I don't find where Twain actually said that good people prefer hell. But the point of the Letters seems to be that Christianity is so absurd that any rational person who actually believed it would hate being in heaven, even if he agreed that hell would be even worse.

Maybe you have too Protestant a view of the Bible. On the Catholic view, every book of the Bible has two authors (the human author or authors and God)

Most Protestants present the same view, actually. They appeal to human authorship to explain apparent contradictions, and they appeal to divine authorship to explain why those apparent contradictions can't be real contradictions.

It's been almost 20 years since I read "Letters from the Earth." Rather than trust my memory, I'm re-reading it now. I haven't gotten to the point where he says good people prefer hell, but I'll have something to say about it when I do.

I'll let you provide the insight.

With a universe so clearly revealed to have a purpose and designed to discover its Creator, what need would St. Thomas have of causes to prove God's existence? Nowadays we would not need any special revelation from God to show us the truth, since science is doing that for us. Contrary to the strident claims of atheism, science is bringing us closer to the knowledge of God.

Twain was writing satire to prove a point. What do you think his point was?

I've just returned to the computer.

Oops! Missed this one. That was one of the snippets I sought to edit out as it should not have been there. It doesn't even make contextual sense. Should have read:

"I do like your 'lesson for the day' from the pulpit on the virtues of atheology".

Don't go burst a boiler Johnboy, not on my account. Just because I see little value in your worldview contributing to the discussion going forward I really don't hold any animus, of the visceral kind at least. I did enjoy these two:

"That's laughably absurd. Her [Goodenough] awe expresses an evaluative disposition not derived from a theoretic position. It represents a psychological state, not a philosophical analysis" and

"The discernment of those positions doesn't derive from my psychological state but from a philosophical analysis of your positions ..."

Philosophical? vis-a-vis Psychological? Psychological? vis-a-vis Philosophical?

I say, "Yeah, Right". I also say of your position, as I do of the notion 'Religious Naturalism', if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck ..........

Whatever.