I won’t get too hooked into this because I’ve covered a lot of it in the “Religion vs Science" thread and I’ve pretty well reached my conclusions. I would be interested in any actual evidence for what you’re saying, like, “Even many 19th-century Christian communities welcomed scientists who claimed that science was not at all concerned with discovering the ultimate nature of reality." What communities? And it sounds like a conditional welcome, much like what the Pope said in the 13th century, that is, go ahead and do science, just stay away from “ultimate" reality, i.e. God.
Without prejudice, as I am irreligious, from the wiki here
Unlike conservative varieties of Christianity, or Orthodox Christianity (whether one speaks here of Catholicism, Protestantism, or the Eastern Churches), liberalism began with no unified set of propositional beliefs. Instead, "liberalism" from the start embraced the methodologies of Enlightenment science as the basis for interpreting the Bible, life, faith and theology. Consequently, liberal Christianity almost immediately rejected tenets of Christianity having to do with supernaturalism and divine intervention in history.
Does science have a ethical core?
It has been argued that the supposition that modern science had an ethical core was undermined by events such as WWI and WWII, where the most scientifically advanced civilizations devastated one another and carried out massive war crimes.
Interpretation of the Bible:
Liberal Christianity looks upon the Bible as a collection of narratives that explain, epitomize, or symbolize the essence and significance of Christian understanding. Thus, most liberal Christians do not regard the Bible as inerrant, but believe Scripture to be "inspired" in the same way a poem is said to be "inspired" and passed down by humans.
I am not defending Christianity, but it is a fact that not all Christians are bigots.
The second half your post is all opinion, and really irrelevant to the debate. The key to your argument is “religions have historically integrated well with scientific ideas", but that ignores that religion or some kind of myth developed with almost all early civilizations. Separating them and understanding which is cause and which is affect is almost impossible. What is traceable are laws and norms and how they were enforced and philosophies that challenged them and changed them. Show me anything that demonstrates what happened to technology as Rome fell, or as the Muslim Empire weakened and what was said and done to bring technology back.
The best you’ve got is that people who called themselves religious were part of the change. But you don’t show how the principles of those religions led to the principles of science.
It was not my opinion as they were all quotations from the wiki. What was interesting in the wiki is that we cannot disentangle philosophy, science and religion in the historical context of any human civilization.
IOW, all three developed, evolved and interacted together, for better or for worse.
FWIW, from this wiki here
Roger Bacon (c.1214–1294): He was an English philosopher who emphasized empiricism and has been presented as one of the earliest advocates of the modern scientific method. He joined the Franciscan Order around 1240, where he was influenced by Grosseteste. Bacon was responsible for making the concept of "laws of nature" widespread, and contributed in such areas as mechanics, geography and, most of all, optics.
William of Ockham:
William of Ockham (c.1285–c.1350): He was an English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher. He is a major figure of medieval thought and was at the center of the major intellectual and political controversies of his time. Commonly known for Occam's razor, the scientific/methodological principle of parsimony that contributed to theory choice in the scientific method, he also produced significant works on logic, physics, and theology.
Jean Buridan (c.1300–c.1358): He was a Catholic priest and one of the most influential philosophers of the later Middle Ages. He developed the theory of impetus, which was an important step toward the modern concept of inertia.
Nicholas of Cusa:
Nicholas of Cusa (1401–1464): Catholic cardinal and theologian who made contributions to the field of mathematics by developing the concepts of the infinitesimal and of relative motion. His philosophical speculations also anticipated Copernicus’ heliocentric world-view.
Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543): Catholic canon who introduced a heliocentric world view. In 1616, in connection with the Galileo affair, this work was forbidden by the Church "until corrected". Nine sentences representing heliocentricism as certain had to be either omitted or changed. This done, the reading of the book was allowed.
Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, Gottfried Leibniz, Issac Newton, Thomas Bayes, Emanuel Swedenborg, Carolus Linnaeus, Leonhard Euler, Daniel Bernoulli,
Antoine Lavoisier, Luigi Galvani, Joseph Priestley, Charles-Augustin de Coulomb, Alessandro Volta,
Jean-Babtiste Lamarck, Andre Marie Ampere, John Dalton, Bernard Bolzano, George Boole, Michael Faraday, Charles Babbage, James Clerk maxwell, Gregor Mendel, Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann, James Prescott Joule, Heinrich Hertz, Louis Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, Henri Becquerel, Georg Cantor, Lord Rayleigh, Dimitri Ergorov, Arthur Eddington, John Ambrose Flemming, Max Planck, Arthur Compton, Georges Lamaitre, Lise Meitner, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Werner Heisenberg, Wernher von Braun, Kurt Godel, Alonzo Church etc.