In a message dated February 11. 1998, VvJUSTINvV writes:

Well, if you really think about it, no matter what anybody says, the universe has ALL THE TIME IN THE WORLD to come up with its realities.

If you think about the concept 'eternity', 800 billion years is a flash in the pan. It really makes no difference, if one wants to argue for evolution theories, how long it took for 'chance' to come up with the 'secret formula' for DNA and living existence. It may have taken twice that long, for that matter, or 800 billion years squared. What does that matter?

The essential fact is: MAN EXISTS. This much we do know. How he 'got here' is not essential to my well-being, to my happiness or to my viability as a productive, sovereign being. To be sure, I'm far more concerned about where we're going than where we came from. Personally, I don't think we have the technology to solve this alleged 'riddle' at this point in time with any certainty, and therefore one may strive to poke holes quite effectively (or annoyingly) in any version of the evolution argument.

However, I caution you all to be aware of the tendency for this false dichotomy, which is: If evolution is invalid, then creationism is the only answer, or vice versa. I already know that creationism is utter hogwash, a desperate hangover superstition brought down through the ages initially in the form of oral tales told at the campfires of primitive men, the ancestor to the modern ghost story, evolving over time into the garbage that it is today: RELIGION. Talk about evolution! There's evolution for you!

All religions begin as folkloric superstitions. The same is true for Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintaoism, Taoism, Muhammedism, Zoroastrianism, and YES, Judaism and Christianity, too. These superstitions were early attempts - without the benefit of rational philosophy - to explain the natural phenomena that men perceived in his surroundings. Most superstitions are of the sort that attributes a consciousness (and therefore intention, purpose and voyeuristic awareness) to metaphysically-given phenomena that do not possess this faculty.

An early example of superstition that arose to god-beliefs are the primitive beliefs about astronomical bodies, such as the sun and the moon. Many ancient cultures - again, without the benefit of a rational philosophy to guide them - ascribed to religions of sun-worship. The sun, they thought, was the giver of life. In some ways, it has been shown by science, that they were not that far from the truth, in a scientific, biological sense. Without the sun, and the energy it gives off, there could be no life on earth. The energy that life requires ultimately finds its source in the sun.

Thus, given this point, I assert that the early sun-worshippers were far more accurate in the essentials of their superstitions than today's Christians, who believe in something that is by definition completely removed from reality. (I think DavidTietz was trying to suggest something along these lines in an earlier mailer, that some myths may at some point isolate an essential truth. I would say that the early sun-worshippers are a good example of this point.) The primary essential error that the early sun-worshippers committed in their superstitions was that they ascribed consciousness to inanimate, non-living objects.

As the authors of superstition suggested in their tales and myths to others, many had no basis to refute the arbitrary assertions, primarily because they lacked a rational philosophy. These superstitions thus grew as acceptable explanations for reality in the vacuum that should be occupied by rational philosophy and science.

It is through these superstitions that the notion of SUPERNATURALISM first came into being. By 'supernatural' I mean: 'beyond nature', 'beyond reality' and, essentially, 'beyond existence'.

All of these questions concern the primary foundation of philosophy, which is called METAPHYSICS. Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies reality, existence and nature. Every philosophy addresses metaphysical issues, even Christianity.

Now, I've already mentioned in an earlier e-mail to you all that there is no such thing as 'existence beyond existence', just as there is no such thing as a 'super-nature'. Nature is basically the Law of Identity, the founding principle of OBJECTIVE REALITY. A is A, in other words. The Law of Identity is an axiom, which is a perceptual self-evidency. "There is nothing to be said in behalf [of an axiom] except: look at reality" [Leonard Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, pg. 8]. The Law of Identity basically states that anything that exists has identity, i.e., a NATURE, and that identity is ITSELF. If something exists, it has a FINITE nature. Something that exists can only be itself, and nothing else. A rock is NOT a fountain pen, a steamship is NOT a paper plate, and handkerchief is NOT a skyscraper, a mountain is NOT an elephant, the moon is NOT a hunk of cheese, and a bowl of rice is NOT a political doctrine.

If something is said to exist, it MUST have a finite nature, and this is where the whole notion of a supernatural being falls apart untenably. The religionist posits his 'god' and then says that 'he' cannot be defined, that 'he' is 'infinite', and that 'he' is 'beyond our comprehension', 'beyond reality', 'beyond existence' and 'beyond NATURE'. Thus, we have the contentless notion of SUPER-NATURE, born of early superstitious and primitive myths. Since there is no such thing as 'existence beyond existence', there is therefore certainly no such thing as 'nature beyond nature'.

"Faith in the supernatural always begins as faith in the superiority of others" [Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, pg. 961]. For example, when I was a child, I was, like many of you, fed this gibberish about a 'god'. He had a long beard, he wore a great white gown, he sat on a throne, and he had rays of light emanating from his brow. Of course, as a child, I naturally took most everything my parents told me to be true. Accepting my parents' superiority as a given (i.e., without questioning or challenging it), I consequently took their claims to be truth, and thus I accepted this tyrannical notion of a deity as a youngster. I never understood it, in fact, I was told that I could never understand it. It was when I was told that I will never be able to comprehend it - except until 'after death' that I really began to question this perverse and stupid assertion about 'god'.

Now as an adult, I do not have any belief in the superiority of others. Nor do I have a god-belief. As I have shown above, the metaphysical premises of supernatural belief - that there is some kind of 'existence beyond existence' - are the rudiments of cheap, primitive philosophy.

The ancients dreamed up their superstitions to explain the things they did not understand. The same ancients told these tales to others, who in turn told them again to others, who in turn passed them down through the generations, until finally they were written out on scrolls. Who knows how these myths and superstitions really started: I imagine they started out worshipping the wild animals of their environment. The prehistoric wall-paintings in the caves of France show such evidence. What these early people were really thinking is not known. But I suspect that their intellectual legacy is RELIGION.

How these religions really started out may only be a mystery, but one things is for sure: we know that they've developed into complex philosophies, which, if taken seriously and followed consistently, spell death to man.

Instead of worrying about how old the universe is, or how life came about on earth, or how fast monkeys can type, I suggest that the religionist checking his premises, like a thinking man, and start dealing with reality now, on its terms.

Tindrbox

_________________________________