Skip to main content

The Blue Touch Paper

Stephen Hawking, one of the world's smartest scientists, now tells us he believes "the Big Bang" - the moment when the universe was "created" - does not require a God or prime mover - but could have been self-ignited, due to the laws of nature themselves.  Hawking's extraordinary intelligence and life are themselves more proof for a God than against, but even deists must weigh his words with care.  The media has used his words as more evidence of the non-existence of a God, though there is nothing in his new claims that disprove an ultimate being or supernatural (divine) power.

Indeed, the very idea of a super-nature - a being above the laws of nature - must by definition rule out a thoroughly rational foundation.  The existence of God is an irrational idea.  But God - if existing - would have of course been able to set the touch paper going - having made the laws that brought that moment to its crisis.  The question is - is there a meta-universe - some thing or things or possibility - a horizon of the near-impossible - that remains beyond the ken of human intellect, as it has so far developed?  Or have we seen the curve and shape of all time and space?  Horatio was once advised to keep an eye out for more things.  Eyewear will, too.

Comments

Poetry Pleases! said…
Dear Todd

Over the decades I've watched Stephen Hawking like a hawk. Every year or so he comes out with a controversial comment which has jourmalists scrabbling for their biros. I think he just gets bored. I remember a famous physicist once being asked whether Hawking was the best cosmologist in the world. The crushing answer came: 'He isn't even the best cosmologist in his own college.'

Best wishes from Simon
Unknown said…
I just read about this! I like the possibility of a meta-universe.
Tom Phillips said…
Perhaps one of the most interesting questions is what one actually calls 'God' - or, rather, how one evisualises 'him' (I use the gender-specific pronoun very advisedly): if one abandons the idea of a hirsute chap a la Blake/Michaelangelo, for example, it becomes quite difficult to differentiate between a 'god' and a quantum-theory-generated 'meta-universe'.
Sheenagh Pugh said…
"Hawking's extraordinary intelligence and life are themselves more proof for a God than against"

Hm. Hawking has a neuro-muscular dystrophy that is related to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, a condition that has progressed over the years and has left him almost completely paralysed. I think it's easier to assume that, like his intellect, this was down to chance, because if it was deliberately done by some designer, you wouldn't want to meet him. I don't think the prof actually asserted there was or wasn't a god, just that there didn't have to be, but it put me in mind of David Attenborough, who does come down on the no side, because, as he says, the people who assert that butterflies prove the existence of a beneficent creator never seem to have a theory for where the flies that lay eggs in children's eyes and blind them fit into this world-view.

Popular posts from this blog

CLIVE WILMER'S THOM GUNN SELECTED POEMS IS A MUST-READ

THAT HANDSOME MAN  A PERSONAL BRIEF REVIEW BY TODD SWIFT I could lie and claim Larkin, Yeats , or Dylan Thomas most excited me as a young poet, or even Pound or FT Prince - but the truth be told, it was Thom Gunn I first and most loved when I was young. Precisely, I fell in love with his first two collections, written under a formalist, Elizabethan ( Fulke Greville mainly), Yvor Winters triad of influences - uniquely fused with an interest in homerotica, pop culture ( Brando, Elvis , motorcycles). His best poem 'On The Move' is oddly presented here without the quote that began it usually - Man, you gotta go - which I loved. Gunn was - and remains - so thrilling, to me at least, because so odd. His elegance, poise, and intelligence is all about display, about surface - but the surface of a panther, who ripples with strength beneath the skin. With Gunn, you dressed to have sex. Or so I thought.  Because I was queer (I maintain the right to lay claim to that

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se.  What do I mean by smart?

"I have crossed oceans of time to find you..."

In terms of great films about, and of, love, we have Vertigo, In The Mood for Love , and Casablanca , Doctor Zhivago , An Officer and a Gentleman , at the apex; as well as odder, more troubling versions, such as Sophie's Choice and  Silence of the Lambs .  I think my favourite remains Bram Stoker's Dracula , with the great immortal line "I have crossed oceans of time to find you...".