Ok. I'll accept that.

However, there was never a time that anything like this was "banned" from science because it was religious. It was not so much "banned" as corrected, and even that not because it was religious, but because it was simply wrong. And the people doing the correcting, until the modern age, were all religious people. This was true even during the height of the middle ages when there was a large amount of science being done, peacefully, without the interference of the church. In fact, even in the middle ages, no one was ever persecuted by the church for their science.

I have no clue, do I? So, enlighten me, then.

Your whole answer is based on the presumption that I somehow ment to say that religious people are inferior. I did not.

Fact is, religious topics have no bearing on science as it is practiced today. That being religious usually entails believing in something that has no evidence for it, or is even, by definition, unprovable, and that in order for people to be able to think scientifically and still believe such thinks requires them to engage in doublethink was not at all the essence of my comment.

No, kai, you did not. You, in fact, have no clue how many people doing good empirical science are also people of prayer. Don't buy into the delusion that religious people make bad scientists. The history of scientific inquiry is stacked against it.

If you want a real challenge, consider whether there is a correlation between religious activity and scientific acumen. I think you will find that both have been on a downward decline. If your thesis were true, one would expect to find the opposite.

How glad I am we banned this religious nonsense from science.