. Secondly, in Genesis 19, God had already planned to destroy the city 'because their sin is very grievous' (Gen 18:20-21). The angels were sent to warn Lot and his family to leave the city, as they were to destroy it, while Lot was especially righteous and therefore didn't deserve to die (Gen 19:12-13). While the angels were visiting, the townspeople came and banged on the door, demanding that Lot brought out the guests so that they could rape them. Lot appealed for them to use his daughters instead.

[edit] Ted's Picture

There are better ones out there, the same one was on the page about him but was replaced today. And objections if I change this one? - Schrandit 21:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This one is an image from the programme, and shows Haggard as he appears in it. The posed publicity still is inappropriate, and I've changed it back. ...dave souza, talk 17:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haggard Scandal

Should it be left on the Haggard page? I feel so. - Schrandit 16:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Inclined to agree: it could be mentioned in a small footnote: I'll try out an approach which may be appropriate. ...dave souza, talk 17:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I like the edit you've made, Dave. On the question of the picture, though, we've already got a shot of Dawkins & Haggard from the program. If the role of the Haggard picture is to show Haggard, I think we should move back to the other picture, if only because it's such an unflattering picture of him. Gabrielthursday 22:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't think it's that unflattering, and the article's about describing the programme, not flattering its participants with information that's not on the TV show. That screenshot gives a pretty representative impression of the way he comes across. ... dave souza, talk 23:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, perhaps it's representative. But if the POV standard of the show were the standard for the article, we'd be in major trouble. The screen shot does make him look particularly goofy. Gabrielthursday 23:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm with Gabriel, it's a screen shot taken mid-speach by someone who clearly wants to make this fellow look goophy. That's the job of the article, and not a particularly difficult one. I feel that it compromises the POV. - Schrandit 06:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phoenix Academy

I have altered the reference to Phoenix Academy. It is not one of the UK Government's City Academies. If it were, it couldn't use ACE, as all City Academies are required by law to use the National Curriculum. Phoenix Academy is an independent Christian school, outside of the state education system, and is much smaller than the City Academies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pftaylor (talk • contribs) 12:01, 17 November 2006

Right enough, the confusion probably arose because Dawkins talks of City Acads just beforehand, and I've revised it to bring it closer to what he says. .. dave souza, talk 18:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Dave. I am impressed by your new wording. Obviously, I don't personally agree with Dawkins' assessment of either City Academies or ACE, but that is not the point. The article now reads as fairly emphasising Dawkins' views of both these, and correctly labels Phoenix Academy, and correctloy reports Dawkins' dislike of both, with his reasons. Pftaylor 09:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "The aching Toe"

Dawkins put the finger on it. I think he put it very eligent what is the problem in the world.

The teacher in a Christian school have a well defined thought about (it goes something like this): "If there are no god why will not humans run the streets raping, steeling etc"

I have even had that thought myself for some time ago so I understand what he mean. BUT now my thoughts go something like this: "If all people do bad to one another there are a greater chance of being killed so that is why everyone benefits doing good", God or no God aside.

There can be a God but it do not have to be a God in the world because geneflow is self sufficient. I am agnostic - "Because it is not possible to know anything what was before big bang there are no reason to speculate".

--Msitua 14:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

What Makes you so sure that we cannot know anything about before the big bang?

Can people please not air their views on religion or atheism on this talk page? This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. --84.69.127.75 00:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Youssef Al Khattab

I added a video log that he posted on Youtube where he made some allegations about the interview. I know it doesn't look professional to cite Youtube, however I haven't found this anywhere else. I don't think that his criticism should be deleted either as it is significant given that he was interviewed in the documentary. Just so that you know, I do not support that guy, I think he is an absolute nutcase and his claims about the documentary are a pack of lies. However for the benefit of the article and to give a broader and more balanced view, I think it should stay. Anyway, if you disagree please add your comments here and don't take it down without adding a good reason. Olockers 12:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't watch the video (dailup connection... sigh) but I'm fine with linking to this in principle. As long as the video relates to the documentary and some readers will find it useful/interesting, it can stay. (I suggest others better endowed with modern technology please check the video). Mikker (...) 15:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Admittedly the video is entitled "Islam Forbids The Killing of Civilians" and most of the video concerns the basket case rambling on about nonsense, however I can assure you he does mention it. Indeed, the nut even says that Dawkins looks like a "limp-wristed bisexual." Charming to say the least. Believe me, watching that clip is a strain, at least for me anyway.Olockers 01:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legality of video downloads

There are links to video downloads of the program in this article, but are they legal? I'd like to watch but would rather not rip off Dawkins and Channel 4 in the process. -Kris Schnee 23:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

