Why are we here?

No, not a Brexit post, though it's  a question that has no single answer in that context as well.

Reading the obituaries on Stephen Hawking I came across a quotation from his book A Brief History of Time which, like many others, I started but didn't finish, even though it was indeed brief. In the book he wrote that a single unified theory of everything "should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist." On another occasion Hawking announced "My goal is simple. It is a complete understanding of the universe, why it is as it is and why it exists at all."

Setting aside the obvious question - aren't philosphers and scientists ordinary people? - I am reminded that the other obvious question occurred to me at the time I read the book and remains with me still. While not claiming to have anything like enough intelligence to understand more than an outline of what Hawking what on about, I have never been able to understand why he thought that the elusive theory of everything would ever be able to answer the question "Why?" I can see that physics could answer what, how and when. And maybe, as Hawking put it "why it is as it is". But not why it exists at all. Or indeed who, another question that niggled the agressively anti-religious Hawking who would not be in the same room as his first wife's devout friends.

I come at this most fundamental of questions from, as usual, all over the place. Fundamentally agnostic, I am reassured by the fact that, as I don't remember worrying about when I was going to be born, I don't expect to be worried about anything much after I am dead. So in the limit there seems little point in wondering why we are here, as the question is unanswerable and there are practical things to be done. As for religion, at its most useful and most harmless it provides great comfort to many people and its gathering places and associated social structures provide companionship, especially for the elderly. On the other hand, organised religion has much to answer for throughout history and into the present, suppressing freedom of thought and action, fostering division, hate and even war.

I suppose one can argue that anything can be used for good or bad ends and with religion that is certainly the case. While holding firm on freedom of individuals to go about their business, including their religious beliefs, I feel that our society should be structured on more rigorously secular grounds. So religion based schools worry me, for example.

Not only am I puzzled as to why Hawking thought he could answer the question of why he thought he could prove why the universe existed, but also why he wanted to answer it. Maybe his first wife was right: he just wanted to prove there wasn't a god.

Not surprisingly this was beyond even a genius like Hawking. After all, these are questions that people's belief and value sets intrude on. Where some scientists see the hand of god, others just see  the laws of science in action. Which leaves us back with the conundrum philosphers will never be able to answer: if there isn't a creator, why are we here? And the ultimate smart-ass question: if there is a creator, who created the creator?

So I will park these questions and go out into the spring sunshine,  grateful to be able to enjoy it, even if I don't know who, or what to thank.

P.S. Some weeks later I've just been reading a review of a book by John Gray called "Seven Types of Atheism". Gray is a professed atheist but is disparaging of the "new" atheists such as Richard Dawkins, who put their faith in science. Their mistake, according to Gray is to believe that religion can be disproved, as if it were an obsolete scientific theory. They fail to see that science cannot close the gap between facts and values. Religion expresses a search for meaning, which would remain even if everything could be scientifically explained. The reviewer, the commendable John Carey, notes that the sharpness and clarity of that thought is typical of Gray's intellect and the power of his advocacy. As these were the thoughts I was striving for, I will leave it that Hawking, while an outstanding scientist, was a very moderate philosopher.