|
Creation beliefs and stories describe how the universe, the Earth, life, and/or humanity came into being. The term creation myth is used by historians for a story of creation with deep explanatory or symbolic resonance for a culture. This terminology is often seen as offensive when used to describe stories which are still believed today, due to the term "myth" having a common-usage connotation of a story which is fictional. These beliefs and stories need not be a literal account of actual events, but may express what are perceived to be truths at a deeper level. Author Daniel Quinn notes that in this sense creation myths need not be religious in nature, and they have secular forms in modern cultures.
Many creation beliefs fall into similar categories: the fractionation of the things of the world from a primordial chaos, the separation of the mother and father god, from an ocean existing before the world, etc.
Some religious groups assert that creation beliefs should replace or complement so-called "scientific" accounts of the development of life and the cosmos. For a description of this debate, see creationism.
Science-based beliefs
Science, strictly speaking, deals only with that which is observable and repeatably observable. Anything that cannot be observed is by that very fact not scientific. Scientists look for patterns among observations, which give rise to hypotheses to be tested against further observations. If a hypothesis passes these tests, it is then called a scientific theory, which again is subject to amendment or rejection based on new observations.
Limited to the scientific method, science cannot deal with non-repeatable events such as specific events in the past. However, science can be used to study the remains of these events and interpret them according to observed patterns. The whole universe is the remains of past events, so when one assumes philosophical naturalism it is believed that an extrapolation from present, observed patterns can give an accurate picture of the past. Not everyone believes in philosophical naturalism, not even all scientists, but there are certain beliefs of creation which are based on science.
The Big Bang theory is the dominant cosmological theory about the early development and current shape of the universe.
The modern evolutionary synthesis is the dominant biological theory about the origin of human life on Earth. This combines Charles Darwin's theory of the evolution of species by natural selection with Gregor Mendel's theory of genetics as the basis for biological inheritance.
The origin of life itself on Earth is more contested. The RNA world hypothesis is one explanation.
It should be pointed out that these science based beliefs are not ex nihilo beliefs, that is they do not start from nothing. They do not account for where the mass and energy of the universe came from, or for how life first began. In this respect they are like most creation beliefs, but notably unlike the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic beliefs, among others. The origin of life has many competing science based theories and the ultimate origin of the universe is widely believed to be a topic beyond scientific inquiry.
Religious creation beliefs
Several religions have creation theories, some of which account for the existence and present form of the Universe by the act of creation by a supreme being or creator god. Most of these accounts depict one or several gods fashioning things out of themselves, or from pre-existing material.
Exceptions to this idea are the traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, which for the most part speak of creation ex nihilo (Latin: out of nothing). This is typified, for example, by the assumption that the first verse of the Bible ("In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth") indicates that only God is self-existent, and all other things have their being from God. 2 Maccabees 7:28 shows that this may have been a common Jewish understanding of creation: "I beseech thee, my son, look upon the heaven and the earth, and all that is therein, and consider that God made them of things that were not ...". This is very like the language of the Christian view in Hebrews 11:3, which states, "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear".
However, in these traditions, the belief that God gave shape to pre-existing things was not unheard of, and that idea became more fully articulated especially under the influence of Greek philosophy. In both Judaism and Christianity, belief in creation "from nothing" began to dominate the traditions more completely, sometime in the second century C.E., as a way of asserting that God alone is eternal, in reaction to the implications of philosophy. The following quote from the second century rabbi, Gamiliel II, illustrates this reaction:
- A philosopher said to R. Gamiliel: Your God was a great craftsman, but he found himself good materials which assisted him: Tohu wa-Bohu, and darkness, and wind, and water, and the primeval deep. Said R. Gamiliel to him: May the wind be blown out of that man! Each material is referred to as created. Tohu wa-Bohu: "I make peace and create evil"; darkness: "I form the light and create darkness"; water: "Praise him, ye heaven of heavens, and ye waters" -- why? -- "For he commanded, and they were created"; wind: "For, lo, He that formeth the mountains, and created the wind"; the primeval deep: "When there were no depths, I was brought forth". BR 1.9, Th-Alb:8
Departing from this tradition, some modern scholars have argued that these statements and all others are still susceptible to ambiguous interpretation, so that creation ex nihilo may not be clearly supported by ancient texts, including the Bible. They point out the similarities of the biblical account, to other ancient religious beliefs that the universe was created by God or the gods out of pre-existing matter, as opposed to "out of nothing". Some scholars see evidence that the biblical account, like other ancient religious views, presumes pre-existence of some kind of raw material, albeit without form: "Now the earth was formless and void, darkness was over the face of the deep, and the spirit of God hovered over the waters." God then fashions the disordered material, to create the world.
