This post is the prepared text given as the Alf Keeling Memorial Lecture for the Altrincham Interfaith Group on 12th November 2024

“In the beginning…” is how Creation starts in Genesis, but it’s not really so. In most accounts of creation there is not a beginning, rather a continuation. Terry Pratchett in his Discworld novel, Lords and Ladies suggests just this: 

Now read on … 

When does it start? 

There are very few starts. Oh, some things seem to be beginnings. 

The curtain goes up, the first pawn moves, the first shot is fired’ – but that’s not the start. The play, the game, the war is just a little window on a ribbon of events that may extend back thousands of years. The point is, there’s always something before. It’s always a case of Now Read On. 

Much human ingenuity has gone into finding the ultimate Before (1993, 7). 

As we explore the beginning of the universe in different religions we note that in all of them there is something before. As we read the Mool Mantar within Sikhi we note ‘Ik’ the numeral 1, teaching of the 1 who is the source of everything, that when there was nothing there was 1. Further it teaches ‘Akaal Moorat’ Ik Onkaar the 1 Creator, Waheguru is beyond time, and that ‘Saibhang’, Waheguru is self-existing is not caused. In Hindu dharma, there are many stories and understandings of creation, but whether it is Brahman, Vishnu, Shiva or Shakti or are the ultimate reality existing outside of time; the universe is in a constant cycle of creation, destruction and recreation. Indeed, across the cosmos, there are many universes, perhaps best described as Hindus recognizing a multiverse. It is subject to the concept of rta, which is often seen to represent cosmic order. Rta is the regulating force of the universe It is seen to have three aspects: 

gati (continuous movement or change), samghatna (a system based on interdependence of parts) and niyati (inherent order of interdependence and movement). (Sharma, 1990, 16). 

Within Judaism, Christianity and Islam the belief that the Almighty/God/Allah is outside of time and thus in terms of philosophy is the first cause or the unmoved mover. Each of these religions outlines that the universe is not all that there is, it is dependent on the Creator.  

Of the bigger six religions, the only one that I haven’t mentioned so far is Buddhism. For many Buddhists there is no personal, creator deity and so the discussion of the origins of the universe seems irrelevant. One of the stories told of the Buddha relates to the futility of beliefs by themselves, which also illustrates why some ‘big questions’ that many want answering by religion remain unanswered in Buddhism. In this parable a man is wounded by a poisoned arrow. His family wish to take him to a doctor, but he refuses treatment until he knows who shot the arrow, the background of the archer, the kind of bow used and so on. Only with these answers would he accept the treatment offered. But the man might well die before receiving these answers. Just so, with many answers about the machinations of the universe and many of the more metaphysical issues that occupy the minds of many. People are living in the universe, and as such need to deal with what is in front of them. This approach is not dissimilar to that taught by Guru Nanak in the Japji: 

What was that time, and what was that moment? What was that day, and what was that date? What was that season, and what was that month, when the Universe was created? The Pandits, the religious scholars, cannot find that time, even if it is written in the Puraanas. That time is not known to the Qazis, who study the Koran. The day and the date are not known to the Yogis, nor is the month or the season. The Creator who created this creation-only He Himself knows. How can we speak of Him? How can we praise Him? How can we describe Him? How can we know Him?… 

The scriptures say that there are 18,000 worlds, but in reality, there is only One Universe. If you try to write an account of this, you will surely finish yourself before you finish writing it… The streams and rivers flowing into the ocean do not know its vastness (Guru Granth Sahib Angs 4-5). 

Essentially because Waheguru is unfathomable, it is enough to know that he is the source of creation, everything else is superfluous. So, I guess the question is, why are there so many creation stories that try to explain the origins and creation of the universe and of humanity? 

Leeming and Leeming suggest that there are both contextual and archetypal reasons: 

While it is true that each creation myth reveals the priorities and concerns of a given culture, it is also true that when creation myths are compared, certain universal or archetypal patterns are discovered in them. Behind the many individual creation myths is a shadow myth that is the world culture’s collective dream of differentiation (cosmos) in the face of the original and continually threatening disorder (chaos). 

