Appreciate you taking the time to reply, but let’s not mistake disagreement for a lack of clarity. The essay doesn’t claim “all religion is evil” or reduce billions of people to caricatures. What it does argue explicitly is that science and religion function on opposing epistemologies: one demands evidence, the other demands belief. That’s not an attack, it’s a structural incompatibility.

You’re right that religion isn’t a monolith. But I’m not writing a comparative religion thesis. I’m addressing the general function of religious belief across dominant systems. Whether it’s monotheism or mysticism, once faith is used as a justification for truth claims, we’ve exited the realm of science.

And yes, some religions pursued knowledge. But pursuing knowledge without the tools to verify it isn’t science, it’s glorified guessing. Druidry may have honored the stars, but they weren’t testing hypotheses or refining models through falsification. That’s the difference.

As for examples like the Crusades and Inquisition being “passé”, history doesn’t get less relevant just because it’s inconvenient. That said, I’ll gladly expand the catalog. Religious opposition to stem cell research, the HIV crisis in Africa fueled by anti-condom dogma, modern-day witch hunts in Nigeria and India… need I go on?

Bottom line: if belief is held above reason, then any religion, monotheistic or otherwise, can be dangerous. That’s not a sweeping condemnation. It’s a warning label.