Creation by natural causes beliefs
Scientists have found that the creation both of the universe and of life probably came about through purely natural causes. This requires a defacto belief that millions of statistically improbable events occurred in rapid succession. Those holding this opinion offer evidence that the cosmos developed on its own in accordance with the laws of physics, through an evolutionary process, and suggest that since science is believed to be successful in explaining things at ever more distant times in the past, the prospects for continued success are good. One potential problem with this view is that it seems to involve a scientifically impermissible extrapolation beyond the beginning of time. Some (notably Augustine of Hippo) also hold that God is altogether outside of time and that time exists only within the created universe. This notion is not entirely impossible. The Big Bang is seen by most as the beginning of the universe as we see it now, but for science, it is the beginning of time and space as we see it now. The formation of everything in the universe may have started then, but it was more a likely a series of side-effects of the Big Bang. This is why it is impermissible to go beyond the beginning of time, since there would not have been time (or space) to go to before the Big Bang, unless it was preceded by the Big Crunch. Also, the whole concept of time itself is still barely understood.
Bible-based beliefs
The stories of Genesis
The opening of Genesis tells the Biblical story of creation. Though the Biblical account of creation is very short, it sets the pattern for Biblical philosophy: God exists; He acts in history; and He communicates to and can be known by humans.
For a more complete discussion, see the main article, Creation account(s) in Genesis.
Literal versus allegorical interpretation
It is possible to read Genesis as a literal account, indicating that God created the Earth exactly as described, in 6 days of 24 hours each. It is also possible to view Genesis as an allegory for the process of humankind's development of self-awareness and the emergence of human intelligence from a previous animal state. In this interpretation, the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge is a key component as the Serpent claims it holds the power to impart understanding that would rival God's. The humans take a bite and get the ability to understand, but they do not eat the whole fruit, and so get only a partial understanding. Immediately they become ashamed of their nakedness, presumably because it belies their animal nature. God expels them from the Garden of Eden, which represents a contented animal existence, to toil in the world and face strife and conflict.
Time in the creation stories
Ignorance of the ancient literary style and ancient Hebrew language, even by Biblical literalists, where the author and title of a document or section were put at the end thereof and "day" apart from a numerical identifier refers to generalized time and not necessarily a 24 hour day, caused people to see a difference between the two stories: the first mentions six days of creation, while the second the day of creation. This apparent contradiction in two verses that are so close together has troubled many commentators (see A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom by A.D. White, 1896, Dover Publications, 1960, page 5). The distinction is concealed by some translations, such as the New International Version. One explanation for this difference is given by the documentary hypothesis and a second explanation from literary and linguistic analysis.
There is a sharp distinction between Young Earth creationists and Old Earth creationists who hold contradictory views regarding the age of the Earth. Young Earth creationism holds to the wording of the first story, where the Earth was created in six days. Young Earth creationists usually date the Earth at somewhere around 6,000 years old using the genealogies and other details in the Bible; the Ussher-Lightfoot Calendar of Bishop James Ussher presents one famous interpretation of these details. Young Earth creationists usually reject the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe.
Old Earth creationists do not hold to the wording of either story and claim that the Earth is millions of years old. For example, Day-age creationism holds that the six days referred to are not ordinary 24-hour days, but rather much longer periods (of thousands or millions of years); the Genesis account is then sometimes interpreted as an account of the process of evolution. Some believe that the six day period refers to the time spent by light traveling from the center of the universe at the time and point of creation. It is worthwhile to note that modern cosmology does not allow for any "center of the universe" to exist, every point being equivalent to any other one. In the Big Bang theory, the universe was but a point at the time of its creation, and it has no boundary.
God as absolute origin
Creationists in the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church assert that God is the origin, out of nothing (Latin: ex nihilo), of all things that exist apart from God, who exists eternally. The Church holds as an unchangeable tenet of Christian faith, that:
- "... three things are affirmed in these first words of Scripture: the eternal God gave a beginning to all that exists outside of himself; he alone is Creator (the verb "create" - Hebrew bara - always has God for its subject). The totality of what exists (expressed by the formula "the heavens and the earth") depends on the One who gives it being. — (Catechism of the Catholic Church: "Creation - Work of the Holy Trinity" 1.2.1.1.4.2.290 [1] (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p4.htm))
Here, clearly, creation is described as an absolute beginning, which includes the assertion that the very existence of the universe is contingent upon a necessary, uncreated being, a God who is not himself created. Therefore the doctrine of creation places the knowledge of God central in the pursuit of the knowledge of anything, for everything comes from God. The "supernatural" refers ultimately to God alone. Nature is denied any divinity.
