The Mystery of Creation

There has been no mystery which has intrigued man’s mind more than that of Creation. How and even why did all of Being, the whole Cosmos, come into existence? Was it through spontaneous generation, or was it predetermined? If it was spontaneous, was there a previously created contributing substance? To cite chaos as the spring from which the Cosmos came forth simply precipitates the question as to whether chaos has a quality in itself. If it had, then what was its origins? 

If one accepts the alternative, that is, the predetermined cause, he enters the realm of teleology, or Mind as the motivating force of Creation. This assumes that Creation was a primary idea, an objective to be attained; that it was premeditated. 

This conception engenders the idea of an embodied mind residing in a thinking, reasoning entity. The only parallel we have for such a mental capacity is the human mind. Therefore, it is quite understandable that men would think of such an Infinite Mind as an attribute of a Supernatural Being. 

If such a being had the faculty of planning, formulating ideas, it must also have other attributes similar to those of mortals, such as the emotions, passions, and sentiments. Thus the notion of gods was born. 

At first these gods were thought of as apotheosized humans; in other words, mortals who had attained a divine status. Later, the gods were conceived as self-generated beings, and eventually the belief in a monotheistic Being, a sole God, was promulgated. The sole God, too was thought to have been self-generated, that nothing had preceded such a Deity. These notions aroused polemic theological and ontological discussion; in other words, they centred around the enigma of the phrase, “self-generation.” Did the term generation imply a Creation from a pre-existing “something” that was transmuted into a Deity? Or did it mean the God came into existence from a void, a condition of non-existence from a void, a condition of non-existence? Even if the latter view is accepted, there is the implication that this non-existence is a negative reality. Once again we return to the repetitious question of “Whence came that state or condition which is given the reality of a ‘Non-Existence’? If it is realized and if it is named, is it not, therefore, a “thing”? 

The Metaphysical Aspect

This brings us to another aspect of the subject – the metaphysical. Did the Cosmos pass through a nascent state, that is, did it necessarily have a beginning? This question involves the profound subject of causality. Are there actually such things as causes? Or are they but a percept, a mere abstract idea, of the human faculties? Aristotle, on his doctrine of causality, set forth four types of causes:
The material cause, of which something arises.
The formal cause, the pattern or essence which determines the creation of a thing.
The efficient cause, or the force or agent producing an effect.
The final cause, or purpose 

We will note that the first and third definitions imply a pre-existing condition; in other words, that something was, out of which something else came into existence. In fact, the third definition expounds that this pre-existing state, or force, brought a transition, a change in itself, which then was the effect. The fourth definition strongly suggests determinism, that is that all Being was self-designed to attain a particular ultimate state of condition. 

Is it not possible that attributing a cause to the Cosmos is due to man’s concept that for every positive state there is an opposite one of equal reality? More simply, that Non-Being exists also? That which is suggests non-existence as an opposite state out of which, it may be imagined, came the substance, the cause of that which has discernible reality. It is difficult to derive from common human experience the idea that there has never been a Primary Cause of All. 

As we look about us, we see what seems to constitute a series of specific causes by which things appear as the effects. However, what we observe as causes are in themselves but effects, too, of preceding changes. Due to our limited faculties of perception, we are unable to see an infinite number of apparent causes. We may presume that such do exist or think that there was an initial, that is, a First Cause, a beginning. In drawing on our experience with natural phenomena, we thus imagine that the Cosmos had some beginning. To theorize about such a beginning is only to return to the original perplexing question, “Whence did it come?” 

Ordinarily overlooked is an important doctrine in connection with the subject of Creation, and whether there was a beginning – namely, the doctrine of necessity. From a point of ratiocination, necessity is a state wherein a thing cannot be other than it is. Applying this doctrine to the question of the Cosmos and Creation, we must ask ourselves the question: “Was a beginning necessary?” In other words, could there have been anything other than the Cosmos? Nothing is only the negation of what is; it has no reality in itself. There can be nothing apart from what is. Since nothing is non-existence, all else then is by necessity – it must be. Being is positive, active; there is no absolute inertia. 

Energy and Change

If the Cosmos is by the necessity of its quality of Being, that does not imply that it is amorphous; that it has an innate quality. In its spectrum of energy, the Cosmos goes through myriad changes of expression which constitute the phenomenal world. However, no particular phenomenon is the absolute reality of the Cosmos, but only a representation of its eternal motion. 

Is there a ‘closed Cosmos’? Is there a continuous cycle of phenomena repeating itself through infinite time, thus being a limitation of the nature of its activity? Were the phenomena which are now discernible to man always as he perceives them, and will they always remain so? Or were they different in the vast span of time, and will they be necessarily other than they are now known to man? It is consistent to think of all natural phenomena as part of a subjacent force, a unified field in essence; but in its absolute quality the Cosmos is active, never static. 