They continue, explaining what it is that the creation narratives seek to do: 

The basic creation story, then, is that of the process by which chaos becomes cosmos, no‐thing becomes some‐thing. In a real sense this is the only story we have to tell. Story‐telling, like painting, singing, dancing, lovemaking, and eating, is a form of recreation, and it is well to remember that recreation has as its goal renewal or recreation. The longing for this re‐creation lies behind the painter’s attempt to wrest significance from the resisting chaos of the blank canvas, behind the poet’s struggle to convey meaning in overused words that long to become trite. It lies behind our attempts to “make something” of our lives, that is, to make a difference in spite of the seemingly universal drive toward meaning‐lessness or mere routine. In short, the archetype of the creation myth speaks to the equally universal drive for differentiation from nothingness that is expressed by everything that exists in the universe (Leeming, D., & Leeming, M. (1994). A Dictionary of Creation Myths. Oxford: Oxford University Press). 

The human mind, it could be suggested, is incapable of dealing with chaos, and so in seeing the messiness of our lives and of the universe. Immanuel Kant argues something similar, he suggests that the juxtaposition of our intuition and experience places order on the world. We are unable to determine between reality and the processes of our mind- some things could be the objects of sensible intuition: 

In experience, …perceptions come together only contingently, so that no necessity of their connection is or can become evident in the perceptions themselves, since apprehension is only a juxtaposition of the manifold of empirical intuition, but no representation of the necessity of the combined existence of the appearances that it juxtaposes in space and time is to be encountered in it (Critique of Pure Reason: A176/B219) 

Does this mean that creation narratives are not true? They are solely creations of the human mind. This is too simplistic a question. The use of stories are central to understanding who we are and where we came from. Storytelling lies at the heart of human existence, and at the heart of religion. The stories that are accepted by religions often are used to frame morality, teachings and also the boundaries of religion. While some stories are shared by different religions, there may be nuanced differences, but also the whole library of stories establishes the framework within which the stories lie. Trevor Cooling suggests that stories are ‘big ideas sometimes referred to as a metanarrative, which express our whole understanding of the whole world and help people to make sense of their lives’ (2002, p. 45); here he could be seen to suggest their use for personal development, and they also form the metanarrative of the religions.  

Robin Mello (2001) highlights the deepening of learning that can take place through the use of story. She supports her research by suggesting that stories provide ‘the link that connect[s] the learner with both interpersonal and intrapersonal realms. Therefore, narratives are found to be seminally important to the learning and development of children.’ Stories also have many levels and depths that need to be analysed and studied for academic understanding in addition to exposing the audience to the culture of the story, its language and heritage. Miller Mair echoes this in suggesting that ‘All our stories are expressions of ourselves even when they purport to be accounts of aspects of the world. We are deeply implicated in the very grounds of our story telling’ (1989, p. 257). Religions can therefore be experienced through their stories. 

Through stories and storytelling, children were exposed to long-standing archetypal models that engaged their imaginations. Storytelling stimulated sympathetic responses as well and caused students to think more deeply about their social world (Mello, 2001). 

I think these are the reasons that such narratives exist. They help us understand who we are, our place in the world, and also enable us to explain our most deeply held beliefs. This is evident throughout different religions, but may be most obvious within the Epics and Puranas of Hinduism. The Epics and Puranas contain similar topics which are known as the panchalakshana, and as such are a ‘loose guide’ to their contents: 

• sarga: cosmogony 

• pratisarga: cosmogony and cosmology 

• vamsa: genealogy of the deities, the sages and kings 

• manvantara: the cycles of the universe 

• vamsanucaritam: narratives of various dynasties (Bailey, 2001, 438). 

