What Do I Really Believe?

Here's a good line in the song of a good band and a good album:

"I suffer from a lack of seratonin. Synapses they happen too infrequently for me to be functioning properly."



Today I relayed my basic emotional state to my barista friend. This basic state being me irritated for absolutely no reason. He said, "Seasonal depression, everybody's got it". I think it comes from a lack of melatonin." To which I said, "You mean seratonin". He said, "Oh yeah, it is seratonin" There was a pause, and then he said, "Are you sure?". And I said, "Yeah, melatonin is what gives your skin its pigmentation". Then he said, "Yeah, but I thought maybe it had something to do with depression and your brain too. To which I said. "I don't know". If a doctor or professor of biology had been eaves dropping he would have either laughed or been really annoyed. But the whole exchange made me think. How affected are human emotions by rates of synapses? Do the speed of synapses determine the emotion, or does the emotion determine the speed of synapses?
I was reading a little about Epicurean philosophy the other day, which seems to me to be the most fascinating philosophy I have stumbled upon yet. I will try to sum it up as best as I can. Basically the epicurean believes that all that exists is either space or material, including the soul. Everything we see is a combination of atoms which give things their distinct shape. The complex atoms that make up human beings have a will all of their own. But, like all atoms are destined to eventually be divided, and this is death, and death is nothing more than this. Even our souls, against the Platonic conception, are material things made up of similar, but not identical atoms. I say this to say, that I think the Epicurean would answer my question by saying saying "yes and yes". Others would obviously disagree? As for me, there is a certain appeal for me to Epicureanism. It makes sense. It relieves the fear of dying, since memory is erased along with consciousness. Nonexistence after having experienced existence is just like nonexistence before experienceing existence. What we have is today to enjoy. I like it because it defends itself against immoral hedonism, by pointing out that it is an empirical fact that often the most pleasureable choices in the moment lead to much more pain later. The basis of morality is then pleasure which includes moderation, contemplation, and compassion. I like this. I like this a lot.
But what of my faith? Where does my faith collide with Epicureanism and make them untenable together. I don't think my faith tends to care about the nature of the soul, only that it is distinct from the body, and that those who have faith in Christ will place it in a new uncorrupted body. What then of the corrupt soul? Epicureanism denies original sin, and dismisses it as an illusion based on an irrational fear of death. Salvation in Epricureanism bypasses the cross in favor of rational enlightenment. But for the Christian, the fear of death is erased not by rationalism, but by faith in the Resurrection. It kind of bothers me that I am so attracted to this philosophy that is in such starch opposition to my faith. I simply cannot be a Christian Epicurean. To resolve this I defer to Blaise Pascal and his famous or infamous wager. For if I am a Christian and Epicureanism is true, then I am okay when I die. But if I am an Epicurean and Christianity is true, then I am in trouble. To some extent Pascal's wager, without context, appears to be a most heinous acceptance of fear in deferrment to the crudest form of intellectual dishonesty. But the point is well taken. When it comes to the afterlife, you have nothing to lose if your a Christian. You have a 100% chance of being okay, assuming that all things are equal.
But with Christianity, true Christianity, there is always something to lose. In order to be a Christian, you have to give it up now, in faith you will receive it later. If life is lived in this way, and your faith is proven to be false, then it is the Apostle Paul's exclamation that bears acceptance instead of Pascal's. "For if there is no Resurrection, than I am to be pitied above all men". We are required to live our lives in such a way that if we are wrong, then we are the most pitiable of creatures. Only then will we truly be "little Christs" a.k.a. Christians. Otherwise, we may as well be Epicureans. The stakes are high. We may be wrong either way. We have to ask ourselves. What do I really believe?