They are illegal but Dawkins etc. wouldn't mind if you're in America because they've been having trouble releasing it there. (I saw Dawkins speaking pretty positively of ppl in America downloading it 'illegally' in an interview somewhere). That said, you can always simply read the transcipts or watch the (free) clips available on Dawkins's foundation's website. Mikker (...) 17:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
FWIW the transcripts probably aren't legal either FWIW; although quotes from them probably are.WolfKeeper 20:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
An link to a bittorent file would be better, since that is NOT illegal (torrents is not illegal, neither is most trackers that have them). I've added a mininova link. It's fully legal, since the link isn't where to download the file, but where to find other people who has the file. Ran4 09:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know where you got the idea that a bittorrent wouldn't be illegal. As the general rule, any and all copies howsoever made are covered by copyright. There are some legal loopholes in a very few countries, but nearly all countries if you download a copy using bittorrent, unless you have a specific license for that file, you've broken the law.WolfKeeper 18:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
You clearly have no idea on what bittorent is. Yes, downloading a copyrighted file is illegal in most countries, but linking to a bittorent page is not, since it doesn't include the copyrighted file. A bittorent page is nothing other than a search engine. I've added a google search link, there's no way you can say that it's illegal. Ran4 (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
It's morally questionable, though. "Go see this legal page where you just happen to be able to download an illegal copy of this movie", is not something Wikipedia should endorse, for fear of opening a can of wurms. --Agamemnon2 (talk) 07:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Its not about bittorrent, it's a question of the law; I personally wouldn't like to bet either way; and in practice it's going to depend on what jurisdiction you're in. There's also the point that judges generally look at what the end-effect of something is, rather than the exact mechanism. If a file ends up copied and you deliberately helped somebody do that, you can end up in big trouble. But it's irrelevant anyway; the 'law' here that counts is the wikipedia's and the wikipedia runs to a fair degree on policy, so you will have to show me the policy that says its OK (so far as I know there is no such policy, but I'm willing to be enlightened).- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 10:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation/source needed for statistic that 45% of Americans believe the universe to be less than 10,000 years old

Where is the source for this percentage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameshoban (talk • contribs) 2007-04-10T15:23:27

The actual number is 66%, according to this poll. [1] Robert K S 15:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
While we're on this topic, I'd also like a source for that 44% of Americans believe that the world will end in fifty years. --Safe-Keeper 14:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
That poll number is entirely absurd- the question is purposely vague, and it doesn't address the issue at hand. I could almost answer yes to it honestly and I tend towards theistic evolution. For the record, the 44% end of the world stat seems more plausible to me. Gabrielthursday 18:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I've gone ahead and removed the offending statistic. If Dawkins claims this in the programme, it should be noted, though. I took a look for stats on belief in young-earth creationism, and found none. Gabrielthursday 18:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy is more important than making things "nice"

Twice I've removed an attempt to make the discussion between Dawkins and Haggard nicer, which removed Haggard's reference to "evolutionists" and perpetrated WP:OR in asserting that Haggard's oblique remark that "this issue" of "intellectual arrogance" is the reason why people like Dawkins, and others who dispute creationism, have a problem with people of faith should be translated as what he sees as Dawkins' "intellectual arrogance" is the reason why people like him, and others who dispute creationism, have a problem with people of faith. Check the transcript. .. dave souza, talk 21:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

My issue with the revert was actually around the first part - the statement that the evolutionists were "(unnamed)" and the quotation marks around evolutionists, which were both to my mind accurate, but not NPOV. The unnamed is presumably there to give the impression that Haggard is being disingenuous, deceitful, or similar - while I do think that it is pretty likely that he is (the other alternative being that he has misinterpreted someone, or been the subject of some kind of wind up), it's not the place of wikipedia to make those kinds of decrees. In fact, I think stating that they were "unnamed" arguably constitutes original research, since we don't have a source to identify that fact to (beyond the fact that anyone with a brain can infer that from the program or the script).
As for the second part - I don't actually see the difference in meanings. Both have Haggard attributing arrogance to Dawkins, and other evolutionists, stating that it results in their problems with people of faith. Where does the difference in meaning lie, exactly? I may be misreading it. Either way, I'm happy, because I can't see any difference in meaning - I'd just much rather revert the first half. TJ 22:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The "unnamed" is a fair point, probably well enough covered by the blanket term rather than spelling out that Haggard avoids saying exactly who told him that. The term "evolutionist" is rather a creationist buzzword and apparently avoided by scientists in the US, but rather than keeping it in quotes I've tried using a piped link to Evolutionism for the first instance, giving access to an explanation. Regarding the second point, Haggard arguably implied he meant Dawkins, but he certainly didn't say it outright. Have revised it accordingly, find that preferable? .. dave souza, talk 22:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, sounds like you're quite right on the second point, and on the first one it seems fine now. Great, thanks. TJ 22:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To make it more accurate

I just checked a video clip of conversation between Dawkins and Haggard. He was describing evolution as "by accident" and apparently it annoys Dawkins a lot. So I changed the sentence here "just forms itself somehow" to "happens by accident." Especially when you use quotation marks, you'd better make it as it was spoken. Korsakoff 09:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Checks my DVD of the programme – this transcript is right:
Haggard: Sometimes it's hard for a human being to study the ear or study the eye and think that happened by accident.
Dawkins: I beg your pardon. Did you say "by accident"?
Haggard: Yeah.
Dawkins: What d'you mean, "by accident"?
Haggard: That the eye just formed itself somehow.
Dawkins: And who says it did?
Haggard: Well, some evolutionists say it.
Dawkins: Not a single one that I've ever met.
Haggard: Really? Ah …
Dawkins: Really. You obviously know nothing about the subject of evolution.
Haggard: Or maybe you haven't met the people I have. [laughs]
Will modify accordingly. .. dave souza, talk 10:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying this, Dave Souza. I was too shocked with "by accident" comment, and almost missed the latter part. I apologize. Korsakoff 19:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)