Though it is important to recognize that while attempts have been made to establish a  general approach or content, the focus is on the individual text. There is a multiplicity of approaches but all of them, while they may be 

bulky, unwieldy, and sometimes stylistically inelegant . . . contain picaresque myths and legends replete with sex, humour, colour, and drama; they include extensive details of rituals, customs, and lifestyle information and multitudes of case studies that revealnhow the formative teachings of the culture that the Puranas reflect should be applied in practice. (Bailey, 2001, 139) 

In essence, they become a manual of how to implement aspects of the philosophical 

systems taught in the Vedas. The way that they are described by Hindus today indicates this: 

• Puranas are texts of history, sociology, our culture and our faith-based practices. 

• Puranas and other texts help us to think and find essence of life. 

• I believe Puranas written several thousands of years back give a lot of solutions and give direction on we should lead our life and give the same to our next generations. 

In selecting Mahagatha: 100 Tales from the Puranas, Stayarth Nayak (2022) asks the question: 

Do you know the story where Brahma and Vishnu race against each other or where Shiva battles Krishna? Where Indra attempts foeticide or where Rama punishes a Shudra? Do you know about Maya Sita or Narada’s monkey face? Or why Surya falls from the sky or why Chandra commits adultery? The Puranas of Hinduism are a universe of wisdom, embodying a fundamental quest for answers that makes them forever relevant (Author’s Note). 

This is reiterated by the modern author Philip Pullman: 

Stories are vital… There is more wisdom in a story than in volumes of philosophy, and there is a hunger for stories in all of us. Children know they need them, and go for them with a passion, but all of us adults need them too. All of us, that is, except those limp and jaded people who think they are too grown up to need them” (Philip Pullman) 

If I think about my own faith I am always moved by the parable of the Prodigal Son, which while not a factual story, contains the meta-narrative of Christianity and the story of every person as sin removes them from the presence of God, only to be welcomed back into his embrace. Story then becomes much more than a historical record.  

This is just so with the stories of creation found throughout the world. They should not be studied as historical fact, though I recognise that for some they will be, rather they should be studied as repositories of truth, expressing deeply held beliefs that forever help us understand the nature of the world and our place in it. 

There are commonalities between the different creation narratives, but we need to be careful in drawing to close a parallel when words are used in a similar way, but may mean something very different. For example in the Genesis account of creation we read: 

When God began to create heaven and earth—  the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water— (JPS Genesis 1:1-2) 

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters (NIV Genesis 1:1-2). 

The word translated as wind or Spirit is the Hebrew ‘ruach’ which can mean breath, wind, or spirit. It supports a somewhat Trinitarian worldview to translate it as ‘spirit’. This highlights an interesting phenomenon when we use stories to try and explain truth. The storyteller Orson Scott Card has highlighted the beauty of story is that: 

…audience members filter and edit the stories they receive. Things that to the author or other readers might be unnoticed will make a much deeper impression on a particular reader, because of his own concerns or experiences. Readers bring their own attitudes to the stories they are given; what seems obvious and important to one might seem trivial or non-existent to another. 

We bring our own spectacles, or cultural assumptions and backgrounds to the stories that we read and experience. This was brought home to me when I read The Political Samaritan by Nick Spencer. He outlines the different ways the Good Samaritan has been used throughout the years. The one that particularly stood out to me was Margaret Thatcher’s interpretation. The message she took was that the Samaritan needed to have the means to help: 

The point is that even the Good Samaritan had to have the money to help, otherwise he too would have had to pass on the other side. 

And, on another occasion: 

No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he’d only had good intentions; he had money as well. 

This helps us step back and consider the interpretations we are bringing to our understanding of the stories we read and hold sacred. 

Another example of something similar but different can be found in exploring the accounts of creation in Christianity and Sikhi. Within John’s Gospel of Christianity we read: 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it (John 1:1-5). 

Using the Greek understanding of the Word, as Logos, we read later in the chapter that the Word is Jesus Christ: 

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth (John 1:14). 

