Does who wrote the Bible matter when it comes to ethics?

I friend pointed me to this article by Bart Ehrman – Who Wrote the Bible and Why It Matters. It didn’t start off so well:

Apart from the most rabid fundamentalists among us, nearly everyone admits that the Bible might contain errors — a faulty creation story here, a historical mistake there, a contradiction or two in some other place.

Unfortunately those “rabid fundamentalists” are more common that Ehrman suggests. One third of Americans believe the Bible is literally true.

But is it possible that the problem is worse than that — that the Bible actually contains lies?

Uh, duh? Okay, that’s the atheist in me talking – I understand he’s using this lead in for journalistic reasons. The middle part of his article is pretty good, explaining how certain parts of the Bible that are claimed to be written by certain people are actually forgeries. But I found one of his specific examples intriguing:

This may all seem like a bit of antiquarian curiosity, especially for people whose lives don’t depend on the Bible or even people of faith for whom biblical matters are a peripheral interest at best. But in fact, it matters sometimes. Whoever wrote the book of 1 Timothy claimed to be Paul. But he was lying about that — he was someone else living after Paul had died. In his book, the author of 1 Timothy used Paul’s name and authority to address a problem that he saw in the church. Women were speaking out, exercising authority and teaching men. That had to stop. The author told women to be silent and submissive, and reminded his readers about what happened the first time a woman was allowed to exercise authority over a man, in that little incident in the garden of Eden. No, the author argued, if women wanted to be saved, they were to have babies (1 Tim. 2:11-15).

Largely on the basis of this passage, the apostle Paul has been branded, by more liberation minded people of recent generations, as one of history’s great misogynists. The problem, of course, is that Paul never said any such thing. And why does it matter? Because the passage is still used by church leaders today to oppress and silence women. Why are there no women priests in the Catholic Church? Why are women not allowed to preach in conservative evangelical churches? Why are there churches today that do not allow women even to speak? In no small measure it is because Paul allegedly taught that women had to be silent, submissive and pregnant. Except that the person who taught this was not Paul, but someone lying about his identity so that his readers would think he was Paul.

So…if Paul really had said these things about women, they would be fine? I understand that Ehrman is using the Bible to try to argue that churches need to stop doing these things, but my point is it doesn’t matter who wrote it or where. If Jesus himself had said those quotes, they would still be unethical.

But maybe that’s just my point of view as an atheist. Whether it’s written by a particular dude or some random other dude, God still doesn’t exist and Jesus still wasn’t resurrected.

But what about the devout believers – the ones who actually base their lives off of these passages? Will this type of argument be enough to change their minds? Maybe that of some individuals, but I doubt it will affect the major institutions. Fundamentalists think the Bible is the literal word of God – it’s contrary to everything they believe to accept that whole passages could be lies. To them, the Bible can’t be wrong.

43% of Americans are young earth creationists. They’re prepared to ignore all scientists in order to keep the Bible infallible – you think they’re suddenly going to change their mind because of a couple of historians?

Maybe I’m being cynical, but I not adopting this as my new tactic to promote equality of the sexes.

EDIT: Case in point. Saw this link from the SSA immediately after writing this post. Campus Crusade for Christ already has a whole website devoted to refuting him. At least he’s freaking the Christians out – that’s always a good start.

Sometimes you can’t win

That’s the look I give when I’ve just lost a couple more brain cells.

[Transcript:
Day 1:
Man: Men are sexual beings! We evolved to be promiscuous!
Woman: Um, but biology isn’t an ultimatum. You can control your actions.
Man: *angry* YOU FRIGID FEMINISTS ARE TRYING TO SUPPRESS OUR SEXUALITY! I AM NOT A EUNUCH!!
Day 2:
Man: We should care about a skewed gender ratio because then I’d have more women to date!
Woman: No, we should care because women also have ideas to contribute. We don’t just exist so you can have sex with us…
Man: *angry* THAT’S SUCH A SEXIST STEREOTYPE!! WHY DO YOU ASSUME DATING = SEX?! MEN AREN’T SLAVES TO OUR BIOLOGY!!!
Woman: *stares blankly at viewer*
The Joys of Feminist Blogging]

The wrong reason for diversity

At the Secular Student Union dinner tonight:

Guy 1: So, what was your talk in Minnesota about?
Me: The intersection of atheism and feminism, what we can do to get more women to leave religion, and how to make the atheist movement more welcoming to women.
Guy 2: Cool! Is the lack of women really that big of an issue? I’m just new to everything.
Me: For a lot of groups, yeah. I mean, just look at ours. There are only three women.
Everyone: Yeah… *shame*
Guy 3: Heh, I’m dating a third of the SSU’s women.
Me: So yeah, I talked about how to make groups more welcoming so more women join.
Guy 4: I guess that’s a good thing. Means there would be more girls to date.
Everyone: *glare*
Me: Um, that’s precisely what you shouldn’t say.

Super Duper Hint For The People Who Don’t Get Why This Is A Problem: Women don’t exist for the sole purpose of dating you. They can actually participate for the same intellectual and social reasons that you do. It’s fine to be attracted to someone and date within a group, but don’t only see a woman as Person Who I Want to Sleep With.

On the bright side, I’ll never be out of blogging material.

I’m Richard Dawkin’s #1 female fan

Because I’m his only female fan, at least according to our favorite Jen-hater, Jill at I Blame the Patriarchy:

Liberal dudes (and that boobquake chick) just love celebrity biologist Richard Dawkins. Even some Internet feminists may be said not to vomit blood at the mention of his name.

This premise is based on the fact that Dawkins happened to leave a single positive comment about a video promoting some potentially anti-feminists ideas.

