The Samkhya School of philosophy has what I believe to be an agnostic note on the nature of creation and on the existence of God, although not atheistic in the sense that there is still a cause for evolution. In this essay I will try to show how the Samkhya idea of creation is appealing but it does have some problems associated with it. In my opinion it does adequately show a way in which things could have been created without the need for a creationist God.
[...] It is also discussed why evolution is indeed caused by Nature, and not by some other force. Verse 56 says how the evolution cannot come about through the controlling of Nature by God, because God is not active within the world, and no inactive thing can do controlling. Furthermore, it cannot be caused by Brahman, because Brahman, as the Vedantans would see it, is like pure intelligence, and it does not seem that something made of pure intellect can be modified in the way nature seems to be. [...]
[...] It says it would be wrong to say that Nature's actions are controlled by a sentient being such as God, because it is clear that all the actions of a sentient being are done out of selfishness or benevolence, and it seems the creation of the Universe is done out of neither of these things. This means the creation of the Universe cannot be due to the actions of a sentient being. The reasons for this are supposedly clear. God has everything that he wants, and so has no selfish motive to create the world. [...]
[...] This means that Nature is urged to act for the emancipation of the spirit, but once this occurs, stops operating in regard to the individual spirit who has just been liberated, in the same way as cook having finished the cooking in which he was engaged retires from the work” (Sourcebook p442). In my opinion this seems like a good answer to the objection because it is just as plausible for Nature to cease after each soul is liberated than to continue, because an act done for another's sake is seen as just as the same as an act done for one's own sake. [...]
[...] You could say that the removal of pain after the creation of the world is God's desire, but if this is the case then there is an interdependence of creation due to pity and pity due to creation. And furthermore, if God were moved to create by pity, then he would have only created happy mortals, not the diversity that is actually within the world. However, the actions of insentient Nature are due neither to selfishness nor to pity and so none of these problems arise. [...]
APA Style referenceFor your bibliography
Online readingwith our online reader
Content validatedby our reading committee