[dawg-]

I disagree, in fact the history of science and religious institutions dates back to the very beginning of science.

Gregor Mendel, father of modern day Genetics, a Catholic monk. Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic priest who came up with the Big Bang Theory. Look at all the scientific work of the Jesuits, their big research universities, etc. There are countless examples of groundbreaking science coming from religious institutions - and this is just from one world religion that I am most familiar with. Many Islamic and Jewish scholars have also been scientists.

These deeply religious people believe that naturalistic observations can get us closer to the ultimate truth of God. There is no purely empirical argument that can be made to refute that worldview - you must turn to philosophy and contend in that arena.

[tikej]

Maybe it’s the other way? They were scholars in societies/groups s that were religious.

Also you didn’t mentioned cases of Galileo, Copernicus, Bacon, Ockham, Giordano Bruno and countless other punished for merely presenting views other than official provided by religion.

I’m not saying that religious people can’t contribute to science. Everyone can. It doesn’t change the fact, that in science, contrarily to religion, (besides maybe scientific method) there are no views that are not refutable and cannot change provided enough evidence.

[ceilingcorner]

I don’t think you understand science or religion very well. Religious opinions change all the time; the Christianity of today is not the Christianity of a century or a millennium ago. Many of these changes came from logical analysis, not empirical knowledge (science). Empirical knowledge is not the only form of knowledge.

Most of your examples also were not merely presenting an alternate view, but directly threatening the established political structure. That is nowhere near the same thing.

[tikej]

I don’t think you have enough knowledge about me to judge whether I understand science or religion and such ad personam is unwelcome.

More productive would be to point out what part of, for example Christianity, changed due to logical analysis and not empirical facts.

I agree that there are other types of knowledge that are non-empirical.

Okay they were threatening political structure, but by pointing out things that were factually incorrect. Perhaps I should cite what Galileo was trialed and sentenced for (following Wikipedia and sources therein): In 1633 Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy "for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the sun is the center of the world" against the 1616 condemnation, since "it was decided at the Holy Congregation [...] on 25 Feb 1616 that [...] the Holy Office would give you an injunction to abandon this doctrine, not to teach it to others, not to defend it, and not to treat of it; and that if you did not acquiesce in this injunction, you should be imprisoned". Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy", namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the center of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse, and detest" those opinions.

He wasn’t sentenced for threatening political structure but for heresy (even if it had some political motivation). I believe my point still stands as he WAS sentenced, by inquisition, for presenting facts against their dogmas.