This is sometimes related to the story of creation narrated in Genesis where God created by his words “Let there be light”, this became latterly associated with the role of the Son within Christian theology, as we read in Hebrews: 

In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe (Hebrews 1:1-2). 

Within Sikhi, central to all creation is the Naam. Naam literally means ‘name’ and appears over 2,500 times in Guru Granth Sahib. One such example is: 

The One God is my Intimate, Best Friend and Companion. The Naam, the Name of my Lord and Master, is Nanak’s only Support. (Guru Granth Sahib 197) 

This passage suggests the ‘naam’ as underpinning all of Guru Nanak’s teachings and philosophy. Within Sikhi naam can refer to Waheguru – the all-pervading spirit/power that is throughout the universe. It lies latent in every person and is actualized or realized by engagement with the Guru.  

The One Lord is permeating and pervading amongst all; without the Guru, this understanding is not obtained (Guru Granth Sahib 1132). 

Naam, within everything, is representative of the Divine spark. The aspect of the Divine that is within all living things. Once a person becomes aware of the naam, they have the responsibility to bring their mind and actions into union with Waheguru. For this reason, naam simran, or remembrance of the name of God, is key to the life of a Sikh. This naam is central to understanding the nature of creation. In Sikhi, sabd (literally ‘word’), reflects the belief that the universe was created by a single word spoken by Waheguru. The sound created when the universe was formed is represented by Ik Onkaar. Pashaura Singh (2014a, 227) suggests ‘The Divine is One’ as the translation of Ikonkaar; in so doing he links this first phrase with the first sound that is the force within creation. Onkaar, in this understanding, is described in Guru Granth Sahib: 

From Ongkaar, the One Universal Creator God, Brahma was created. He kept Ongkaar in his consciousness. From Ongkaar, the mountains and the ages were created. Ongkaar created the Vedas. Ongkaar saves the world through the Shabad. Ongkaar saves the Gurmukhs. Listen to the Message of the Universal, Imperishable Creator Lord. (Guru Granth Sahib 929–30) 

In Pashaura Singh’s translation of this passage he replaces ‘One Universal Creator God’ with ‘Primal Sound’ conjuring up images of the word/syllable AUM/OM within Hinduism. This similarity is explored by Wazir Singh (1969, 20): 

The ‘a’, ‘u’, and ‘m’ of aum have also been explained as signifying the three principles of creation, sustenance and annihilation … aumka ̄r in relation to existence implies plurality … but its substitute Ekonkar definitely implies singularity in spite of the seeming multiplicity of existence. 

As a teaching of Guru Nanak, this articulation of Onkaar as a creative power is challenging in that it suggests the reality of Brahma. To understand this we have to return to the way that Guru Nanak taught; he taught the people that were in front of him, and in so doing he would use aspects of their understanding to develop the teaching that he was imparting. This does not suggest that Brahma is real, though Guru Nanak recognized that the Divine was known by many names. It highlights further that all are subject to Ikonkaar. 

In a similar way to Christianity the ‘Word’ is the source of creation. The resultant implications and understandings are, however, very different.  

Though they are not completely unrelated.  Within Christianity there is the concept of general revelation that builds on biblical passages such as: 

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork (Psalm 19:1). 

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse (Romans 1:19-20). 

Daniel Strange notes that in Evangelical orthodoxy it is “the witness of God in creation, providence and the imago Dei” (Strange, 2002: 111). Netland argues that general revelation gives humankind the ability to “understand that God exists, that he is the eternal Creator” and that we can know ethical standards (Netland, 2001: 317). This suggests that God can be known throughout the world and that the offer of Christ’s grace is available to all people. Ruokanen comments on the nature of the supernatural existential: 

From the ontological point of view, God is the “innermost substance” (entelekheia) of the world. Because of the essential presence of God in being, the human world has become habitually saturated with the grace of God. Consequently, ontologically every man exists under the influence of supernatural grace (Ruokanen, 1992: 32). 

