Organized Religion has Inhibited Societal Progress

I congratulate my opponent on his response. However, there are significant failings in his attempt to discredit my argument. I will now go over the various claims from the debate: 1) Again, my point stands that "happiness and well-being" is spread by organized religion through the advocation of hope. Also, my opponent claims that religions are not necessary for charity, and certainly I will not state that charity will not happen without them. However, the fact remains that organized religions result in MORE charity than any secular cause. In a poll by the SCCBS, it was discovered religious people are 26% more likely than a secularist to donate to charity and 23% more likely to volunteer for no other reason than their faith alone. [1] Thus, without their religion, there would be far less charitable acts committed. Also, from this same poll, religious people are 10% more likely to give to secular causes than secularists themselves! 2) Also, in my opponent's original argument, Pro claimed organized religions oppose science, e.g., the Catholic Church vs Galileo. They do not oppose science for the sake of opposing science. They only did not accept heliocentrism because SCIENTISTS of the time believed in geocentrism. The evidence scientists had observed supported geocentrism, and therefore the church supported that theory. At the time, Galileo's theory was not perfect and therefore could not be accepted by a SCIENTIFIC community and the Church chose to agree with the science presented. [2] They did not oppose it simply because they did not like it; but because it was not proven. Note as well that Jesuits praised scientific achievement. Some of history's greatest scientists were Christian - Newton, Pasteur, Lavoisier, Kepler, Copernicus, Faraday, Mawwell, Bernard, Hesienberg, and Gregor Mendel! [3] The reasons for their scientific breakthroughs? Attempting to discover the order of nature that their faith said God created. It was religious motivations that caused enormous gains in astronomy, biology, chemistry, and physics during the Renaissance. 3) Religions are not the only groups to oppose gay marriage. Ayn Rand, leader of the Objectivist philosophy movement, was an atheist who stated that homosexuality went against our evolutionary purpose and thus was "immoral" and "disgusting". [4] And again, religions do not exclusively oppose gay marriage. According to PRRI, 51% of white Catholics, 54% of white Protestants, and 57% of Latino Catholics supported gay marriage. [5] You can see that religious people can and have shown support for gay marriage, even when being "religious". In the end, my opponent is attempting to claim that organized religion somehow aims to keep society from reaching progress in science, medicine and human rights. But is it not organized religion which has greatly contributed to the progression of science, medicine, literature, and the arts; as I have shown with the Jesuits and the Muslims? My opponent says they oppose this progression simply for the sake of opposition, along with giving the example of Galileo. I have shown that the Church opposed Galileo's science because they supported the science of the time; not just for the sake of religion. Religions are contributing to human rights by supporting the well-being of all; it is those of religion who donate more to charity, and even to charity that supports non-secular purposes. Therefore, in the end, organized religions are not actively inhibiting societal progression; it is evident that organized religion are propelling us to substantial societal gains and progress. [1] http://www.hoover.org... [2] http://www.catholic.com... [3] http://www.defendingthebride.com... [4] "The Moratorium on Brains," Ford Hall Forum Lecture [Boston, 1971] [5] http://www.religiondispatches.org...