Don't they say that everyone champions a good man (or woman) - after s/he's gone? So true. Yes, that's when everyone 'in the know', I mean media...comes out of the proverbial woodwork and finds diadems of beauty and brilliance in those they previously either simply ignored, or positively belittled. So I'm naturally taking a bit of a risk myself in deigning - or rather daring - to 'tackle' the life of our Globe's modern-day Einstein.
Nevertheless I believe a few salient points need to be made, if only to fill in some of the significant 'missing 'pieces' - as so often occurs - in the media narrative upon Stephen Hawking's death last week. Forgotten info, or more likely inconvenient truths; truths and facts and realities which simply don't happen to mesh with the world outlook our supposed contemporary 'intelligentsia' choose to believe, whilst branding all outsiders odd, foolhardy, clueless, dunces, fanatical, or simply bizarre. Or all of the foregoing or any combination thereof.
So what is the essential point I wish to make? And why would I even have the gall to intrude myself into an arena - i.e. the life and thinking of present-day *genii - whom I have neither known nor met, and even about whom I really know precious little? But perhaps therein lies the actual reason: the little I do happen to know, or at least have 'observed' or noted, is indeed precious...in relation to Stephen Hawking in particular. Or so I'm going to contend.
I'm simply sure of the following: that the fellow with the (televisually and via other broadcast media) well-known robotic voice adopted in order to vocalize his intended speech - like so many if not the great majority of intellectual 'greats' in decades and centuries gone by - leaned heavily toward, **if not fully, publicly subscribing to an ultimate view of reality and the universe which is commonly referred to (in contemporary parlance) as 'intelligent design'. The traditional terminology of (literal) creation just being a road too far for modern-day 'post-Christian' sensibilities.
Yes indeed. So I do find it fascinating, and not a little typical, that upon a fundamental tenet of dried-and-dusted, dyed-in-the-wool, contemporary thinking, from which any and every publicly-articulated deviation is immediately, summarily and stridently - if not, I would argue, soundly - condemned (as an indication of inadequate and/or inferior intellect and hence unsuitability for airing in the public domain fullstop), Mr Hawking happened to significantly differ, even 'deviate'.
Though as I earlier averred, ***my knowledge of the ins and outs, the vagaries and complexities, the subtleties and nuances of astrophysics - his essential 'specialty' of knowledge - is not only deficient but essentially rather basic, even somewhat minimal, the very fact that a person regarded almost universally (among Earthians, that is!) as a modern-day 'Einstein' apparently had a 'suspicion', however furtive or attended by intricate elaboration, that there did indeed appear to be signs and indications of actual design and intention in this universe and the various parts thereof, is surely 'saying something'.
Here I will simply make mention of two 'references', one a book, the other a (publicly-recorded) lecture, in which Hawking is considered to have at least endorsed the principle of intelligent design. In the first, Hawking's co-authored The Nature of Space and Time, ****in which he engages in ongoing dialogue upon serious questions regarding such with fellow British theoretical physicist Roger Penrose, I understand that Stephen Hawking suggests a divine creator behind things. In the other (a lecture titled 'The Beginning of Time'), according to Richard Ames of the weekly 'Tomorrow's World' telecast, 'famous astrophysicist Stephen Hawking stated the view of most astronomers today:
The universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, has a beginning in the Big Bang about 15 billion years ago.'
Yes, for the former book (often cited in general broadcast media since Hawking's death) I admittedly provide no specific statement, perhaps because I happen (to have every good reason) to trust such as ******Mr Ames (generally, but especially when discussing the aforementioned subject of creation(ism)/intelligent design (in great detail). In addition, however, though I failed to jot down notes quickly enough, I did hear another reference to that book which indicated others' belief that Hawking did indeed therein suggest he had 'sympathies' in truth with a designed universe.
I'll conclude with these few thoughts/reflections. Suffice to add I find it interesting indeed and cannot help but speculate on how, following Hawking's death, the (non-specifically Christian, at least) broadcast media steered well clear of such a significant and incontrovertibly controversial subject area despite its rather extensive reportage overall. But don't most folk do precisely that whenever the facts don't suit their particular argument or whenever those selfsame 'facts' start to go against their preconceived opinions? On that score I've my own strong suspicions...yes, indeed!
*Yes, that's the literal plural of genius - and no, it needn't take a genius to know that! Well, actually, 'genii' is apparently the plural of 'genie', and 'geniuses' of 'genius' - and in both my ever trusty Chambers Concise Dictionary and my Heinemann New Zealand Dictionary. So, hey, you can indeed learn something new every day, eh.
**My personal surmising is simply that the only reason Stephen Hawking didn't seem to push this (very complex and wide-ranging) subject any further was that he felt unwilling to embroil himself in one of our contemporary world's hot potatoes: i.e. evolution versus creation. Perhaps - at least it seems a legitimate enough, reasonable surmise to me - Hawking, like so many these days (and for understandable reason, no doubt, in the post-George W era) didn't want to be associated, much less identified with, 'those crazy, nutty fundamentalist Christians'. And also - sure, a very personal surmise, to be sure - like my dear old Gram (now dead over twenty years, though in a dream just the other day), just as she evidently found it hard to 'forgive God' (yes, you heard me aright!) for the death of my namesake, my Dad's younger brother, at just eight years of age, maybe Stephen Hawking found it difficult to forgive God for his lifelong crippling physical disability - though arguably it proved to be the very secret to his ultimate success and genius (and thus arguably a proof in itself of the divine omniscience!)
***Though I at least believe that having been declared by Mensa (in my later teens) as myself possessing an intellect within the top 1-2-5% of the population I am not wholly unqualified to have a serious opinion upon such matters, and to regard that opinion as sufficiently robust to withstand superficially-based criticism thereof.
****According to Wikipedia this is a tome 'that documents a debate on physics and the *****philosophy of physics' between Penrose and Hawking.
*****Curiously enough it was only two days ago that my scientist brother informed me that the varsity papers he's recently been undertaking deal with such matters as both the philosophy and history of science.
******Who'd admittedly disclaim folk like myself doing so! But just as everyone has implicit faith that any time they push various buttons, appliances of light and electricity instantaneously 'come alive' and work (in the way that they expect), likewise it's eminently reasonable at times, even on those rare occasions when one doesn't necessarily comprehend all the ins and outs of someone's actual reasoning, to simply reaffirm one's trust in those who've earned their implicit respect over a long period of time and over numerous types of situations; unless and until proven otherwise (at least).
No comments:
Post a Comment