Let’s hope this is a non-issue…

But I’m wary. Every time I say that about someone’s personal religious beliefs, they end up becoming an issue. The newest potential cause for drama? The University of Washington (where I go to school) finally decided on it’s new President – Michael K. Young. The thing that set off red flags? He’s a graduate of Brigham Young University and devout Mormon (which is probably redundant to say).

Now, I know it’s entirely possible to be religious and not let your beliefs interfere with your job at a secular university. I don’t expect his first act as university president to be increasing the number of Mormon missionaries that hunt you down on Red Square, or to expand the campus LDS center that’s right by my building.

But when I read stuff like the following, I get a little worried:

In order to understand genuinely the world and all the things that we learn from secular sources, we should start the inquiry first from the perspective of the gospel and its basic truths. The rest of the world then begins to make much more sense. It isn’t so much that secular learning necessarily confirms the truth of the gospel in every instance, though I am frequently surprised with just how often it does exactly that, but rather that we much better understand the world and everything in it when we put the secular learning in a gospel context. In other words, if one first seeks the light of Christ and inspiration from the Lord, then inquiries about matters of science, politics, economics, history, indeed, society in general, are not only entirely acceptable, but likely to lead to a better understanding of the gospel and a stronger, not weaker, testimony. If we seek first the kingdom of God, then indeed all things will be added unto it.

Ah yes…the world makes so much more sense when you start with Mormon!Jesus. I’m sure all the non-Mormon researchers certainly appreciate that sentiment.

Please let the next 4 years be perfectly boring and free of blog fodder.

Religion is bullshit…except for mine!

Last night I gave a talk for the Alliance of Happy Atheists at the University of Oregon. It was a lot of fun, like usual. The group of students were all awesome to talk to, the pizza was yummy, and my talk was well received (or so I was told – would an Alliance of Happy Atheists say anything negative…?).

Near the end of my talk I mention how feminists who are still religious are way more likely to believe in woo-woo spiritual stuff, like reiki, astrology, paganism, and wicca because they tend to be a lot more pro-women. But the problem with these things is that they’re still bullshit, just like Christianity or Islam.

Apparently one student took offense at this because he considers himself an atheist pagan, and he didn’t appreciate his beliefs being dismissively called “bullshit.” During the Q&A he asked me if I saw value in any sort of spiritual beliefs. I replied that people find value in different things – that I find value in truth, so unfounded beliefs in any sort of supernatural things don’t improve my life somehow. But that even if people found their lives improved by those things, it doesn’t make them any less bullshit.

The back and forth went on for quite some time. He basically seemed to be rewording his question in an attempt for me to admit that other spirituality – not that of mainstream religions – is somehow awesome and deserving of a free pass. I tried to emphasize that I don’t think people who believe that stuff are necessarily stupid or bad in some way, but that the beliefs are still false.

At dinner a friend of his mentioned how offended that guy was that I used the word “bullshit” and didn’t respect his pagan beliefs. I always feel a twinge of guilt, because I never purposefully try to offend. But I can’t feel much more than a twinge, because it’s goddamn hypocritical expecting your particular wacky beliefs to get some sort of free pass. If you were lapping it up while I spent 45 minutes tearing apart Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism, you don’t get to put your own belief in a little bubble.

Everything is fair game.

And dude? I reel it in a fair amount when I give presentations. Make sure someone brings smelling salts if you ever listen to a hot-blooded firebrand like PZ or JT.

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.

Is religion heading toward extinction?

Some researchers think so – at least in some countries. And they even have a mathematical model that explains their data.

The title of this blog post is in the form of a question, however, because I haven’t read their paper yet and I’m a bit skeptical – even if I’d really like their result to be true. If there’s anyone who’s knowledgeable about statistics and isn’t on a bus to an airport, please enlighten us in the comments.

Everyone else can continue to speculate wildly and come up with flashy headlines like the rest of the media.

Apologetics pick up lines

Is that a banana in your pocket, or have you also been designed especially for me?

You must be God, because I want you to fill my gaps.

My eyes are too complex to have evolved, but they still naturally selected you.

…That’s all I got. Feel free to be wittier than me in the comments.

Goddamnit Indiana

This is not a good week for my old state. First, we’re even closer to having an amendment to the Indiana constitution banning gay marriage. Because you know, a law isn’t good enough when you’re homophobic.

Now? New abortion restrictions have just won committee approval.

HB1210, authored by Rep. Eric Turner, R-Marion, was originally drafted as a measure forcing abortion doctors to tell their patients that “the fetus may feel pain” and forcing patients to view an ultrasound picture unless they said in writing that they did not want to.

An amendment by Rep. Mark Messmer, R-Jasper, added many more provisions, including one forcing the health department to produce materials saying abortion can increase the risk of breast cancer, another saying patients must be told about opportunities for child care and child support payments and a provision saying abortions could not be performed after 20 weeks except to save the mother’s life. The amendment was approved 8-5.

[…]Messmer’s amendment says a relative of the woman, a county attorney or the attorney general could file an injunction against a doctor who performs or attempts to perform an abortion after 20 weeks.

“If you have an abortion provider providing post-20 week abortions across the state, it may take the attorney general,” Messmer said. His measure also includes a provision saying that life begins when an egg is fertilized.

What. The. Fuck. I wish I was surprised, but frankly I’m not. At least there are some sane voices in Indiana:

Lawson and other Democrats said the supporters’ testimony was based on faulty medical information. Planned Parenthood representatives said abortion does not increase the risk of breast cancer and that scientists and doctors have found fetuses cannot feel pain until well after 20 weeks.

A representative of the Jewish Community Relations Council testified that Jews do not believe life begins at fertilization — they believe it begins at birth — so codifying Messmer’s definition would write religion into state law.

Opponents questioned whether the purpose of the law was really to make women more informed or more safe.

“I’ve heard it before,” Lawson said. “They’re not going to change my mind. They’re bullies.”

Props to Lawson (who’s a representative from my home town’s congressional district) for calling out these people for who they truly are, Planned Parenthood for actually using science in their arguments, and the Jewish Community Relations Council for supporting the separation of church and state. Some people in Indiana get it. Unfortunately it’s not the majority.

Yep, definitely not a ministry

Remember when Anderson Cooper interviewed Ken Ham, who repeatedly insisted that Ark Encounter was not a ministry, but a for profit organization that will bring jobs to the state of Kentucky?

Well, in a move that’s not surprising to anyone who knows anything about Ken Ham and the Creation Museum, if you actually want one of those jobs, you’re going to have to write a statement saying you support Answers in Genesis’s statement of faith. No, it’s not just being Christian. And no, it’s not just believing the Earth is only 6,000 years old and that evolution is false. In addition to those highly important job related traits, you also have to accept moral judgments, such as homosexuality and pre-marital sex being a perversion, and actively attend church.

Not sure how they’re going to enforce those last ones. Maybe part of the contract requires your bedroom be outfitted with one of those security cameras Ken Ham loves so much.

So…tell me again how it’s totally okay for Kentucky to help fund a project that discriminates against gays and non-Young Earth Creationists?

(Via Pharyngula)