The presence of the Divine within creation is slightly different within Judaism. Jews encounter the Almighty in relation to his creation. Sacks suggests that his search for God has been “in people- people who in themselves seemed to point to something or someone beyond themselves” (89).  With the Almighty being unique, eternal and one, Jews are able to find him in relationship with others, “the belief in monotheism establishes not only that there is one God but also that mankind (sic) is a unity in a unified world” (Wigoder, 2002, 547): 

People within the Abrahamic monotheisms have always known that for most of us, most of the time, God, more infinite than the universe, older and younger than time, cannot be known directly. He is known mainly through his effects, and of these the most important is his effect on human lives… Over the years I have learned to find it so much more widely, in communities that care, in the kindness of strangers, in people who touch our lives, perhaps only momentarily, doing the deed or saying the word that carries us to safety across the abyss of loneliness or self-doubt (Sacks, 2011, 92). 

It could also be suggested that the Almighty as well as being experienced in relationship with others, is also found in relationship with creation and with history. As such an exploration of the Almighty in relation to all aspects of his creation enables Jews to experience who the Almighty is, for as Clive Lawton has suggested, “The Jewish God has a personality and will, and is never just a ‘life force’ or inexorable power” (2016, 12). (Lawton, 2012) . 

Throughout Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles the Almighty is always referred to as Creator, perhaps highlighting its centrality within Judaism. Aspects of the Almighty as Creator have been explored in the above discussion of monotheism. The prayer Adon Olam highlights the Almighty as Creator: 

Master of the Universe Who reigned  

before any creature was created.  

At the time when all was made by His will,  

then was His Name proclaimed King.  

And after all things shall cease to be  

the Awesome One will reign alone.  

He was, He is,  

and He shall be in glory (Davis, 1981). 

Entwined with the Almighty as Creator, is his nature as Eternal. The Almighty is the only being who is eternal, his characteristics are eternal and he is the first and the last, without beginning or end.  

This ability to encounter the Divine within creation appears to be much more central within Sikhi, and also within Hinduism. One Sikh has suggested: 

WaheGuru is the indescribable and incomprehensible. However, to try… WaheGuru is the connection between all things in creation, destruction and sustenance. 

The imbuing of creation with the Divine is understood through Karta Purakh. Karta means ‘Doer’ or ‘Creator’, and Purakh refers to an individual being. Therefore, Waheguru is the being who is the creator. As the Eternal One Ang 1035 of Guru Granth Sahib outlines that for aeons before creation there was only Waheguru. The role of Waheguru as Creator refers to the initial creation, but Waheguru continues to be the ontological cause, creator or sustainer of the world and of the many universes. 

Having created the creation, He watches over it. By His Glance of Grace, He bestows happiness. There are planets, solar systems and galaxies. If one speaks of them, there is no limit, no end. There are worlds upon worlds of His Creation. As He commands, so they exist. He watches over all, and contemplating the creation, He rejoices. (Guru Granth Sahib 8) 

For a Sikh, as important as the initial creation is, the ongoing role of Karta Purakh today is equally important. The Creator is not separate from creation. The example is often used that if a human, as a carpenter, creates a statue, the two are separate, whereas -1 Waheguru is indivisible from creation. This, again, returns to the teaching that Waheguru  is both nirguna and sagun; immanent and transcendent; beyond and within creation.  Guru Granth Sahib teaches that from a primal void, 

By His Command, the world was formed. By His Command, the heavens, this world and the nether regions were created; by His Command, His Power supports them. The Hukam of His Command is the mythical bull which supports the burden of the earth on its head. By His Hukam, air, water and fire came into being. (Guru Granth Sahib 1035) 

The word ‘Command’ is often translated as ‘Word’. Essentially Waheguru commanded it, and the universes and the elements were created. While the ‘story’ may not have established phases or the narrative structure of other creation stories, when exploring creation within Sikhism it is important to study the relationship of Waheguru with creation. It is this that is most important rather than the intricacies of order. 

