Correspondence

Mimi of California asks:

I am amazed that so many people take God and Hell so lightly. CASE, what is the reason for this?

I chose the psychological angle to explain why non-believers (and even believers) do not constantly cower in fear of the supposed afterlife BBQ:

The reason is psychological and the same reason that theists come to fear death, even though they assume they are "saved".

The human brain has two sources of information, logos (logic, reality) and mythos (fantasy, imagination). These sources appear to be identical to the conscious mind, however, the subconscious retains some understanding that:

1. Logos can be trusted, in this way, we know that if we jump off a building, we will fall. There is no fear that we will not fall.

2. Mythos is untrustworthy, in this way, we know that although we think we are good looking, we have doubts about our personal attributes when we ask a girl on a date.

Similarly, if we are bungee jumping for the first time, our expected experience is only imagined (mythos) and we have doubt or fear about not stopping the fall in the face of our knowledge (logos) of gravity.

Because the brain knows that religious activity is mythos (fantasy and imagination), it does not create the same fear effect as if we were standing on a precipice over a ravine. That is, essentially, the reason why people take God and Hell so lightly.

However, there are many situations where the fear created appears to be logos deceptively. For instance, a child that is beaten, berated, socially ostracised or suffers some other coercion if they disagree with the Bible will naturally form the rule that disbelief brings about greater fear than professing belief and thus, will not tend to treat the matter lightly. Of course, this is a strong reason behind the use of peer groups in churches, particularly, youth groups. The sad conclusion, however, is that these children live in a world where the only alternative on any religious issue is fear, which is damaging to the psyche and potentially destructive to the life of the child.

Need say no more

We know there is no God in the same way that we know there are no square triangles.

Assume: the definition of God is an intelligent being who decides to begin the universe, including time.

A decision is a transition from indifference to will. Such transition may only take place within time. Thus, we ask the question when did God make the decision to begin time, before, after or during the actual commencement of time:

1. Since all decisions require time to already be in effect, God cannot make the decision until time has already commenced in operation and accordingly, he cannot make the decision before or during the actual commencement of time;

2. Since time was already in existence after time commenced, God cannot be said to create it.

Thus, the definition of God as presented CANNOT exist because, like the square triangle, the definition CANNOT be show to exist in reality and thus, there CANNOT be a God.

However, this proof only shows that an intelligent being could not create the universe. It does not prevent the universe being the result of natural causes, something without decision making ability or chosen will. Accordingly, as far as I see it and to the extent of the validity of the argument, which I cannot flaw myself, the argument about the existence of God is now over.

Calvinism, hating the poor and working hard

Josh,

I remember where I heard about Calvinism! It was during my studies of criminology and the early modern philosopher, Max Weber, who penned a study of protestant churches in Europe, a note from the commentary:

Weber traced the origins of the Protestant ethic to the Reformation, though he acknowledged some respect for secular everyday labor as early as the Middle Ages. The Roman Catholic Church assured salvation to individuals who accepted the church's sacraments and submitted to the clerical authority. However, the Reformation had effectively removed such assurances. From a psychological viewpoint, the average person had difficulty adjusting to this new worldview, and only the most devout believers or "religious geniuses" within Protestanism, such as Martin Luther, were able to make this adjustment, according to Weber.

In the absence of such assurances from religious authority, Weber argued that Protestants began to look for other "signs" that they were saved. Calvin and his followers taught a doctrine of double predestination, in which from the beginning God chose some people for salvation and others for damnation. The inability to influence one's own salvation presented a very difficult problem for Calvin's followers. It became an absolute duty to believe that one was chosen for salvation, and to dispel any doubt about that: lack of self-confidence was evidence of insufficient faith and a sign of damnation. So, self-confidence took the place of priestly assurance of God's grace.

Worldly success became one measure of that self-confidence. Luther made an early endorsement of Europe's emerging labor divisions. Weber identifies the applicability of Luther's conclusions, noting that a "vocation" from God was no longer limited to the clergy or church, but applied to any occupation or trade.

However, Weber saw the fulfillment of the Protestant ethic not in Lutheranism, which was too concerned with the reception of divine spirit in the soul, but in Calvinistic forms of Christianity. The trend was carried further still in Pietism. Baptism diluted the concept of the calling relative to Calvinists, but other aspects made its congregants fertile soil for the development of capitalism--namely, a lack of paralyzing ascetism, the refusal to accept state office and thereby develop unpolitically, and the doctrine of control by conscience which caused rigorous honesty.

The "paradox" Weber found was, in simple terms:

* According to the new Protestant religions, an individual was religiously compelled to follow a secular vocation with as much zeal as possible. A person living according to this world view was more likely to accumulate money.
* The new religions (in particular, Calvinism and other more austere Protestant sects) effectively forbade wastefully using hard earned money and identified the purchase of luxuries a sin. Donations to an individual's church or congregation was limited due to the rejection by certain Protestant sects of icons. Finally, donation of money to the poor or to charity was generally frowned on as it was seen as furthering beggary. This social condition was perceived as laziness, burdening their fellow man, and an affront to God; by not working, one failed to glorify God.

As per usual, it seems you know less about your own theology than the atheist.