Scientific morality: Its basic problem is that we care about moral matters and not about scientific ones. Leave aside “science” so far as it is a social activity seeking grants or falling into groupthink and we could contradict most of its conclusions tomorrow and no one would care. Contradicting what people consider moral is not met with the same thrill.
The other basic problem: Without God there is no Hell, without hell there is no consequence to concupiscence that is proportionate to concupiscence itself. Anything short of the infinite is a price we’d be willing to pay.
The Galileo Myth: The necessity of the myth is not to show how science is right while religion is wrong but that one could care about science as much as a religion. Look there! We would suffer in prison for science! To take this seriously and compare the house arrest of a cranky old Italian to even a minor martyr is, well, just funny.
Science, giver of values: people point to skepticism, careful inquiry, following the evidence, correcting cognitive bias etc., but it’s clear that “scientific values” means two different and more fundamental things: (a) that basic values can only be mechanical urges and that anything else falls somewhere between being vaguely “emergent” and magical woo and (b.) the values that really sell it are its power to make Ipods, birth control, big screen TV’s etc. While (a) is more fundamental, (b) is more necessary since it is the only thing that makes (a) even a short term possibility by compensating the lower desires when we deny the higher ones.
Apples to apples: In looking at the Inquisition, we’re all trained to take it as some magical insight into the true nature of religion, so much so that Christian apologists feel the need to explain how the Inquisition wasn’t that bad. But where is this pseudo insight coming from? Is the Manhattan project the same insight into science? As long as we just get to assume without proof that some event in the vast store of events about X is a paradigm, representative sample of the whole X, both seem just as fair – but it would be hard to find something more ironic than that someone would call this science.