The goodness of morality

For academic purposes, it is typically necessary to research a topic before making a rash claim against it. The same holds true if one intends to critique religion. You see, if you want to attack religion, at least look into it objectively rather than stating the common misunderstandings of those uneducated in the field.

Now, I might only be a sophomore in the Department of Religious Studies, but I’ll give my four cents worth (because two cents is just not enough).

Having put forth the effort to study multiple religions, I have begun to see a surprising amount of “coincidences” throughout world religious history. Viewing things with an open mind, the procession of world events begins to become less and less statistically probable without the acting of some outside force.

Even Neo-Confucians, who do not necessarily subscribe to a deity, acknowledge that there is a purpose to everything. And, of course, there is a wealth of evidence – not just subjective experience but pure evidence – that speaks of opposed history.

Of course, there is the moral side of my argument. Supposing that there is no deity, what does one hope to accomplish in opposing institutions teaching morality and virtue? Even if one opposes mainstream Christianity – which stresses neighborly love and compassion – one still has mainstream Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and so many more, all toting morality, virtue and congeniality.

But if God is omnipotent, you ask, what is the origin of evil? Evil is an absence of godly behavior, a common result of the gift of free will. And free will is necessary, wholly and completely, for a real, deep and lasting relationship with one’s creator.

Would your relationship with your father or mother actually be real if you were a mindless drone? No. But how much heartbreak would they feel if you used that gift against them?

Andrew Cala
IU sophomore