There are a few things I’ve had trouble with in contemplating this whole “religious morality” debate. This verse and others like it are one of the most glaring. (For you sticklers, I didn’t make this poster, and I know it’s technically 1 Timothy 2:11-12. Get off my back.)
Here’s the problem in a nutshell. There’s a very reasonable train of logic that goes something like this:
- Religion can tell us something about morality that science can’t.
- Science can’t question what religion tells us about morality because it’s religious in nature, not scientific.
- Religion says, “Keep your women silent, uneducated, and pregnant.”
Ok… so… what now? Women stay silent, right?
If you believe the first of these three statements, then yes. That’s about it. Anyone who believes this particular religion can’t be called to task on subjugating women.
Basic human empathy and the desire to be loved are enough to come up with the “Golden Rule,” and that’s enough to get most people through life with good morals. So where does that leave religion? If it’s unnecessary to establish the essence of morality, and its claims of scientific immunity actually remove it from any kind of empirical morality, doesn’t that mean it only adds immorality in the name of God?