Buddhist Cosmology and Scientific Views of Origins

Buddhist cosmology describes a cycle of decay, death and rebirth of worlds. A world develops, changes and eventually breaks down; new worlds arise, and the cycle continues. ‘Death’ here means the ending of a world system, not that a planet is a living person.

This connects with anicca, or impermanence. Conditioned things depend on causes and conditions, so they do not remain unchanged forever. The universe and its components are subject to change just as individual things within it are. Even something as enormous and apparently lasting as a world is not permanent.

The rebirth of worlds should be distinguished from the rebirth of individual beings. Both involve cycles, but one describes cosmic change and the other describes beings continuing through different lives. Neither requires a creator God to begin or direct the process.

Brian Cox’s explanation of cosmic development

The Big Bang theory offers a scientific explanation of the universe’s early expansion and subsequent development. It explains physical processes rather than describing a divine act of creation.

In Wonders of the Universe, Brian Cox explains that, as the universe expanded, slightly denser regions became increasingly dense. Atoms clumped together, forming the first structures. These structures became so massive that they collapsed under their own gravity. Hydrogen then fused, releasing enormous amounts of energy: stars began to shine.

Cox places the appearance of the first stars at about 200 million years after the Big Bang. He then describes planets forming and orbiting stars, with solar systems within galaxies. His central point is that the later universe depended on tiny early density fluctuations—small differences in how densely matter was distributed—when the observable universe was smaller than a grain of sand.

This is a chain of physical causes: small density differences allowed matter to gather, gravity concentrated it, and fusion produced starlight. The explanation does not require a creator God.

How far do Buddhist and non-religious views agree?

There are important points of agreement. Buddhism does not require a creator God, so a natural explanation of cosmic development need not contradict its beliefs. Cox’s account also describes a changing universe, which is compatible with Buddhist impermanence. A Buddhist could therefore accept scientific explanations of how stars and planets developed.

Humanists and atheists can also accept natural explanations without appealing to divine creation. However, atheism itself is simply the absence of belief in gods: it is not a particular scientific theory. Likewise, accepting the Big Bang does not by itself make someone a Humanist, atheist or Buddhist.

There are also limits to the agreement. Traditional Buddhist cosmology describes repeated cycles of worlds, whereas Cox’s explanation describes development following the Big Bang. His account does not establish that worlds repeatedly die and are reborn. Nor does explaining an early stage of our universe settle whether there was an absolute first beginning of everything.

A justified conclusion is therefore that Buddhist and scientific views can be compatible without being identical. They agree that cosmic development need not depend on a creator God and that the universe changes. But scientific explanations of physical development do not prove the whole Buddhist cosmological cycle, and a religious teaching about cycles is not a substitute for scientific evidence.

Cox describes the first stars appearing about 200 million years after the Big Bang. Tiny early density fluctuations made later structures possible.

Extent of agreement

Agreement: natural processes need no creator; a changing universe is compatible with impermanence. Humanists and atheists can accept this explanation.

Limit: the Big Bang does not prove repeated rebirth of worlds or settle an absolute first beginning.

Judgement: compatible in important respects, but not identical accounts.