The Creation of the World: Faith and Science – Some Observations

Dr. Lea Mazor, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Humanity has always sought to understand how and when the world came into being. Was it always here, or was it created at a certain point in time? If it had a beginning, what caused it, and can we know what came before it? Other questions that have preoccupied people are: Does the existence of the universe have meaning, and is it directed toward some purpose? The first set of questions is a matter for scientific inquiry, dealt with by a specific branch of astronomy. The second set of questions belongs to philosophy and religious faith. It seems that by nature, humans feel a spiritual need to understand not only the 'what' (the nature of the physical world) but also the 'why' (the meaning and purpose); not just to uncover the laws of nature but to understand why there are laws of nature; not just to describe objective reality but to form a value-based stance toward it. It's worth noting that the distinction between science on the one hand, and faith and philosophy on the other, is a characteristic of modern thought and didn't exist in ancient times. In the myths of ancient peoples, elements from both fields were intermingled.

The term 'world' in the phrase 'the creation of the world' refers to the entirety of natural reality, but its specific content in human consciousness changes from generation to generation according to the progress of human knowledge. The concept of 'world' for a priest in ancient Babylon, who observed the sky with the naked eye, is not the same as for the successors of Galileo, who use increasingly sophisticated telescopes. The specific content of the concept of 'world' in our consciousness is constantly expanding, and it is expressed in the picture obtained by combining all human knowledge accumulated across all sciences.

The question of the origin of life holds a special place in the discussion of the creation of the world. Why is this? It's not at all clear whether life exists outside of Earth. Some researchers believe that life should be a common phenomenon in the universe, appearing whenever the right conditions arise, while others think that life is the product of an extremely rare process, and we may even be alone in the universe's incomprehensible vastness. Either way, the only place currently known for certain to have life is our small planet. So, the question remains: what's the point of addressing the question of the origin of life in discussions about the creation of the world?

The answer lies in the fact that we, as human beings, are the ones asking the questions about 'the beginning' and from a subjective standpoint, we have a special sensitivity to the question of our own origin. It's not a logical or quantitative consideration that's at play here, but a psychological factor. Life holds a special status in our consciousness because psychologically, we identify ourselves first and foremost as living creatures. Life arouses our curiosity more than any other phenomenon, and in our observation of the world, we intuitively distinguish between living things and inanimate matter, even if we can't precisely define the difference between them. When we ask where 'everything' began, we are asking about the beginning of the existence of which we are a part. In other words, we are both the questioners and part of the object we are asking about. As a result, we intertwine the question of our origin with the question of the universe's origin. More precisely, we connect the question of our origin with the question of the origin of life, and the question of the origin of life with the question of the origin of the universe.

The connection between the origin of the universe, life, and humanity was clearly expressed in ancient times. In most cosmogonic myths of the world's peoples and in various descriptions of creation in the Bible, the appearance of life and humans is seen as part of the act of creation. According to the science of our time, however, life and humans appeared a very long time after the universe came into being. According to evolutionary theory, the universe is dynamic and in a state of continuous, gradual change. A long and continuous developmental process links its origin to the origin of life, and the origin of life to the origin of humanity and its culture. Life arose from inanimate matter after a long and complex chain of processes, and from it, humans developed and created a social and cultural organization for themselves. The overarching question of evolutionary theory is how it came to be that life and intelligence developed from an infinitely dense, hot substance (the Big Bang). In other words, how is it that from a world without consciousness and life, we were created—we who are asking, here and now, how the world was created.

Moving from contemporary natural sciences, let's turn to the myth's approach to the question of creation. Myth, like science, arose from the human need to understand reality and explain how it was created, but its path is fundamentally different from that of science. Science demands proof for every claim and a rigorous use of the rational method. Myth, on the other hand, gives free rein to imagination, emotions, and instincts and does not require evidence for its truths. In place of the strict scientist, the poet appears, weaving tales about gods and people. It's important to remember that mythical stories in ancient times were not just works of fiction but compositions with religious content and a message. Greek mythology was the religion of the Greeks, and it was accompanied by the belief that the events described in it actually happened in ancient epochs and have since influenced the destinies of human beings. A modern physicist who, based on his best scientific understanding, concludes that the universe began with the Big Bang will hold to his position without it having any influence on his personal behavior or way of life. The same is not true for someone who holds a myth about the world's formation. This myth is part of his whole belief system, which obligates him to a certain behavior (e.g., worship). Unlike science, which is neutral, myth seeks to influence the ways of life and customs of its believers, and like any religious faith, it seeks sociological expression.

In the biblical references to the creation of the world, echoes of the creation myths of the ancient Near East are heard here and there, but there is a deep and fundamental difference between the main message of the idea of creation in the Bible and the mythical conception. In myth, the forces of nature are deified. Natural phenomena such as the heavens, the earth, the sun, and the sea are perceived as carrying divine life. The human imagination shapes these hidden lives into personalities, who live according to the laws of nature. The gods and goddesses eat and drink, fight each other, have offspring, grow old, and die. The creation of the world in mythical thought involves divine actions within natural processes. Not so in the Bible. According to the Bible, the world was created by the free will of the one God, whose power is unlimited. God is not subject to any of the forces of nature, and no law of existence governs Him. There is an essential difference between God and nature. God has supreme freedom, and nature is fully and absolutely subordinate to Him. The world is no longer the result of wars between gods or a product of blind chance, but the result of God's sovereign will.

The biblical conception of creation differs from the approach of our contemporary natural sciences on the subject. Regarding the relationship between the idea of creation and the position of the natural sciences on the origin of the universe, the approach of Isaac Julius Guttmann in his book Religion and Science is worth remembering: The Torah's story of the creation of the world in six days is not intended to explain the origin of the world through rational inquiry, but is the form in which the religious consciousness of the relationship between God and the world is expressed.

The problems of the origin of the world and the origin of life may not be solvable by science, because science deals with what is, not with the source of what is, which is a philosophical matter.

Ecclesiastes believes that "man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun... even though a wise man says he will know, he cannot find it out" (8:17; see also 3:11). In God's answer to Job from the whirlwind, there is a wonderful poetic description of creation. The creation of the world is described as a cosmic event accompanied by the singing of the stars and the high-ranking angels: "when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy" (Job 38:7), but it is emphasized that man had no part in it and will never be able to understand its meaning. The complete understanding of nature and its origin was, and will remain, according to this view, the exclusive property of its Creator.