This imbuing of all of creation with the Divine is central to understanding the universe from a Hindu perspective. Brahman is to be found within all living beings and throughout the universe. The Mundaka Upanishad outlines: 

That Brahman is in front and in back, in the north, south, east, and west, and also overhead and below. In other words, that supreme Brahman effulgence spreads throughout both the material and spiritual skies. (2.1.1) 

When speaking of the Divine, it is usually Brahman that Hindus refer to, and that the manifestations of the Divine are different aspects to help understand that which is ineffable. In many traditions of Hinduism, Brahman is nirguna, meaning that without form and without characteristics, Brahman just is. The Chandogya Upanishad outlines this belief: 

All this is Brahman. (1.1.1) 

It then goes further in making Om/Aum synonymous with Brahman: 

The full account, however, of Om is this: – The essence of all beings is the earth, the essence of the earth is water, the essence of water, the plants, the essence of plants man, the essence of man speech, the essence of speech the Rig-veda, the essence of the Rig-veda the Sama-veda, the essence of the Sama-veda the udgitha (which is Om). (1.1.1–2) 

Aum is the sacred syllable, the symbol of Brahman, the source of all existence. In this form, it has become the recognizable symbol of Hinduism. For some Hindus, it is the sacred syllable/sound, the sound that something makes when it is making no noise, whether it is a person, an animal, a tree and so on. As such, it is an apt symbol of Brahman, as the Absolute that is within everything, and gives life to the universe. Kim Knott (2016) outlines this view of Brahman: 

This [Brahman] originally referred to creative power or truth. . . . By the time of the early Upanishads, it had come to refer to the impersonal cosmic principle or absolute reality. (16) 

Within dualistic and monistic approaches within Hinduism, the relationship between 

Brahman and the atman (soul) is most different. In monistic views, everything is Brahman, and the atman is naturally included in this. The Chandogya Upanishad outlines this: 

All this is Brahman. Let a man meditate on that (visible world) as beginning, ending, and breathing in it (the Brahman). Now man is a creature of will. According to what his will is in this world, so will he be when he has departed this life. Let him therefore have this will and belief . . . He is my self within the heart, smaller than a corn of rice, smaller than a corn of barley, smaller than a mustard seed, smaller than a canary seed or the kernel of a canary seed. He also is my self within the heart, greater than the earth, greater than the sky, greater than heaven, greater than all these worlds. (13.14.1,3) 

In some ways this is pre-empting the discussion of antaryami below, but the monism is the idea that Brahman is everything and everything is Brahman. Whereas within a dualistic approach, while linked, and there is a desire to be united with Brahman, Brahman and the atman are distinct. 

The interrelatedness of all of creation, while perhaps forgotten by some, is evident throughout all religions. Within Buddhism it is expressed in the belief of Dependent origination. This belief highlights the belief that everything is interconnected, and dependent (i.e. not independent), on other aspects and events in the universe. Everything that occurs does so dependent on causes and conditions that pre-exist. The Dalai Lama and Thubten Chodron (2014) suggest: 

Contemplating causal dependence leads us to understand that all functioning things do not exist by their own power. That they arise dependent on causes and conditions indicate that they exist. Thus they are both empty and existent. (177) 

The belief in dependent origination is inherently linked with the belief of emptiness or sunyata. All things are both empty and yet existent. The Heart Sutra indicates that everything is empty: 

The Bodhisattva Avalokita, 

while moving in the deep course 

of Perfect Understanding, 

shed light on the five skandhas and 

found them equally empty. (Thich Nhat Hanh, 2017b, 128) 

It is important to note that, in discussing, sunyata emptiness does not mean nothingness. For something to be empty there needs to be something that it is empty of. Thich Nhat Hanh (2012a) suggests an answer to what existence is empty of: 

When Avalokita says that our sheet of paper is empty, he means it is empty of a separate, independent existence. It cannot just be by itself. It has to inter-be with the sunshine, the cloud, the forest, the logger, the mind, and everything else. It is empty of a separate self. But, empty of a separate self means full of everything … ‘Emptiness’ means empty of a separate self. It is full of everything, full of life. The word ‘emptiness’ should not scare us. It is a wonderful word. To be empty does not mean to be non-existent. (416–17). 

