God... Truth or fiction?

Lelya, I completely disagree.
Firstly, you criticized the money, but I think everyone understands that I didn't mean numismatists, but people who know how to earn and love to spend money, in general, to live well.
Secondly, concepts such as honor, responsibility, nobility, and duty appeared long before the emergence of world religions. And a person would still become a person (I won't explain, Darwin has long since done this), and the first tool was invented by a person without Christianity, Islam, or Buddhism. But there are many examples in history where religion hindered progress, especially in the Middle Ages. For example, the astronomer Giordano Bruno, who, by the way, believed in God and was, in essence, a theologian. At our university, there was an entire course called "Science and Religion," and possible spaceflights were strongly condemned by all religions because a person could see God, but, in fact, no one saw him after flying there.

"Religion is the enemy of science. Representatives of religion, especially the Catholic Church, have always persecuted science - they burned Giordano Bruno, persecuted Galileo and Copernicus for defending the scientific truth of the Earth revolving around the Sun."

The fact that religion is not an enemy of science is already evident from the fact that the vast majority of scientists are believers. Let us recall that Catholic priests and monks make up almost a tenth of the most outstanding astronomers. Among them is the Catholic monk-Jesuit Father Secchi, the founder of an important branch of astronomy - astrophysics, which deals with determining the composition of stars.

The same can be observed in other fields of science. Such a modern science as genetics is based on a Catholic priest, a monk of the Order of St. Augustine, Father Mendel. Anyone seriously involved in zoology knows the name of Wasmann, an expert on the world of ants and termites - he was also a Catholic priest-Jesuit. Modern philologists are well aware of the name of the French Catholic priest, Father Rousselot, known for his work in the field of phonetics. The multi-volume works of the most learned Swiss missionary, Father Wilhelm Schmidt, a monk of the Steyler Order, made a valuable contribution to the study of the peoples of Africa and overturned many incorrect concepts in the field of ethnology.

No one denies that in the Middle Ages, monasteries were centers of scientific activity; atheists even accuse the Church of allegedly monopolizing science and thereby delaying its development. In reality, it turned out that precisely where science was concentrated in monasteries, it outpaced other countries and brilliantly prepared for further scientific achievements that followed this period.

The accusations that representatives of the Church fought against the views of certain thinkers are also unfair. Giordano Bruno was condemned not for adhering to the heliocentric system and rejecting the doctrine of the Earth being at the center of the world. He was condemned for violating the foundations of Christian doctrine, such as the divinity of Christ, the reality of the miracles He performed, and so on. Such facts do not relate to the essence of religion. History shows that even godless governments severely deal with their opponents. These facts are generally not related to the persecution of scientific views.

Regarding Copernicus, it is known that he did not suffer any repression for his teachings. He was a Catholic priest (a member of the cathedral chapter) and was respected by the higher clergy. This alone refutes the talk that his theory was hostile to Christian doctrine. There was nothing in Copernicus's book that contradicted Christian doctrine. Opponents of Copernicus believed that his views did not coincide with the then interpretation of the Holy Scriptures because, with the medieval state of science, the Bible was understood quite primitively. In reality, the Bible does not aim to establish any astronomical system but speaks of the universe in images and concepts contemporary to humanity.

The rejection of the heliocentric system by Catholic scientists in the 16th-17th centuries was, of course, their mistake; but the mistake of scientists is by no means proof of the hostility of religion or the Church to science and scientific progress. The opponents of Copernicus fought against it because they considered the old system scientifically proven, and Copernicus's views were an unfounded hypothesis. From their point of view, they were defending science, not hindering it. When Copernicus's theory was scientifically proven, no representative of the Church objected to it anymore.

In general, the assimilation of new theories rarely goes smoothly: most scientists find it difficult to abandon familiar ideas, and they often diligently defend old views until their inconsistency is definitively proven. Let us recall the almost half-century-long disputes of physicists about the heating of substances: the old material theory taught that the heating of substances occurs due to the presence of a special lightweight substance - phlogiston; the new theory claimed that such a substance does not exist. The dispute ended only after the complete inconsistency of the old theory was proven by the experiment of melting two pieces of ice by rubbing them against each other, without touching any objects "rich in phlogiston."

The famous naturalist Liebig was reluctant to believe in Pasteur's discoveries that microbes are the cause of human diseases. He even compared Pasteur's theories to the absurd assertion that the water in the river moves as a result of the rotation of mill wheels. And yet, Pasteur's discoveries made it possible to put medicine on a new basis and save the lives of many people. From the point of view of atheists, it turns out that Liebig should also be included among the enemies of science, hindering its development.

The persecution of Galileo is indeed a historical fact. But the enemies of the Church, telling about it, distort the facts. In reality, Galileo was only asked not to promote his views. And this measure was taken partly because of Galileo's restless character, who demanded that the church authorities condemn his opponents. There are absolutely no indications that Galileo was subjected to torture; the question may only be whether he was threatened with it. And the phrase attributed to him: "And yet it moves!" is a pure fiction.

In general, in our time, it is as unreasonable and unfair to reproach the Church for what happened more than three hundred years ago as if we were to accuse the modern government of the United States for the cruel treatment of blacks during slavery or the modern government of England for the cruel anti-Catholic laws of the past.

Moreover, even under atheistic governments, the most famous scientists (for example, Academician N. I. Vavilov) were condemned and repressed, despite their scientific merits, for the fact that their research contradicted the doctrines of the party. Knowing this, other scientists closed themselves off, withdrawing from scientific activity. From all that has been said, it is clear that the dominant atheism hinders science to a much greater extent than the dominant religion ever limited it.
Well, that's it.

And regarding love - you can call a pot a frying pan as much as you like, but it won't become smaller. If God gave love only to those who believe in him... I think that would be unfair, don't you agree?
A rocket will not care whether you are heavy or not, on the moon, no one will weigh anything (from the cartoon "Neзнайка on the Moon")