As someone who is both Catholic and a software engineer, I find quite the opposite - people today are all too quick to villainize religion in general and Catholics in particular. I see people point out short comings that make up a relatively minor percentage of Church's history and impact on society, and completely leave out things like the preservation of Classical works, expenditures on science, the development of the university system, the creation (at least in the West) of hospitals and orphanages. It is no mere splitting of hairs - religious people are flawed as all people are, but nonetheless have lots to be proud of.
Moreover, there are tangible costs to going against the grain of secular science: loss of livelihood, others refusing to publish your work, isolation. Often it's not that you've "earned" it, there's plenty of examples of the scientific consensus recently being wrong (or at least stating positions that are too strong), with consumption of certain kinds of fats being my favorite example.
>As someone who is both Catholic and a software engineer, I find quite the opposite
I find that religious people find persecution everywhere (war on Christmas for example) where it doesn't exist. Its probably difficult not to considering how protective we are to things near and dear to us. Perhaps you should consider that you are not an impartial viewer here.
>loss of livelihood, others refusing to publish your work, isolation.
Which is much better than torture, death, etc. I think you're making my argument for me. We both seem to agree that when theocracies are in charge, life is much, much worse. The secular scientific system is far from perfect, but in every single way better than the theocratic one.
I find it to be incredibly dismissive when presented with a list of great Catholic scientists throughout history, detractors brush that aside by essentially saying "Well, they had no choice but to pretend to be Catholic back then!"
What these scientists thought about their religion is often documented, but the detractors don't care to read any further as it might hurt their argument.
In reality, the enthusiasm for science in Catholicism comes from the knowledge that because the universe is created with a purpose, you can be confident that you will be able to find answers. There will be nothing capricious, arbitrary, or futile about the endeavor.
The great irony is the Big Bang theory is often given as a scientific alternative to the idea of a creator. Edwin Hubble usually gets the credit for it but it was actually Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest.
I'd argue that curiosity that leads to science predates all religion and is built into our dna via evolution. I think projecting cultural motivators for natural motivation is questionable. In another culture you'd say Islam was a motivator for science and you'd be just as wrong. The evidence we have shows that this is a natural part of being human and would come about in any culture- and has! Our most innovating culture, the ancient Greeks, were pagans with relatively low levels of religiosity for example. Religious belief really has no bearing on curiosity and innovation but theocratic structures can, and do, hold back progress.
> knowledge that because the universe is created with a purpose, you can be confident that you will be able to find answers
Except the deeper we go down the more complex and chaotic things seem. The simplistic Newtonian age and doctors who just had to "rebalance" humors are long dead. I think your assumption here is fairly bewildering.
>they had no choice but to pretend to be Catholic back then!
Just because it bothers you doesn't make it any less true. Historically, most people didn't have a choice in religion. Apostasy was a serious crime in Christian soceities up until recently and still is in many parts of the middle east.
Islam at times has been a motivator for science and other intellectual endeavors. I don't need to be from another culture to say that, and I'm not wrong.
What actually bothers me is that what I said was true, yet some people are unwilling to take even a superficial look at the evidence.
The detractors like to project the current cultural climate onto history, when in reality, this perception of conflict between science and religion wasn't around before the staged Scopes trial in the 1930's.
Moreover, there are tangible costs to going against the grain of secular science: loss of livelihood, others refusing to publish your work, isolation. Often it's not that you've "earned" it, there's plenty of examples of the scientific consensus recently being wrong (or at least stating positions that are too strong), with consumption of certain kinds of fats being my favorite example.