Ajahn Punnadhammo ponders "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

An interesting take on the premise surrounding Stephen Hawking's new book The Grand Design and the general issues surrounding can be found at Bhikku's Blog, written by Canadian born Theravadan monk Ajahn Punnadhammo.

There is a lot of truth to what is written there, especially the point about the limits of the human mind in speculating on such matters is something too often missing from the discussion of such issues.  Yet it is valuable to take a look at some assumptions made as well for comparative purposes, in this case to my own reflections on the issues raised by the press coverage of Hawking's book. 

Because Bhikku Ajahn Punndhammo (referred to as BAP hereafter) uses theism to compare and contrast a Buddhist view, it is helpful first to distinguish between the uses of the term.  In some circles, it refers to the idea that there is any meaning or point to existence other than the most limited, superficial and subjective notions.  Closely related to this (and often connected with it) is the notion that there is a source to existence which isn't explained strictly in terms of what humans describe as and refer to as natural laws.  In such cases, many Buddhists and forms of Buddhism would be labeled theistic.

Quantum tempest in a celestial teapot

So Stephen Hawking by some accounts is the new heir apparent to the French astronomer Pierre-Simon Laplace. For those who don't recognize the name, here is a reported exchange between Napoleon and himself regarding one of Laplace's propositions:

Napoleon: "M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator."

Laplace: "I had no need of that hypothesis."

LaPlace felt previous ideas regarding the nature of God and its relationship to the mechanics of the universe were unnecessary.  Indeed, the idea of making God into a puppeteer pulling the strings of the universe developed in response to the rise of empiricism and science under the belief it would allow for the kind of "proof" of God that had previously been unavailable, largely irrelevant, and in some cases blasphemous. It was based on the idea of God's necessity to explain the currently unexplainable in the workings of the material world.