Ummmm you neglect to mention the fact during much of our history, the penalty for NOT being "deeply religious" was death.

So there's that.

There is something to what you say. Gregor Mendel, discoverer of the basic rules of inheritance, was an Augustinian monk. He was, in his time, representative of a long tradition of clerical inquiry into the workings of God's handiwork. This should come as no surprise, since for much of civilized history religious officials were the only people who knew how to read and write. The tradition of inquiry and recording of observations was not limited to any one religion. There were Christian chemists and apothecaries, Moslem mathematicians and astronomers, Buddhist ecologists and meteorologists, Egyptian anatomists, and medical doctors.

I agree with Charles that religion was born due to an absence of science.

Why on earth would anyone want to make an argument in defense of an analogy. An analogy is itself a thing used, and not often well used, to give support to arguments. And not therefore, especially when it is a poor, weak and banal one, a thing which wants, or justifies, a defense of its own.

I know that you like to set challenges to people, and to play the game of shaking the echo chamber, which is probably fun and may even do a little good sometimes. But beware that you do not get too hooked on the regular adrenalin fix that provides. (Analogy) Because if you do, you may get into making poor weak arguments just for the sake of keeping the fix regular, end up being viewed as a dimwit. Which would not be good since it would devalue your worthwhile contributions.

Do you really imagine that there is anyone here, even the most badly informed, who does not have at least an understanding of the history of human thought, far too detailed, to be remotely interested in any challenge or support to that understanding, which could come from a crude, vague and banal analogy. Stop wasting time.

Science starts with a basic understanding, then tests and experiments to expand that knowledge. When something is in error, or proven false, science embraces it as a part of a more comprehensive understanding.

Religion starts with a preconceived notion, it resists science, change, or anything that can affect that notion negatively. This has been proven to be a detriment on society as well as dangerous. Religion perceives, or declares, something as evil or good, which confuses the mind and causes emotional distress, which it then uses as a controlling influence.

Even today religions murder people for being non-believers. Science was established in spite of religion.

Geologists before 1800 were creationists and devout Christians who believed that the rocks they were studying were deposits of Noah’s flood. But by 1840, they had completely rejected the idea of a global flood because the rock record clearly didn't support the idea. In other words, a global flood never happened and around 1840 geologists were forced to accept that fact.

The problem for believers is that the Biblical character Jesus believed in Noah's Ark - Matthew 24:37-39.

I asked a "pastor" to explain why god commands Noah to take 2 of each bird on the ark in Genesis 6:20, then commands him to take 7 pairs of birds in Genesis 7:3. Here is his answer: "7 is gods perfect number, so in this case 7 is actually meaning 2, the perfect number for Noah to take on the ark." However, when I asked why didn't Noah take only 2 of each clean animal when god commands him to take 7 pairs (Genesis 7:2), He said, "Oh no, they were to be used as food and sacrifice". I wasn't about to get into the fact that the carnivores would have taken out most of the animals within the first few weeks of debarkation.

How sad, accepting an antiquated book as inerrant, which has already been proven to be blatantly ridiculous, leads to this type of self-disception and delusion.

The impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark: National Center for Science Education: [ncse.com]

I feel little attraction to Philosophy .I admit to one of my own which is intertwined with science. Everyone has aright to their opinions which people link together as that which covers their usual thoughts as an explanation of how they behaved and justified conclusions.

"science is called the child of religion.
Nevertheless, this metaphor is correct from a purely historical point of view."

What exactly is the value of a purely historical view? when history changes yearly as new facts emerge?

History and science are often kept in different sections of the brain.

Religion was merely a means of gaining power over (and thus governing) the masses.
Superstition was the precursor to religion. Curiosity, which existed long before religion, was the precursor to science. It was when religion became dogmatic, refusing to accept new ideas, that the big schism began.

Science was born from the instinct for survival. Religion was born out of boredom.

And who is doing the name calling. Often it's people without a scientific bone in their body. These people gravitate toward all kinds of unfounded conspiracy theories. If you can believe the 'magic' base of religion you can believe any crazy thing.

many commentors are disappointingly in denial of the whole notion that science in any way was influenced by religion, even tho it is well established fact, as much as any thing science likes to consider fact today. kind of a pity really.

Thank you. You said it better than I could.

Bollocks.

One could also say that religion was born from the absence of science. Gods, spirits, demons, etc were created to explain the things that people had no understanding. Religion was created due to ignorance while science was created out of the pursuit of knowledge.