Does Thinking Make It So?

Regular readers of my blog will know that it was during my high school years that I broke away from the fundamentalist Christian beliefs which had defined much of my life since young childhood. This time in my life was challenging for a multitude of other reasons as well, including family problems and the fact that I had always been considered by my peers to be "weird" (i.e., I didn't really fit in).  However, I was extraordinarily fortunate to find an amazing mentor in my 11th grade English teacher. She, probably more than any other person, helped to mold me into the person I am today, and consider her to be one of my best friends.

Whenever I was experiencing one of my frequent bad days, she would rattle of a short quote from some great work of literature, which would encourage me to contemplate my situation from a different perspective. The most frequent of these snippets was a little gem from Shakespeare's Hamlet, as the eponymous protagonist speaks with two of his courtiers, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern:

"For there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" (Act II, Scene II)

This quote has stuck with me and flickers through my mind often. Of course, I believe it makes a significant point about how we perceive good and bad: much of that perception is not based on external events, but on our internal thoughts concerning those external events. My mentor's purpose in reciting this quote was to remind me that, despite the upsetting and frustrating circumstances of my life at that moment, I could feel better about my situation simply by altering my thoughts. I found this suggestion beneficial. As I said, it continues to flicker through my mind often. Sometimes, humans have a tendency to overreact to our problems. We take small issues and blow them up into larger ones. We become deeply emotionally invested in things that do not truly matter. We let small negative experiences disproportionately impact ourselves and those around us. The way in which we choose to think about a situation, especially a negative one, can greatly modify our discernment of it, hopefully transforming it into something more positive.

However, Hamlet's quote is absolute. He uses the word "nothing". For Hamlet, our perceptions of the "goodness" and "badness" of absolutely everything is determined by our thoughts. Absolutely nothing contains any inherent "goodness" or "badness". It is all a product of our minds.

But is this true? I'm not so sure.

Yes, I am willing to stipulate that our thoughts can, and do, greatly color our moral opinions. We formulate judgments based on mental criteria we have created over time, and these criteria are dependent on our genes, our upbringing, our memories, our knowledge, our beliefs, and our current circumstances, to name but a few. We do this precisely because we are conscious. Precisely because we are human. Our ability to conceive and theorize about morality is, in my opinion, one of the most essential qualities which separates us from other animals.

But does that mean "goodness" and "badness" are only arbitrary definitions existing in the human mind, not actual qualities which exist in their own right? Again, I'm not so sure.

Of course, I am sure that this debate has been held, in slightly different variations, since the dawn of civilization, if not earlier. A Google search will probably take you to hundreds, if not thousands of different answers, each with their own justification(s). In these types of profound enigmas, where no wide consensus exists, I must follow my gut instinct, which is that there is some intrinsic "goodness" or "badness" in particular actions. Case in point, I believe that the murder of a human being is intrinsically wrong. Even if someone twists their thoughts to somehow legitimize this action, to give it "goodness" in their own mind, it does not change the fact that the murder of a human being is intrinsically wrong.

That is my conclusion, anyway, for the time being. However, in all honestly, I must say that I am not entirely certain. It is a question I have been pondering for a while now, and while I lean towards the hypothesis I presented above, my mind is by no means permanently made up. This is a topic I plan to continue researching extensively, in the hope that I might be able to better understand this puzzle our species has been discussing for thousands of years.

So, what do you think? Do you agree with Hamlet, that good and bad are only illusions of our minds? Or do you believe they are inherent properties, existing beyond the human mind? Or do you conceive a totally different answer? Please, I would love to hear everybody's thoughts on this issue, whether you have a strong position, a hesitant idea (like me), several different theories, absolutely no freaking clue, or just want to comment on the issue itself.

Religion and Morality

One of the first religious beliefs I questioned as a child was the concept that only Christians possessed morality and that atheists and agnostics were sinful and depraved. To this day, it is a belief that I continue to find bewildering, since it is so obviously incorrect. Yet, it is still a widespread notion within fundamentalist Christianity. Why? For the same reason fundamentalist Christians hold most of their beliefs: fear.

A quick note: I am well aware that agnosticism is not the same as atheism, and that it is quite possible for an agnostic to be either a theist or an atheist. However, in my experience, a majority fundamentalist Christians do not distinguish between the two, which is why they have been lumped together in this post. 

The entire system of fundamentalist Christianity is established on the few being entirely right and the many being completely wrong. There is no wiggle room. They vigorously insist that the only way to procure a genuine relationship with God and enter into heaven is through their religious system. All other methods are an illusion. Of course, as humans, we frequently judge the merits of a belief system on the actions of its adherents. Fundamentalists know this. That is why they advocate the position that they solely exhibit morality. First, it lends credence to their particular beliefs. Second, it disparages non-believers. From the outside, this accusation seems obviously ludicrous. But to a believer, it merely confirms their convictions.

Most fundamentalist Christians were raised in the faith. Despite claims to the contrary, long-term converts are relatively rare. Because of this, it is in the church's best interest to retain as many of the children as they possibly can. Fear of losing members forces them to assert the immorality of atheism and agnosticism. Even if a person is entertaining doubts, they are less likely to renounce their beliefs if they assume that all non-believers are corrupted by the devil. Church leaders regularly promote their moral superiority by highlighting some predicament currently effecting the world and connecting it with godlessness. Even troubles within the church are attributed to nonbelievers masquerading as Christians.

Fear of an individual's ultimate fate another rationale for alleging moral supremacy. In fundamentalist Christianity, the fate of an individual, in theory, is relatively simple. If you have accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior and you have followed all the beliefs of the church, you will progress to heaven. Everyone else is condemned to hell. Of course, as I have written about previously, fear of hell is an excellent motivator. In my experience, many fundamentalist Christians felt prompted to be "good" because of their fear of hell and their desire for heaven. They presumed that, if you took away the threat of punishment and/or the reward of paradise, there would be no incentive for an individual to be a good, moral person.

Personally, I find this motive for morality to be exceedingly immature. If your only rationalization for behaving well is your dread of punishment, you are not an authentically good person. To truly be a moral person, your motivation should be your knowledge of right and wrong, and an eagerness to be good just because it is the right thing to do. You should treat people compassionately because it is proper, not because God might punish you if you don't.

The perception that religion must be the basis of morality is utterly absurd. For several years after I left the Southern Baptist church, I considered myself an agnostic with a slight leaning towards atheism. It is during this period of my life that my personal system of morality developed. I desired to be a good person because I longed to help people. I did not require a God or the threat of punishment to justify that aspiration. I still don't. Although I do now consider myself a theist, my moral convictions and my basis for them have not substantially changed.

Religious hostility has done nothing except allow for increased conflict in the world. If we concentrated on assisting our fellow man instead, we could make our world a better place. Personally, I believe God would much rather us feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, and comfort the suffering than argue about whose morality is inherently superior.