The doctrine of necessity is also applicable to those terms we refer to as Mind and Order. The commonly associated attributes of mind are consciousness, memory, reason and will. The persistence of natural phenomena, their recurrence, their striving to be, corresponds to the attributes of consciousness. The repetition of such phenomena suggests determinism, or will. The amazing organization of nature implies a parallel to the faculty of intelligence and reason. Such a similarity, however, does not confirm that the Cosmos is innately a Mind. However, to know is to have a mental image of the thing perceived or conceived. Man would feel personally lost in the complexity of existence if he could not conceive the Cosmos by some intimate idea. Therefore, the concepts here considered are those, with various others, by which man has found “a unity with the One,” as the mystics say. Such ideas become the God of man’s heart as well as of his mind. If one is wrong in his conception, all must be; for which alone can be said to be the absolute image of the Cosmos?

- Author Unknown

Is the Theory of Evolution Acceptable

The strongest objection to the theory that man has descended from lower organisms comes from the fundamentalist religious sects. They consider that the evolution of the species is a directed contradiction of the biblical story of creation and that it also tends to degrade man. 

The biblical account in Genesis conceives of man as a spontaneous creation, that is, a creation that came into existence in the physical form in which he now appears. It also states that man is the image of his Creator, that he is the highest creation in reference to the faculties and attributes that he exhibits. If, of course, the Bible is to be taken literally as being the exact word of God and on those grounds no further facts can be considered, then one conclusively closes his mind to all other knowledge. 

In numerous ways, it is shown by science by means of empirical knowledge that the Bible is a collection of legends, historical facts, and personal revelations. The Bible can be refuted in part, especially when one realizes that those who contributed to it lacked much of the knowledge available today. 

In the still popular King James version of the Bible, at the beginning of the opening chapter of Genesis, there usually appears the date 4000 B.C. as the time of creation. This date is easily refuted scientifically by geology, astronomy, archaeology, and Egyptology. It is known from the translation of Egyptian hieroglyphs and cuneiform tablets that there were well-established cultures that had been in existence for centuries at the time the Bible states as the beginning of creation. 

Geologists, by means of the so-called earth clock (the ages of the earth revealed in its strata), disclose that this globe has been in existence for millions of years. Radioactive carbon in objects can be recorded in such a manner as to establish their age accurately. This latest method of physical science has confirmed estimates that archaeologists have given to artefacts that far antedate the creation date set forth in the Bible. 

The modern space age and its space probes and explorations have put to a severe test the literal interpretations of the Bible. Science is not resorting to heterodoxy or heresy; it is, rather, impartially searching for truth. If it is established that life exists on other celestial bodies and not exclusively on earth and if other reigns equal to or superior in intelligence to man are found, this will then make erroneous the statement that the earth alone was selected as the habitat of an especially created being – man. It must be realized that the early prophets and contributors to the Old Testament accounts did not conceive of heavenly bodies as being other worlds. In fact, most of them were of the opinion that cosmologically the earth is the principal body in the universe. 

At the time when Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543), astronomer, promulgated his idea that the sun and not earth was the centre of our universe, he became the victim of attack by the theologians. They accused him of detracting from the divine eminence and importance of man. Man was God’s chosen creation, they said, citing the Bible. The earth was created solely for him. 

Consequently, if the earth were not the centre of the universe and if it held a subordinate position, man’s status would thus be inferior, also. Copernicus himself wrote, “In the centre of everything rules the sun; for who in this most beautiful temple could place this luminary at another or better place where it can light up the whole at once? – in fact, the sun setting in a royal throne guides the family of stars surrounding him … the earth conceives by the sun, through him becomes pregnant with annual fruits.” 

Today, nearly five centuries after Copernicus, truth is again in conflict with religious orthodoxy. Even a high school student in his studies has the evolutionary process in nature demonstrated to him. Breeders of cattle and poultry know the mutations that result by special breeding; in fact, they depend on such for the improvement of their stock. The horticulturist and even the amateur gardener can discern the variations caused in plant growth and form by environmental effects. 

What seems to strike particularly at the human ego and dignity is the belief that organic evolution in relation to man means that “he comes from a monkey.” Most of those who acrimoniously inveigh against the theory of evolution have never read any of Darwin’s works or any other textbooks on the subject. Their opinion is that evolution is atheistically designed to attack their faith. 

Charles Darwin has not declared in his works that man is a direct descendent of any particular primate. His postulations and researches present the idea that there is “a tree of genealogical descent” and that there are related forms branching off from common parents. Simply put, he meant that life came originally from simpler common forms. In the passing of time, these common forms as parents had many branches from their original stock. These branches or their variations account for the different species due to natural selection and environmental factors. 

In his renowned work, The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin states that these variations account for different organisms as the result of competition for restricted food. Those with favourable variations survive and produce their kind. Man was not created as he is, but various factors in his existence, in his gradual survival, have brought about his organic structure. Further, the impact of present conditions will gradually make other changes in him. Man’s hands, for example, were not spontaneously given to him as they are, but their prehensile quality was developed with his need to cope with his environment. 

In his works, Darwin shows that the embryological development of the individual “tended to follow roughly the evolutionary development of their races revealed by fossil remains.” That is to say, the human embryo goes through changes which can be observed and which correspond to earlier forms of organisms whose fossilized remains have been found. This indicates that man preserves in himself the early forms of living organisms through which his physical being passed until he reached his present highest stage of development. 

