Religions that don't believe in creationism?

[Theweirdtophat]

If I'm not mistaken Jainism doesn't believe in creationism and Buddhism doesn't either. And if you want to count them, Jediism doesn't either. I'm guessing non-theistic religions wouldn't believe in creationism. Although surprisingly I see a lot of pagans here that actually don't believe in a creator deity or that we were made by a certain deity, despite that their mythology mentions creator deities sometimes.

Some people think religious people must believe in creationism but there seems to still be a lot that don't. Can anyone think of other religions that don't believe in creationism? Or at least don't talk about it?

 

[Rival]

Mine doesn't, at least not the Reformed stripe.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

I do not believe I have heard of the Reformed version. If I am not mistaken, I thought Ahura Mazda created the universe or helped make it anyway.

 

[LuisDantas]

For clarity's sake, may you elaborate on what you are calling Creationism exactly?

There is belief in a creator God of some sort, and there is the effort to deny the reality of biological evolution.

The two are actually very different from each other.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

As in a creator deity or deities. Jains specifically say that the universe was never created and always existed. Whether some believe in evolution, I'm not sure.How can one believe in creationism if they believe the universe always existed?

 

[George-ananda]

It's hard to answer that question for Advaita philosophy, as the creator and creation are really One. The question assumes a dualism (God and creation are two).

 

[Chakra]

It's hard to answer that question for Advaita philosophy, as the creator and creation are really One. The question assumes a dualism (God and creation are two).

It's not really that hard...this falls under the scope of vyavaharika.

 

[Sees]

A big part of it is the misconception myths and legends are to be taken as literal, historical news grabs.

I think hard-line, fundies in certain traditions heavily prepped people into seeing it like this. Similar to beliefs being primary and the core importance/differentiator in religion as some universal standard. They see it through that lens and the perception hangs around.

The abundant symbolism and metaphors have to practically slap people in the face for them to wake up, if they ever do. Just as getting a point across I always say I take my tradition's mythology as about 1-2% literal/face-value. Of course I "believe in" them but it's not in the way most think of it.

I'm 100% sure we are involved in an on-going, evolutionary "creation" this very moment and only pieces of abstract ideas stand still.

 

[EtuMalku]

Luciferianism, Setianism and Satanism don't

 

[George-ananda]

It's not really that hard...this falls under the scope of vyavaharika.

Any subject like vyavaharika would not be my idea (or the OP questioners) idea of easy. But seriously I would be interested if you could explain that a little.

 

[jeager106]

I don't buy into any religious dogma promoting "special creation" by some
super natural intelligence in the classic sense of "poof! you are here now go
multiply and fill the earth".
How humans got to this state I cannot say except that gradual evolution
has a lot of science behind it and I tend to gravitate to a scientific view.
That said I DO believe in a diety(s) or a power(s) greater than mankind.
A spiritual power if you like. "God" is an easy catch all word and works for me.
In recovery from addiction we learn that it is necessary to have belief, thus faith,
in a power greater than man to relieve our addiction.
Most call that power "god" some just use H.P. (higher power) for that power.
Recovery without that belief is not likely.

 

[Chakra]

Any subject like vyavaharika would not be my idea (or the OP questioners) idea of easy. But seriously I would be interested if you could explain that a little.

Haha, definitely not easy.

My point was that you should have answered "Yes, Advaita does not reject evolution." instead of giving a very vague response. Although Advaita indeed states that in the absolute sense of perception, there really is no independent reality other than Brahman, it does accept the reality of the world in the vyavaharika level. So, Advaita would in essence accept that there is universal gravitation, biological evolution, and anything else that our senses and reasoning tell us to be true.

It is similar to how Advaita teachers advocate certain diets, practices, behavior etc even though these are ultimately all illusory. I hope you understood what I mean. It's not anything serious, but it could lead non-Hindus to believe that Advaita is very detached or even discourages scientific pursuits as it believes that the universe, its processes, and constituents are ultimately illusory and not fit for further study (as they are futile in the ultimate goal of liberation).

 

[jeager106]

The Biblical creation story is a beautiful work of prose.
We should always keep it for that value.

( Then there is Theistic Evolution)

 

[EtuMalku]

The Biblical creation story is a beautiful work of prose.
We should always keep it for that value.

Most creation myths are pretty cool actually . . .

 

[Theweirdtophat]

I actually never understood why it has to be one or the other. Creationism or Evolution? What if it's neither and that the universe has always existed. What if there was no "creator" deity so to speak or a big bang. What if it always was here and that all creatures change but change according to their species. Such as fish turning into different kinds of fish, or monkey's turning to different kinds of monkey's as opposed to reptiles turning into something completely different like mammals.What if the origin of the universe is vastly complicated that we can't process it through our human brains and that we will learn more of the answers when we're on the other side. And even then we may not get all the answers.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I actually never understood why it has to be one or the other. Creationism or Evolution? What if it's neither and that the universe has always existed. What if there was no "creator" deity so to speak or a big bang. What if it always was here and that all creatures change but change according to their species. Such as fish turning into different kinds of fish, or monkey's turning to different kinds of monkey's as opposed to reptiles turning into something completely different like mammals.What if the origin of the universe is vastly complicated that we can't process it through our human brains and that we will learn more of the answers when we're on the other side. And even then we may not get all the answers.

You can have an eternal universe and evolution. Evolution is just about the diversification of life, not how the universe came to be. In any case, evolution at a species level is still evolution. But there is no actual boundary between evolution at a species level and evolution at a genus level. And transitional forms between reptile and mammal is very well known. Similarly reptile to bird which is where my study focuses.

 

[Sees]

The Universe having always existed and Gods/forces of Nature shaping it - is pretty standard universally over the ex nihilo/Poof! stuff. I do think this in general is true, it's the play by play in folklore I don't take as literal happenings - especially again as the metaphors and such are holding a sign up saying that isn't the case. Problem many have is they take religious fundies as remnants of the past and assume ancestors were as _____ as them, if not more so.

 

[LuisDantas]

I actually never understood why it has to be one or the other. Creationism or Evolution?

Mostly because what is usually called "Creationism" is just denial of the Theory of Evolution.

It did not have to be that way and probably should not, but that is how things currently are.

What if it's neither and that the universe has always existed. What if there was no "creator" deity so to speak or a big bang. What if it always was here and that all creatures change but change according to their species.

I suppose a creator God does not necessarily mean a starting point in time for existence.

Such as fish turning into different kinds of fish, or monkey's turning to different kinds of monkey's as opposed to reptiles turning into something completely different like mammals.

Then we would have a considerably different world. For one, a lot of our biological knowledge and its practical and commercial applications would be gone.

What would you propose to exist in order to stop speciation in such a world?

What if the origin of the universe is vastly complicated that we can't process it through our human brains and that we will learn more of the answers when we're on the other side. And even then we may not get all the answers.

Is there such a thing as having all the answers? Answers usually present new questions.

 

[Jainarayan]

Heathenry has a creation myth with Óðinn and his brothers creating the world, but not the universe. From the Eddas it seems that the universe always existed in the form of Ginnungagap the primordial void. I don't know if the ancient Norse actually believed the stories, or what they believed, or if they gave it any thought, being too busy trying to survive. But I don't think there's many a Heathen today who believes the stories literally. Most probably go with today's science.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

Earth was created if not by time alone .