Appreciate the detailed breakdown, but much of this reads like nitpicking semantics rather than engaging with the actual argument.

“Who?” - The many public figures, academics, and casuals who parrot the tired “science and religion can coexist” line. You can find it in everything from TED Talks to lukewarm religious apologetics.

“Modern compared to what?” - Compared to the centuries where faith was enforced at swordpoint and dissent was heresy. That modern. I’m not interested in academic hairsplitting over definitions when the general meaning is clear.

Yes, scientific discoveries have done harm, but those harms are side effects of methods, not doctrines. When religion causes harm, it’s often a feature, not a bug, justified in the text, not the test tube.

Morality predated organized religion. Religion co-opted it. I’ll grant that religious institutions shaped moral norms, but that doesn’t mean they originated them. Culture evolves. Empathy is innate. You can’t argue culture without human minds, and human minds are wired for empathy, not divine decree.

You’re clearly upset about Substack as a platform, and you’re free to feel that way. But let’s be real: I’m not monetized. I’m not promoting hate. I’m not affiliated with any extremist newsletter. I’m just using a platform to host an essay that challenges religious dogma with logic and reason.

If you want to debate the ideas, I’m listening. If you’re only here to torch the medium instead of addressing the message, then you’re wasting both our time. If you prefer Ghost, cool. But don’t mistake platform purity for moral high ground. Arguments stand or fall on their own merits, not on the domain under which they are hosted.

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.