Buddhist and Non-Religious Views of the Universe

A universe without a creator God

Buddhism has no creation story explaining how a creator God made the universe. This does not mean that Buddhists have no ideas about the universe. Instead, Buddhist teachings describe a changing world that depends on causes and conditions, rather than a single divine act of creation.

Dependent arising, also called pratitya samutpada, means that things arise because the conditions for them exist. They do not exist independently. Applied to the universe, this encourages an understanding of change through connected causes rather than the actions of a creator God.

Worlds change, decay and arise again

Buddhist teaching describes worlds as coming into existence, expanding and developing, then decaying and dying. New worlds arise, so this is a repeating cycle rather than one creation followed by a permanent universe. Buddhism does not identify a single first creation of everything.

This cosmic cycle should be distinguished from samsara, the cycle of birth, life, death and rebirth experienced by living beings. Both express the idea that existence involves continuing change, but the rebirth of a person and the renewal of a world are different processes.

Brian Cox’s explanation of the developing universe

The Big Bang theory is a scientific explanation of the universe’s development from an early hot, dense state through expansion. It describes a natural process, rather than an act performed by a creator God.

In Wonders of the Universe, physicist Brian Cox explains how tiny differences in density helped produce the structures we see today. Density means how much matter is packed into a particular space. As the universe expanded, slightly denser regions became increasingly dense, and atoms clumped together.

These growing structures eventually collapsed under their own gravity. Hydrogen 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. Planets later formed and orbited stars, with solar systems forming parts of galaxies.

The important connection in Cox’s account is that very small early differences had enormous consequences. Without those density differences, matter would not have gathered into the structures needed for stars and planets to form. His explanation uses physical causes, not divine intention.

Where Buddhist and non-religious views agree

Buddhist teachings neither explicitly support nor deny the Big Bang theory. Nevertheless, there are reasons why a Buddhist could accept it. Buddhism does not require a creator God, so a natural explanation of the universe need not challenge its beliefs. Cox’s account of structures developing when physical conditions allow also has a broad similarity to dependent arising: events depend on conditions.

Atheists do not believe in God or gods. Humanists generally seek explanations through reason and evidence rather than supernatural claims. They may therefore accept scientific accounts of the universe without adding a divine creator. This overlaps with Buddhism’s absence of a creator God, although Buddhism remains a religion with teachings such as rebirth.

Agreement does not mean complete identity

The Big Bang theory explains the development of the universe we observe. It does not, by itself, establish that worlds repeatedly decay, die and arise again. A Buddhist cycle of worlds therefore goes beyond what this scientific account demonstrates.

Similarly, dependent arising is a Buddhist teaching, not a scientific proof of the Big Bang. A non-religious person may accept Cox’s physical explanation while withholding belief in repeated cosmic cycles or rebirth because they do not consider those beliefs established by scientific evidence.

A justified conclusion is that the views can be compatible without being identical. Their strongest agreement is that explaining the universe does not require a creator God. Their important difference concerns the additional Buddhist teaching of repeating cycles: accepting the Big Bang does not automatically mean accepting that teaching.