I'd just like to throw my little input into the current discussion on the merits of religion (of whatever form) and atheism.

One atheist said science in its purest form is atheistic, which is essentially true, as science is on a search for truth, not a search for God. However, religious concepts can inspire scientific enquiry, and discovery. Take for instance Roman Catholic priest Georges Lemaître, who first proposed his concept of 'the primeval atom', which was at first ridiculed by the scientific establishment of that time. I am certain the fact that he was openly religious did not help him much with an establishment which prides itself in being 'godless'.

Scientific terminology

Lemaître's hypothesis was made fun of, being referred to as the 'big bang', which is not a particularly elegant scientific terminology. Fast forward some decades later and Edwin Hubble came along with some concrete data which proved Lemaître correct. Lemaître's previous data was not conclusive - a similar theory was put forward some years earlier by a scientist called Alexander Friedmann.

The scientific establishment, then, liked to think of the universe as something static, that has been there forever, and will be here forever: not something that experienced a moment of creation - and, despite data suggesting otherwise, as proposed by Friedmann and Lemaître they (including Einstein even though his theories featured prominently) rejected the idea.

Now, The Big Bang Theory is the leading theory of how the universe came about, where, when one extrapolates backwards in time from what we observe in the cosmos, there was a point in the universe's history where every-thing that exists now did not exist - a point where space and time itself were created. It is funny how a lowly Roman Catholic priest's idea condescendingly referred to as the 'big bang' is now the standard-bearer in scientific thinking of how our universe was formed.

I am, etc.,

JOHN SMITH

sensiblejamaican@googlemail.com