This doctrine of creation, generally speaking, is also shared by Judaism, Islam, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. The strictness to which adherents are required to accept these views, and the sense in which these definitions are official, vary widely.
Saint Augustine (A.D. 354-430), embarrassed by Christians who would not accept this doctrine, wrote against them in his work The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim). This translation is by J. H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.
- "Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion." [1 Timothy 1.7]
Creation ex nihilo
Creation ex nihilo is quite at odds with our everyday experiences, in that nothing spontaneously comes into (or vanishes from) existence but instead matter and energy merely change form. Indeed, outside of within black holes, we know of no process by which matter or energy can be destroyed or created. We are not currently able to explain creation ex nihilo, nor even to prove that it is required.
An explanation advanced by some theists is that God created the Universe out of nothing; some theists hold also that life was created in something like its present state of variety, so that organisms were fully speciated from the beginning. While there are various attempts to square these ideas with available evidence and currently accepted theory, their explanatory utility, predictive power, and scientific standing are shunned by atheistic scientists. Many scientists in the relevant fields, theist and otherwise, do not regard notions like divine power or divine will as playing genuine scientific roles in cosmology or biology.
The scientifically prevalent view is that life originated on Earth, although other views hold that organic compounds from comets may have been an important source of material for the appearance of life. The Miller-Urey experiment showed that amino acids could arise from a primitive environment, but it was based on incomplete data on the early atmosphere. Nevertheless, scientific research on abiogenesis is ongoing.
Limits to the ontology of creation
Whilst many scenarios are proposed by religion and science to identify 'first cause', the origin of creation (ontology), there are some fundamental limits to the knowledge of humankind that present a barrier to finding any definitive answer.
Philosophy currently holds that there is nothing that one can know for certain. Kant put a good case to show that because we view the universe through the lens of the mind, which is 'shaped' by space, time, and the things embedded in space and time, it is not possible to see things-in-themselves (noumena) - the real objects that lie behind the subjective objects we recognise. If true, it is beyond the mind of humankind to perceive a condition that has no space or time. Many other philosophers, most recently Popper have all shown that there is precious little one can be sure of that would provide a starting point to determine the 'first cause' that led to creation.
Religion has philosophy and oral testimony available to it to prove a God that called the universe into existence. As such it is likewise bound by the limits of faith.
Modern physics is an empirical science (based on experiment and observation). As such, the descriptive power of physics breaks down at the Planck time/Planck length: the limit of our ability to carry out meaningful experiments. As such, it is quite incapable of providing an answer to creation because it has no access to first cause. Physics explains how things happen, when things happen and what things may happen, but it has no basis to explain 'why' things happen at the foundational (ontological) level. When physics says there was a 'Big Bang', it does not say when or why the universe decided to do so.
Contemporary mathematics is also unable to illuminate first cause because it is founded on axioms that, while being fairly obvious, are not provable (see Godel's Incompleteness Theorem). Mathematics is a (very advanced and elegant) descriptive tool only. If the physics or the world changed tomorrow, the mathematics would change nearly as rapidly and we would all smile and say, 'Just so'. But the cause of creation would remain out of bounds.
Babylonia
The Babylonian creation myth is described in Enûma Elish. It existed in various versions and copies, the oldest dating to at least 1700 B.C.E.
In the poem, the god Marduk arms himself and sets out to challenge the monster Tiamat. Marduk destroys Tiamat, cutting her into two halves which become the Earth and the sky. Later on, he also destroys Tiamat's husband, Kingu, and uses his blood to create mankind.
Reference
A. Leo Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia
Odin and his brothers used Ymir's body to create the universe. This universe comprises of nine worlds. They placed the body over the void called Ginnungagap. They used his flesh for creating the earth and his blood for the sea. His skull, held up by four dwarves (Nordri North, Sudri South, Austri East, and Vestri West), was used to create the heaven. Then using sparks from Muspelheim, the gods created the sun, moon and stars. While Ymir's eyebrows were used to create a place where the human race could live in; a place called Midgard. The first humans, Ask and Embla, were created from logs. [2] (http://www.timelessmyths.com/)
China
Owing to the relatively long span of recorded history in China, China has only "recently" had a creation myth. Frequent (and uninformed) sources point to Pangu as the Creator God of China; please see the wiki article on Pangu to clarify that view.
There are five major views of creation in China:
- The first, and most consistent historically, is that no myth exists. This is not to say there were none existing at all, only that there is no evidence showing an attempt to explain the world's origin.
- The second view is very indirect. It is merely based on a question of a dialog in an earlier reference. The idea in the question implies that the heavens and the earth separated from one another.
