"Philosophy (including what is now called science) was considered a ‘handmaiden to theology’, and not an autonomous enterprise in its own right" The theological scholars who took up natural philosophy in the west where under the impression that they already knew the origin of the universe before they even knew what a solar system or an atomic nucleus was, it's that kind of attitude which is detrimental to the scientific process. "It is true that Copernicus’ ideas were controversial, but scientific objections (rather than religious objections) constituted the lion’s share of this criticism." They favored one theory over the other because one theory kept with the status quo and the other did not, christianity only helped to cement that bias. "Although Galileo believed he had met the burden of proof, he pushed his conclusions more forcefully than the available evidence warranted, and when he appeared to portray the pope as a boorish ignoramus in the final paragraphs of his Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems (1632), he brought the Inquisition down on his own head." How dare he disrespect the pope? he deserved execution for being passionate about his scientific conclusions. ‘The main business of natural philosophy is ... to deduce causes from effects, till we come to the very first cause, which certainly is not mechanical.’ I completely agree that the first cause is not mechanical, but the idea that the universe was created deliberately by an all knowing all powerful entity which popped out of nothing does no better job at explaining it's non-mechanical origin than the idea that an infinitely dense, infinitely compact point of raw energy emerged out of a sea of random quantum fluctuations and expanded into the universe. "larger questions of meaning and purpose go well beyond science – in other words, science cannot make sense of itself: why is science possible at all?" And here we have the biggest blunder of religious thought, mistaking entirely subjective notions with universal truth. Meaning and purpose do not go beyond science, humans are capable of perceiving two realities, both a physical and conceptual world. That non mechanical first cause mentioned earlier is part of a third manifestation of reality which we are only capable of just barely deducing the existence of, the idea that things have a meaning or purpose is entirely subjective. Only a sentient being can ascribe meaning or purpose to something, a belief in God allows you to project those conceptual notions into the natural world as objective facts ordained by god. it bypasses the question of that third non mechanical manifestation entirely, offers no explanation for it, and instead conflates our subjective reality with metaphysical law. "The laws of nature ‘have a character that seems to point the enquirer beyond what science itself is capable of telling, making a materialist acceptance of them as unexplained brute facts an intellectually unsatisfying stance to take’ I totally agree with that, but as I explained religion does no better a job than science, and works contrary to both scientific and metaphysical efforts by conflating our subjective world with a world we cannot even perceive. Religion in it's modern form is not a means to explaining the natural world but rather a tool of social engineering which turns man made sentiments and ideals into universal law.* And as for catholicism not being truly christian, that can be argued either way, because they are technically a sect of christianity but also they have deviated from the original christianity and built their own traditions and moral system. Almost no one on this planet is practicing christianity in it's purest form but no christian sect is more separated from it then the catholics and mormons.