Instead of this being shocking and detracting from the status of man, it actually indicates that man may not yet have reached zenith of attainment. There is the potentiality of still further development, which is a yet greater tribute to cosmic law and phenomena. We think that Charles Darwin beautifully expressed this thought in the following words: “Man may be excused for feeling some pride at having risen, though not through his own exertions, to the very summit of the organic scale; and the fact of his having risen, in stead of his being placed there originally, may give him hope for a still higher destiny in the distant future.” 

Organically, man is an animal. To try to separate physically or to distinguish the organic functions of man from other animals is an absurdity. The cells of the human have the same basic function, such as irritability, metabolism, reproduction, and excretion, as living cells in other forms of lower life. It is the physical vehicle of man which the evolutionary theory states is a product of evolution and continues to be. 

What reflection does this have upon the religious, the mystical, and philosophical conception that man is “a living soul”? Theology contends from its hagiography, its collection of sacred writings, that man alone has soul. From one point of view only can this postulation be supported. Man, at least, as the most intelligent being on Earth, has the most highly developed self-consciousness. 

It is this consciousness of his emotional and psychic nature that causes him to conceive that entity of his personality which he calls soul. He terms it divine, and it is divine if we designate all cosmic forces as being of a divine nature. It is erroneous to say that man alone has a soul. If, as previously stated, beings having a self-consciousness equivalent to man are found in the future to exist in the greater universe; then, certainly, they would have the equal right to claim such an entity as soul. 

Until man became Homo sapiens, a rational highly developed self-conscious being, he had only the essence of soul but no conception of it. In the lower animals, there is that same vital force and consciousness, which gradually evolved in man to its own awareness and designates itself soul. Those who fear that the theory of evolution demands the status of man will perhaps learn before another century has passed that there are many other factors that strike at mans egotistic conception of being “the central object of all creation.” 

- Ralph M Lewis 

The Origin of the World

The Beginning of All Things

Modern man is often reluctant to accept that his remote ancestors were endowed with keen intelligence and acute powers of observation. As a consequence, we tend to dismiss as mere nonsense accounts that have come down to us regarding the beginning of all things. Therefore, like wayward children who refuse to acknowledge the legacy of wisdom accumulated by our parents we often find ourselves adrift upon a sea of uncertainty. But the laws which operate within the human psyche continue to function, undisturbed by our periodic ignorance of their existence. 

The axiom of modern science which states that ‘matter can neither be created nor destroyed’ - matter is immortal. And since immortality is an attribute of God and the Cosmic, then matter is ‘the oldest of all things.’ Further, modern theories accounting for the origin and evolution of our solar system, and presumably the entire physical universe as well, are based on the existence of a sort of cosmic ‘plasma.’ Plasma is a state of matter that is neither gas, liquid, nor solid, but a sort of fourth, ‘fluid,’ state in which there are only free electrons and free atomic nuclei. From this ‘plasma’ the ions, atoms, and molecules that compose our physical universe are born. 

The Big Bang 

The most widely accepted theory accounting for the origin or creation of our physical universe is that referred to as the Big Bang Theory. According to this theory, the universe began in a giant explosion. Current estimates suggest that 20,000 million light years have elapsed since the Big Bang occurred. Because of the original explosion, our universe continues to expand and, according to some scientist, will continue to do so until it ‘runs down’ much as does a wound spring in a clock. However, this theory does not attempt to account for how our universe ‘wound up’ in the first place. 

A second theory holds that ‘there has never been a beginning.’ Instead of a single instance of creation, the proponents of this theory envision a universe in which new matter continually comes into being to fill the space created by the observed expansion of the universe. According to this theory, the appearance of the universe remains reasonably constant from age to age. However, most scientific observations indicate that the appearance of the universe constantly changes. 

An intriguing variant of the Big Bang is the theory of the Oscillating Universe. According to this theory, the universe is continually blowing up and contracting in cycles. An oscillating universe would have neither beginning nor end, but would go through cycles of expansion and contraction. Presumably it would ‘come into’ and ‘go out of’ existence in a rhythmic manner. 

In the face of the rejection of ancient knowledge by many people today, we need to account for the unmistakable correspondence, existing between ancient and modern view. Many people today also dismiss the idea of psyche or soul. Could the correspondence between ancient myths and modern science be in some way relate to the nature of psyche or soul? 

Our present level of understanding owes much to the knowledge gleaned by those brave men and women of past ages who dared to harness the creative power that ensouls our universe and characterizes the human psyche. As we stand in awe of this creative force, we may seek comfort in the wisdom of the ancients who assure us that true knowledge is always rediscovered. Our spiritual ancestors discovered that the laws and principles which operate in our world and within the psyche are eternal and ageless. They also sensed that the secret to experiencing creation involves a turning within. Ancient myths and legends down through the ages point to the maxim: “know thyself.” Through meditation we can each discover whether creation is a chance occurrence of the past, or whether creation is eternally present. Through meditation each of us can come to witness creation. 

- Source and Author Unknown