- The third view is the one perpetuated by Taoism by the nature of its philosophy. It appears "relatively" late in Chinese history. In it, Tao is described as the ultimate force behind the creation. With tao, nothingness gave rise to existence, existence gave rise to yin and yang, and yin and yang gave rise to everything. Due to the ambiguous nature of this myth, it could be compatible with the first myth (and therefore say nothing). But it could, like its antithesis, be explained in a way to better fit the modern scientific view of the creation of universe.
- The fourth view is the relatively late myth of Pangu. This was an explanation offered by Taoist Monks hundreds of years after LaoZi; probably around +0200 AD. In this story, the universe begins as a cosmic egg. A god named Pangu, born inside the egg, broke it into two halves: The upper half became the sky, the lower half became the earth. As the god grew taller, the sky and the earth grew thicker and were separated further. Finally the god died and his body parts became different parts of the earth.
- The fifth view would be tribal accounts that vary widely and not necessarily connect to a system of belief.
Egypt
In the beginning was only ocean. Then a hill became visible rising from the ocean, and at this point the first god awoke (The cosmology of Heliopolis held that this first god was the sun god Ra, that of Memphis that it was the earth god Ptah). The first god began to create other gods, who proceeded to create the various aspects of the world.
Hinduism
In Hindu philosophy, the existence of the universe is governed by the triumvirate- The Trimurti of Brahma (the Creator), Vishnu (the Sustainer) and Shiva (the Destroyer). The sequence of Avatars of Vishnu- the Dasavatara (Sanskrit: Dasa—ten,Avatara—incarnation) is generally accepted by most Hindus today as correlating well with Darwin's theory of evolution, the first Avatar generating from the environment of water:.
Hindus thus do not see much conflict between creation and evolution. An additional reason for this could also be the Hindu concept of cyclic time (unlike the concept of linear time in many other religions). In fact, time is represented as a wheel- 'Kaala Chakra'- Wheel of Time:.
An interesting point is that though Brahma is considered the Creator, unlike Vishnu and Shiva, there are very few temples of worship for Brahma, reasons for which form part of myths, one prevalent myth being that Brahma is a human and lives among us and is the only one of the gods with a beard, therefore making him mortal. The only historic temple of Brahma in India (dating to the 14th Century) is the Jagatpita temple in Pushkar, Rajastan.
The Qur'an describes Allah as creator of the heavens and earth and what is between them; for its account of the creation of man, see Adam and Eve#Adam in Islam.
Japan
The god Izanagi and goddess Izanami churned the ocean with a spear
to make a small island of curdled salt. Two deities went down to the island, mixed there, and bore main islands, deities, and forefathers of Japan. See Japanese mythology#Creation of the world.
Maya
The Maya of Mesoamerica creation story is recounted in the book "Popol Vuh". In the beginning there is only sky and sea, personified as a trinity of gods called Heart-of-Sky. They decide that they want someone to praise them. They begin by saying "Earth", which appears on demand from the sea. This is followed by mountains and trees, and Heart-of-Sky establish that "our work is going well". Next for creation are the creatures of the forest: birds, deer, jaguars and snakes. They are told to multiply and scatter, and then to speak and "pray to us". But the animals just squawk and howl. They are consequently humbled and will become servants to whoever will worship Heart-of-Sky. So Heart-of-Sky try to make some more respectful creatures from mud. But the results are not great, and they allow the new race to be washed away. They call upon their grandparents, who suggest wood as an appropriate medium. But the wooden people are just mindless robots, so Heart-of Sky set about the destruction of this new race by means of a rain-storm. This causes the animals to turn against the wooden people; even their pots and querns rebel, and crush the peoples' faces. The wooden people escape to the forests and are turned into monkeys. Heart-of-Sky then make yet another attempt at creating a suitably respectful race, and finally succeed by fashioning humans out of maize-corn dough.
Maori
The Maori creation myth tells how heaven and earth were once joined as Ranginui, the Sky Father, and Papatuanuki, the Earth Mother, lay together in a tight embrace. They had many children who lived in the darkness between them. The children wished to live in the light and so separated their unwilling parents. Ranginui and Papauanuk continue to grieve for each other to this day. Rangi's tears fall as rain towards Papatuanuku to show how much he loves her. When mist rises from the forests, these are Papa's sighs as the warmth of her body yearns for him and continues to nurture mankind.
Zoroastrianism
The Zoroastrianism story of creation has Ahura Mazda creating 16 lands, one by one, such that each would be delightful to its people. As he finished each one, Angra Mainyu applied a counter-creation, introducing plague and sin of various kinds.
See also
External links
|