Meanwhile, upon reading the Sommers speech, Dawkins was moved to comment: “Thank you for this. I have now read the lecture you recommend, and it is indeed excellent.”

The anointed one has spoken.

One passing comment is enough to damn The Anointed One – er, I mean, Dawkins – even though she spends the rest of her post addressing the video in question. And by addressing, I mean calling “funfeminists” who don’t necessarily agree with her particular view of feminists brainwashed.

Lovely.

I certainly don’t agree with many of the things in the speech in question – and I even think Jill makes some halfway decent counter arguments. But calling Dawkins a “intellectual Western motherfucker who is enamored of the glorious myth that he and his ilk, in their educated and progressive magnanimity, have liberated their women” for that single comment? Or worse, thinking people who enjoy and respect Dawkins must slavishly agree with him lest they be kicked out of the atheist hivemind?

You know, enjoying Dawkins doesn’t mean I have to agree with everything he says. Despite claims of my brainwashing, I can think for myself and have my own opinions – Jill is the one who seems to think the opposite. While I highly respect Dawkins in regards to atheism and biology, I wouldn’t be shocked to disagree with a 70 year old white British academic on the details of feminist theory.

But you know what’s really demeaning to women? Starting off a post reducing me to my boobs, and disregarding other women of the atheist movement. Abbie Smith at ERV has already torn this to pieces:

Um, ‘that boobquake chick’ is Jen McCreight. Shes a graduate student in biology. ‘Boobquake‘ was a really cool counter-attack to Muslims attack on womens personal rights and freedoms.

Jen, who brought attention to that very serious topic in a lighthearted, non-intimidating way, is just ‘that boobquake chick’.

A ‘feminist’ thinks its appropriate to dismiss (thus discourage) the positive actions of a young, intelligent activist female, with decades of activism ahead of her.

Of course, at least Jen gets to exist, even if she is unworthy of a name (or a link, very bad blog manners, ‘feminist’).

This ‘feminist’ is also a supporter of the sexist notion that religion is gender appropriate for females, while atheism is gender appropriate for males. Dawkins millions of female fans don’t exist– his fans are a bunch of ‘liberal dudes (and that boobquake chick)’. This ‘feminist’ might have marginalized Jens actions, but they marginalized the very existence of other women (or if they do exist, they must be indistinguishable from ‘dudes’, degrading their ‘femaleness’ by taking it away. When they’re religious like good girls they can have their gender back?).

The irony doesn’t escape me that I just spent the last week speaking to student groups about the convergence of atheism and feminism, why women should leave religion, and diversity within the atheist movement. Or that these talks went overwhelmingly well. Or that I was invited to speak about women in atheism at many national conferences over the next couple months. Or that the Executive Director, Trustee, and Store manager of the Richard Dawkins Foundation are strong, outspoken women. None of that matters, because Overlord Dawkins hath spoken (though not really), and thus the atheist movement is sexist.

Yep. Sound logic.

It's the little assumptions

Via Geek Feminism Blog:Advertisement: Can you solve one of our puzzles? Can you explain it to your mom? We’re hiring hackers with people skills.
Post It Note: My mom has a PhD in Math

It’s amazing how often science oriented speakers or advertisements will say stuff like “Explain it so mom/grandma can understand.” One of those things you take for granted until someone points it out to you. Does feminism have more important issues to talk about? Sure. But the little assumptions can add up.

It’s the little assumptions

Via Geek Feminism Blog:Advertisement: Can you solve one of our puzzles? Can you explain it to your mom? We’re hiring hackers with people skills.
Post It Note: My mom has a PhD in Math

It’s amazing how often science oriented speakers or advertisements will say stuff like “Explain it so mom/grandma can understand.” One of those things you take for granted until someone points it out to you. Does feminism have more important issues to talk about? Sure. But the little assumptions can add up.

I’ve found my new favorite atheist

And she’s a 14 year old girl!

“There’s so much violence that comes with religion. So you know what? Stop giving these things to children. Let them form their own decisions when they’re older and actually have the intelligence and mental capacity to make up their own minds.” This.

I’d say someone needs to tell her to start a Secular Student Alliance at her high school…but she may not even be in high school yet. I freaking love young activists. We are the future of secularism!

I've found my new favorite atheist

And she’s a 14 year old girl!

“There’s so much violence that comes with religion. So you know what? Stop giving these things to children. Let them form their own decisions when they’re older and actually have the intelligence and mental capacity to make up their own minds.” This.

I’d say someone needs to tell her to start a Secular Student Alliance at her high school…but she may not even be in high school yet. I freaking love young activists. We are the future of secularism!

I suck at titles

I’m doing a speaking tour in Minnesota in March, and if I don’t come up with a title for my talk soon, my host groups are going to greet me with torches and pitchforks. Okay, it’s not quite that bad yet – but I certainly am being a stereotypically difficult speaker at the moment. There are flyers to be made! It’s odd being on the other side for once.

Anyway, I need your help. I’m absolutely horrible at coming up with creative, witty titles. My talk is basically about:

  1. Why women should give up religion
  2. Why skepticism benefits feminism
  3. Why atheists should be feminists
  4. Why women are underrepresented in atheism, and how to help fix that.

I am so excited to give this talk in rural Minnesota.

But right now my working title is “Atheism & Feminism,” which is embarrassingly awful. Some fun titles my friends have suggested so far include:

  • Dispelling Fallacies and Phallusies
  • Denying The Man In Charge: Hey, It Worked For Suffrage
  • How To Be Cooler Than God: Respect Women
  • God’s Lady Problem: Breaking up with abusive supernatural beings
  • Free Beer At This Talk

…Okay, maybe not that last one, though it would probably be effective.

Any suggestions, my lovely readers?