You seem to think I'm trying to say that religion is just as good or better at advancing scientific research than pure naturalism. That's not the case at all.
I really don't know what you're saying, because much of it is seemingly contradictory or not related to what I said. For instance, if I said that science is mostly the result of naturalism, as opposed to religion, & you say that is untrue, then how are you not saying that religion is just as good as or better than advancing science? You seem to keep referring to the fact that I used the term "inspire," but when taken in context, I don't see how my usage was confusing. It's also kind of Forest for the Trees territory.
It is also not true that all of the pseudoscience is totally irrelevant to the point. Pseudoscience detracts from "real" science by being unscientific but presenting itself as science, suppressing & obscuring the more legitimate information. This is especially the case when it is thought of as credible. "Their hearts were in the right place" doesn't change that objective fact.
If we're going to try to qualify the sum total contribution of religion to science, which is admittedly a nebulous debate prone to generalizations & confusion of terms, then we can't just look at the pro-science parts. That's only considering half of the story, & obviously if we're only paying attention to the scientific developments, then we're going to come to the conclusion that religion was beneficial to the development of science by definition. Or, back to using addition as a metaphor, we can't just take only the "positives" & ignore the "negatives," because the negatives change the answer.
And this includes throwing out any answer that couldn't be construed as leading towards GAWD.
TBH, I'm not sure where I stand on the overall question of whether science and religion are inherently enemies or not. What I do know is that modern religious institutions and movements need to leave the science to the scientists. But I also believe in giving credit where credit is due, and in the past religious people and institutions have played an important part in moving science forward.
I can't conceive of a purely scientific religion. Again, it seems that the more you commit to naturalism & empirical explanation, the more the "religious" aspect shrinks, until you either stop trying to mix them, or the religious part disappears altogether, & you're just left with science.
I believe in giving both credit & blame where it is due.