Religious system not at fault

Mike [Freenor], too many of your arguments begin on weak premises. You say that God cannot be good or evil if He is the one who declares what is good or evil. However, if God declares what is good or evil, can He not declare Himself good? From this, many of your following arguments are pointless. Take your claim that “fear of punishment” is what compels people to follow God. Unfortunately, the Bible discusses many reasons to follow God. Hell is described as only one of these reasons, and it is listed more as a natural consequence of not following God, as opposed to being a “punishment.” In other words, those who follow God in life will follow Him in death, and those who spurn God in life also spurn Him in death. You also fail to prove that morality exists, thus making all of your arguments ultimately futile. You also make a classic error in arguing against God. You declare that your own desires trump the will and commands of an almighty deity. You say that God must not exist because eternal “punishment” for “finite” crimes is not just, when really it is unjust to you. Would it make sense to declare that the U.S. does not exist because you don’t agree with one of its laws? Of course not. To this, many would say, “Well, such a God is not worthy of my worship.” But such arrogance is exactly what the Judeo-Christian God claims we must lose. One who thinks in such a self-centered way is simply unwilling to believe, and the fault belongs to that person and not to the religious system which is allegedly “beneath” that person.

Bryan BurroughsSenior, Computer Science

God is just

I would like to address the “standard Christian conception of God” talked about in [Mike Freenor’s] article “Morality exists without God.” Yes, I do believe you are addressing your conception of the Christian God as a just god. If God was a just god, how could he allow some sinners into heaven over other sinners? And shouldn’t sins be weighted and punished accordingly? The only thing is this common misconception when looking at the Christian faith. I think you must believe the Bible is a historically accurate book because you pull many concepts and thoughts from it throughout your article. The fact is God is a just god. We, in our sinful states, do not “deserve” heaven. In our sinful states we all “deserve” death. Romans 3:23-25 says “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice.” The truth is we deserve death but by grace through Christ’s death and resurrection God has made atonement for our sins, giving us an escape from eternal death. Romans 6:23 says “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” God loved everyone in this world enough to send his son to die for us so that we could have the opportunity to avoid an eternity in hell (John 3:16). That is the just God of the Christian faith.

Doug BarnesFreshman, Landscape Architecture

God is a solid foundation for morality

Objective moral foundations are safe for the Muslim, Jew or Christian. In the tradition of Plato’s dialogue Euthyphro, the great philosopher asks whether something is good because it is approved by God or whether something is approved by God because it is good; Mike Freenor poses the same question as an obstacle to grounding morality in God. Moral values are anchored in God’s very nature. His very nature is the good. He is by nature just, loving, compassionate, etc. He embodies all of the virtues. His divine commands thus proceed necessarily from His good nature. They are not arbitrary, nor do they get their meaning from some abstract moral law. In addition, Christians do not choose to live the moral life out of fear of God or of being sent to hell, but out of a response of love to their God and father. We believe that He forgave the moral evils we committed in this life and gave Himself for us and we thus, desire to live a life holy and pleasing to Him. It is absolutely true that we can live moral lives without belief in God, but can we live truly good, moral lives without God?

Stephen FederowiczSenior, Psychology

Elaborate on morality and religion column

Mike [Freenor], thank you for your Jan. 17 column “Morality exists without God.” It is independently thoughtful and well written. There are many details that were left out in your column, as I believe, due to printing space. Perhaps in your next column you can elaborate. You touched only a little on the idea of “divine command ethics.” You claim also that “the thesis that God is not omni-benevolent has a lot more evidence than?other views of God,” but provide no further explanation. I agree that “to suggest that a good way to live morally is through the desire to avoid punishment and to love a god is naive.” I know this is true through my personal experience and observation of human behavior. It is difficult to explain why humans do and act the way they do, other than “humans are sinners and do not adhere to the strict command of God.” I do things not because I fear eternal punishment, but only because I am who I am. Human morality is difficult because humans have different concepts of it. Varying human culture is part of the difficulty, but also one personalizes it through experience. You say “a moral code springs from love itself,” yet people have also different definitions of love. Perhaps you can clarify these concepts in more detail. Thanks again for writing and adding some reputation to the Technician.

Liam RoyceSenior, Paper Science and Engineering

Love-based morality is the answer

[Mike] Freenor, I am glad to see such a well-written, logically based argument for a morality system based on logic and love, rather than blind faith and fear. The current U.S. President got into office again by pushing his personal fear-based “moral system”; however, all he did was speak strongly against groups of people or ideas that he fears, homosexuals and abortion. If America as a whole subscribed to a love-based morality system as you described, the issues surrounding racism, sexism, ageism, heterosexism and other forms of discrimination would become nonexistent.

Mike StoneSenior, Electrical Engineering

Technician‘s message on Pope grant unclear

In your editorial “Speak Up on Pope Grant,” Jan. 16, you chose to repeat the malicious smear by a faculty member comparing the Pope Foundation to the Ku Klux Klan. The Technician was correct to state that it is “unwise and downright irresponsible to make this correlation …” Indeed, there is no basis in reality for comparing the Pope Foundation to any racist, criminal, terrorist organization such as the Ku Klux Klan. However, the Technician compounded that outrageous comparison by stating that “this correlation” should not be made “when CHASS is still collecting a grant via the Pope Foundation.” Is it the Technician‘s position that the Pope Foundation is like the KKK, but administration, faculty and students should keep quiet as long as the Pope Foundation is giving N.C. State money? With one carelessly worded sentence the Technician appears to have undermined free speech and libeled the Pope Foundation. The Technician owes the Pope Foundation and the University community a clarification.

David W. RiggsVice President, Operations and ProgramsJohn William Pope Foundation