Scientists are pondering the irregularities of what they see as space and time. The notion of a big bang still has many followers, but there are new ideas. One of these ideas has to do with cosmic strings that are enormous entities created in the earliest period of the formation of the universe. The concept of cosmic strings derives in part from the theory that matter is ultimately made up of extremely tiny strings, string theory. Much of cosmic science is based on educated guesses and hypotheses that have yet to be proven.
Scientists work from what they can see through powerful telescopes and observe in their laboratories. If they observe patterns, they try to imagine what these patterns might mean scaled up to the full size of the universe, or scaled down to the tiniest level conceivable of the theoretically small elements of the universe's matter or energy. They also try to imagine what it could have been like had the cosmos emerged from the very tiny to the very large in an event such as the big bang. Astrophysicists, such as Jacqueline Hewitt, tend to start from what they refer to as the standard cosmological model. They work from that to examine the possibility that the standard cosmological model is incorrect and that they understood almost everything wrong.
The point is that they really do not know as yet when the universe actually began. They have a theory, but that is all it is, a very good theory. Such centers need our support for surprisingly enough the churches of religion aren't interested for the most part in doing this form of study.
Religious study centers instead tend to look at the cosmos very differently. They are primarily interested in conserving evidence of the past as it relates to discoveries made by individuals using very different technologies from what scientists use.
Both approaches to understanding the cosmos are very logical approaches. One asserts that it is possible to understand the cosmic universe by means of messages that are around us and that we can tap into using our brains, or that the active elements of the universe are trying to communicate to us with messages in dreams and visions, and other worldly signs and events that we need to interpret.
Both science and religion require faith either to base your logic on what evidence can be proven by means of visible testing and reproduction of tests independently, or on what you understand about the spiritual or communications process between the cosmos elements, such as God, and the faith practitioners, the religious prophets, saints, and savants, the spiritual leaders that tell us what has been their experience and experiences of predecessors.
Both approaches are valid despite both groups claiming what other groups do is bunk, like the notion history is bunk. We can ignore such inter group skirmishes because we know better. There is a role for science and religion in our cosmos and we would be poorer without the squabble between them. However, both approaches need to recognise that they are just that, approaches. In the modern world we tend to like science more because it gives us nice toys to play with, but in reality they are just nice toys and our real enjoyment comes from our relationships with other nice people and with the living 'natural' creatures of our universe, such as dogs and cats.
What we really want to avoid is outright war between the two approaches. This occurs when one or other of the approaches assumes too much about its role in defining what approach people should take. It becomes a problem if religious leaders do not keep to their turf which is only a partial element of the truth as we know it. Neither of the groups has the whole truth, and that is a very real fact. They both look silly in the face of ordinary observation when they claim supremacy and want to assume the political reigns of authority forcing people to conform to one approach or the other.
The great 'British' historical theorist and economic thinker, Karl Marx, said religion was only to be seens an opium of the people and something to be ignored or feared when it came to the dynamics of economic forces and the social struggles of people that were exploited in the name of profit. We know that approach of eliminating religion from the equation was patently false and we know that those people who fostered that approach to have commited many crimes. And, so to have religious leaders claiming to have the truth and nothing but the truth. Both athiests and religious leaders have a tendency to misguide, so treat them with respect, but do a wide circle around those that don't show you are valid way to establish the veracity of what they are claiming. Don't be misled. Drink your coffee and think about it, seriously!
