Galileo would like a word with you.
This would start a epic flame war on most foruns, but here I think plp will respect your opinion.
I will only say that I disagree.
This is the only post I'm going to make on this, to not have this go totally out of hand.
I'm sorry the history of Religion and Science doesn't start only ~500 years ago with Galileo, and actually the theories of Darwin did more for the divide between Religion and Science than did Galileo's. I specifically said relatively recently, i.e. the view of Religion and Science as opposites is distinctly a development of the early modern to modern era (In fact, there was often no distinction between the two until the end of the early modern period). Again, considering the entire history of civilization, Religion has done more to help the advancement of Science than hurt it.
Ancient to Medieval to Renaissance Astrology, EVERYWHERE.
The influence that Daoism had on the development of Medicine in the East.
Indo-European sacrificial ideology leading to Greek philosophy.
The preservation of Greek philosophy in the Arabic world, and it's spread into Europe by Islam and Sephardic Jews. (The Arab world was a huge center for learning).
Medieval monasteries.
The philosophy of Aquinas, Augustine, Maimonides, Al-Kindi, etc. etc.
Church funded research projects
The rise of Hermetisicm and Kabbalah and its influence on EVERYTHING in the Renaissance.
Speaking of which the role Kabblah had on mathematics.
Oh and the role Kabbalah and Ceremonial Magic had on the emergence of modern psychology.
Paracelsian Alchemy and its impact on modern medicine.
Newton's Alchemy directly leading to his theories on gravity.
Robert Fludd.
Mesmer.
etc.
etc.
You can really just go on and one.
By the way,
Religion doesn't mean the Church, and the trial of Galielo was more political than it was religious. The Church was even using heliocentric models at the time for astrological calculations and admitted its superiority for calculations. Their stance was primarily an ideological argument not a scientific one. Speaking of which, a non-heliocentric model derives from Aristotelian Philosophy, not the Bible, (and it was the conflict between Aristotelian Philosophy and the reintroduction of Neoplatonism in the Renaissance that directly lead to the Scientific Revolution).
.
you gotta love when people say "I don't want to talk about this but"... And then start talking about it... Anyways...
, that's ^ how it starts