In this understanding, while the form may be ‘empty’ it is actually full of everything. Sunyata thus becomes an important aspect of existence and the nature of dependent origination. This aspect of sunyata is exemplified in the Six Elements Practice of meditation, taught by the Buddha in the Dhatu-Vibhanga Sutta (see Chapters 7 and 9). Bodhipaksa (2007) highlights that as each element is reflected upon, it is given back to whence it came: earth to earth, water to water and so on. The resultant emptiness is a realization of everything being interconnected and that emptiness is full of everything: ‘I’m no longer separate and small, but an intimate part of the vast cycle of the elements.’ 

I have spent an awfully long time saying not a lot- I have outlined the importance of creation narratives in helping religious people make sense of the world and their place in it. I think this is the most important part of any attempt to understand creation, whether we see it as Divinely created or as a brute fact, in the words of Bertrand Russell who suggested, “I should say that the universe is just there, and that’s all”. What is our relationship with creation. As I define spirituality, I like to draw on the work of David Hay and Rebecca Nye who see it as relational: 

• I-self 

• I-God 

• I-others 

• I-world 

As I understand creation how are my relationships with each of these developed? The educationalist James Comer suggested that “no significant learning can take place without a relationship”. If we wish to learn from creation, we must develop our relationships with everything around us.  

In understanding who we are and our purpose in life, explanations of creation can help us with the answers. Within Hinduism and Sikhi we can seek union with the Divine as there is a spark within each of us. Within Judaism, Islam and Christianity we can recognise that we are created in the image of God. Further developed within Islam by the teaching that we are all born in submission to Allah, with the purpose of worshipping him in every aspect of our lives: 

And (tell them that) I have not created the invisible beings and men to any end other than that they may (know and) worship Me. 

And also, the narratives give us understanding of our responsibilities. With the interrelatedness of all of creation we begin to understand our relationships and responsibilities to every element in the natural world. Within the Abrahamic faiths this is formalised in humanity’s role as khalifah, vice regents or stewards. Whichever relationship we accept, there cannot be any excuse for treating the earth and its resources carelessly. In the Genesis account, the importance of a close reading becomes evident. The suggestion is that the approaches that Christians can take are Stewardship or Dominion. The way that this is often presented surrounds stewardship being about caring for, and looking after the world; while dominion leads inevitably to the subjugation of Creation and that it can be used how Christians want. Recently a research project that I have been involved with has highlighted how simplistic that approach is. The Christian Ethics of Farmed Animal Welfare (CEFAW) report highlights a Godly dominion which is a more accurate reading of the Bible: 

Dominion responsibility can be described as stewardship, guardianship, vocation of care, or management. In certain periods, dominion has been understood as domination or mastery, but this policy framework agrees with most biblical interpreters in finding that domination does not accord with other biblical and theological accounts of godly relationships. Instead, our emphasis is on dominion in the image of God as a responsibility for animals that reflects God’s sustaining care for all creatures (p. 8). 

Well, in closing let me use the words of Richard Dawkins, who outlines a non-religious view: 

We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Sahara. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively outnumbers the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here… Admittedly we didn’t arrive by spaceship, we arrived by being born, and we didn’t burst conscious into the world but accumulated awareness gradually through babyhood. The fact that we gradually apprehend our world, rather than suddenly discovering it, should not subtract from its wonder. 

Every understanding of creation, religious or non-religious highlights our uniqueness, and interrelatedness, and perhaps most importantly the responsibility that we have in being born into this world. Creation is amazing, the various accounts show us this, but sometimes that message can be lost in trying to find the factual accuracy.