Organized Religion has Inhibited Societal Progress

I'm new to Debate. org, and have been waiting for an interesting topic to debate. You have supplied it, and I express my gratitude in competing with me. Best of luck to you, good sir! Now, to begin, I will present my argument. I will then review my opponent's contentions: 1) Organized religion promotes charity and hope, both essential to the promotion of societal progress (progress being defined as "positive development"). Religious people donate more to charity (and the promotion of welfare) than those who are non-religious. [1] Also, it is important to note that organized religions provide support for the spirit and attitude of these people who perform acts of charity. Realize, as well, that teachings of organized religions spread hope. Hope that all people are created with intrinsic value, and that we have a higher purpose to fulfill in order to make our way into paradise after death. And according to a psychological study [2] having "hope" increases "happiness and well-being". Religions provide self-purpose, a sense of community, charity, and hope. [3] 2) There are many organized religions. My opponent refers to the "Big Three" monotheisms, but it is important to note that even in Christianity, for example, there are multiple denominations. [4] In fact, the founding of one organized religion (Protestanism) led to social progress leading up to the Renaissance when it challenged the Catholic church. Thus, we see organized religions as a whole are constantly improving one another and causing social progression. Now to refute by opponents claims: 1) My opponent states organized religion has restricted scientific and medical gain. This is not true. For example, the Islam culture was perhaps the most intelligent during Medieval times. Their faith revered knowledge and created huge leaps in science, medicine, architecture, literature, and mathematics. [5] Also, through the interaction of Christians and Muslims during the Crusades, this information was spread throughout Eurasia significantly improving trade, well-being of nations, and essentially pulling Christendom out of the Dark Ages into the Renaissance. [6] Also, it is stated that Christianity disagrees with stem-cell research. My opponent is creating a sweeping generalization of organized religion when he does so. Not all denominations do. In fact many organized religions have no definitive stance, period. [7] 2) Lastly, my opponent touches human rights. He states organized religions oppose gay marriage. Again, this is not always the case. This is a sweeping generalization. Buddhists, Quakers, Reform Jews, and Unitarian-Universalists, just to name a few organized religions, do not oppose homosexuality. [8] Also, my opponent commits the fallacy of "petitio principii" when he begs the question of whether abortion is right or wrong. He does so when he states organized religions inhibit human rights by opposing abortion. We have not established whether abortion is moral or immoral, or if it is a "human right". Because there is a sufficient doubt to this proposition, it is fallacious and should not be considered. In the end my opponent claims that organized religions inhibit science, medicine and human rights. As I have shown, his points are not valid as he would make them appear. Organized religion HAS resulted in huge social progression. Thank you kindly, and now I wait for my opponent's response. [1] . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [2] . http://www.suite101.com... [3] . http://zelophehadsdaughters.com... [4] . http://www.religionfacts.com... [5] . http://www.ais.org... [6] . http://edhelper.com... [7] . http://archive.uua.org... [8] . http://buddhawat.com...