What Does it Matter?
I recently watched the first episode of the program "How the Universe Works." I found it to be moderately okay. The Nova series "The Fabric of the Cosmos" is far more instructive, in my opinion.
But, if you do watch the first episode of "How the Universe Works" which is focused on the Big Bang Theory (not the television show, either), you will probably come to deal with two facts.
1. The people who designed the show only had one graphic to demonstrate the concept of the initial explosion of the universe. You will see the same big blue explosion over and over and over and over and over. It gets so bad that you forget to listen to the narration because you are too busy thinking, "Don't they have any other video effects to use?"
2. You might have a slight sense of disquiet resting with you by the end of the program.
It is the second aspect that I would address.
Even if you haven't seen the show, the theory of the Big Bang seems to inevitably lead to the question of endings. While we don't know how the universe began (faith and science postulate various answers - some of which can even sit side by side), we do tend to all postulate that it had a beginning. With that in mind, we also begin to postulate that it will have an end as well.
One of those possible endings is what is called the Big Crunch, in which all the universe that has expanded over the eons will eventually begin to retract, like a rubber band that has stretched to its limit. In so doing, all matter will clump back together and all that existed will cease to be.
On a side note, that idea has also led to the speculation that at the end of the Big Crunch will be another Big Bang. Perhaps our universe is simply one in a line of universes that are born, live, die and in death create new life. I know science is starting to propose that idea, but Marvel Comics has been proclaiming that for years! In fact, the character Galactus is the sole survivor of the end of the previous universe - the process of surviving the crunch led to his being present at the bang, and reformed him into the great enigma of Galactus.
Sorry. I'm a bit of a fan.
Anyway, the idea that it ceases to be is the sobering idea. Because it forces us to ask in our microscopic existence in comparison with all of creation - what are we doing? What is the purpose of all of this? If all that is will eventually cease to be, then what are we doing? If we manage to do ourselves in as a species, what was it for? Does conquering a planet matter in the long run? Or does the finite nature of existence lend itself to conceptualizing (or re-conceptualizing) what it means to exist?
The Book of Ecclesiastes is what scholars call a book of "skeptical wisdom" in that it doesn't go with the party line that says "If you obey the laws of God you will be blessed. If you disobey the laws of God you will be punished." The writer of Ecclesiastes explains that he has seen good people suffer and bad people thrive. If we are honest about our own setting in the world, we have to admit we see that all the time.
But the book isn't just a work to refute the traditional wisdom of the day, it is a work that seems to try and take a step back and look at the question of what it means to exist. In that reflection, we find profound words: "What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; and there is nothing new under the sun. Is there a thing of which it is said, 'See, this is new?' It has been already, in the ages before us. There is no remembrance of former things, nor will there be any remembrance of later things yet to happen among those who come after." (Ecclesiastes 1:9-11).
The author concludes, after demonstrating what it means to be "sadder but wiser," that all we can do is live a good life, enjoy the time we have, and love those dear to us. It isn't a proposal for reckless hedonism - the author does stress that there are morals to life that should be upheld. Nor is it a denial of God. Instead, it seems to be a sober reflection that points out that life is finite, life is quick, and it is precious. Enjoy it while it flutters by.
I find that if we take the author up on his challenge to reflect on the things that "matter" we begin to find that a whole lot of what we worry about, work for, struggle over, and kill for don't hold too much weight in the end. Perhaps if we could learn to live in the wonder of existence, we would be far more peaceful people who were less concerned with oil, money, power, or whatever else it might be that drives us. Perhaps we could turn our eyes to the stars in a desire to venture out and see the universe as much as we can while we are here.
Perhaps we could learn to be content in being.
But, if you do watch the first episode of "How the Universe Works" which is focused on the Big Bang Theory (not the television show, either), you will probably come to deal with two facts.
1. The people who designed the show only had one graphic to demonstrate the concept of the initial explosion of the universe. You will see the same big blue explosion over and over and over and over and over. It gets so bad that you forget to listen to the narration because you are too busy thinking, "Don't they have any other video effects to use?"
2. You might have a slight sense of disquiet resting with you by the end of the program.
It is the second aspect that I would address.
Even if you haven't seen the show, the theory of the Big Bang seems to inevitably lead to the question of endings. While we don't know how the universe began (faith and science postulate various answers - some of which can even sit side by side), we do tend to all postulate that it had a beginning. With that in mind, we also begin to postulate that it will have an end as well.
One of those possible endings is what is called the Big Crunch, in which all the universe that has expanded over the eons will eventually begin to retract, like a rubber band that has stretched to its limit. In so doing, all matter will clump back together and all that existed will cease to be.
On a side note, that idea has also led to the speculation that at the end of the Big Crunch will be another Big Bang. Perhaps our universe is simply one in a line of universes that are born, live, die and in death create new life. I know science is starting to propose that idea, but Marvel Comics has been proclaiming that for years! In fact, the character Galactus is the sole survivor of the end of the previous universe - the process of surviving the crunch led to his being present at the bang, and reformed him into the great enigma of Galactus.
Sorry. I'm a bit of a fan.
Anyway, the idea that it ceases to be is the sobering idea. Because it forces us to ask in our microscopic existence in comparison with all of creation - what are we doing? What is the purpose of all of this? If all that is will eventually cease to be, then what are we doing? If we manage to do ourselves in as a species, what was it for? Does conquering a planet matter in the long run? Or does the finite nature of existence lend itself to conceptualizing (or re-conceptualizing) what it means to exist?
The Book of Ecclesiastes is what scholars call a book of "skeptical wisdom" in that it doesn't go with the party line that says "If you obey the laws of God you will be blessed. If you disobey the laws of God you will be punished." The writer of Ecclesiastes explains that he has seen good people suffer and bad people thrive. If we are honest about our own setting in the world, we have to admit we see that all the time.
But the book isn't just a work to refute the traditional wisdom of the day, it is a work that seems to try and take a step back and look at the question of what it means to exist. In that reflection, we find profound words: "What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; and there is nothing new under the sun. Is there a thing of which it is said, 'See, this is new?' It has been already, in the ages before us. There is no remembrance of former things, nor will there be any remembrance of later things yet to happen among those who come after." (Ecclesiastes 1:9-11).
The author concludes, after demonstrating what it means to be "sadder but wiser," that all we can do is live a good life, enjoy the time we have, and love those dear to us. It isn't a proposal for reckless hedonism - the author does stress that there are morals to life that should be upheld. Nor is it a denial of God. Instead, it seems to be a sober reflection that points out that life is finite, life is quick, and it is precious. Enjoy it while it flutters by.
I find that if we take the author up on his challenge to reflect on the things that "matter" we begin to find that a whole lot of what we worry about, work for, struggle over, and kill for don't hold too much weight in the end. Perhaps if we could learn to live in the wonder of existence, we would be far more peaceful people who were less concerned with oil, money, power, or whatever else it might be that drives us. Perhaps we could turn our eyes to the stars in a desire to venture out and see the universe as much as we can while we are here.
Perhaps we could learn to be content in being.
Comments
Post a Comment