Do you believe that organized religion is an impediment to scientific knowledge?

Religion, yes. Spirituality, no. Spirituality IS scientific.

I am religious and understand science as investigations to expand knowledge. Science doesn't lie to us. It develops as new evidence comes up. I recognize that even as I can't possibly understand all of God's thoughts, I cannot expect science to know everything either

Religion and science are not polar opposites. They do not serve the same purpose. Science tells us how (as best as we can figure it out) the universe works. Religion tells us why. The problem is when they cross into each other's lanes. Folks on both sides do this a lot.

Separation of religion and state are a major issue in this argument. I'll simply state that it was Government and their control of power that persecuted scientific research. So long as Government isn't in charge of religions and religions have no control over Government it is a very minor issue. When religions are separate from Government this isn't really ever a significant issue.

Hey, don't me the Catholic church is hindering scientific investigation. The Pope admitted Galileo was right!
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/31/world/after-350-years-vatican-says-galileo-was-right-it-moves.html

Incidentally, everyone always yaks about Darwin for evolution, leaving out booth Huxley, as well as Gregor Mendel, the latter being work of considerably more quantitative and objective caliber, just an observation, many thanks.

I disagree with what was said below that science is a religion, having been, though now VA approved as total perm disabled recently, extensively trained to be one. There are definite phiosophic differences between a science and a religion, though the concept of scientific dogma, as opposed to a religious dogma, is, of course, a relevant philosophic point. That being said, religion is a purely human construct, created both as a means of ethically indoctrinating kids, as well as to create an ethical framework for adult existence. Theology, however , is an altogether different matter, the concept of deity, as I'd mentioned elsewhere on the site here recently, has, in fact, very valid scientific basis in fact. The word "belief", however, is, in my view, inconsistent with science, as well as needlessly metaphysical in its conceptualizations and associated precepts. The word "convinced", is, at least to my way of thinking, admittedly, far more apt as a descriptive, whether scientifcmor otherwise, as well as far more objective as a pedagogical concept. There was an excellent paper by Konrad Zuse, a German ww2 computer scientist, now little known, on the concept of the universe as a computer, with recent mention on the site here of the universe being quite possibly experimentally verifiable as an actual hologram, per se. Anyone considering such questions, should, I think, read the paper by Zuse, it is available online, I have seen it. Also, sainthood, which I have made a study of, as well as of comparative religion, has very real and concrete scientific basis in fact, in terms of the lack of corruption in human remains of saints, as has been witnessed and dcumented many times throughout history. However, while I've read many religious treatises, as well as existened such disciplines as epistemology, the concept of miracles and or a human actually being divine are, I am afraid, aspects of which I am, unfortunately, not yet convinced. Deity in general, certainly, the only accurate definition of deity, the only one sufficiently all encompassing, is the sum of all minds everywhere, not merely on earth, on other civilizations elsewhere, which will inevitably be found, that, I think as with dismissing the flat earth concept, is now only a matter of time, a when, not an if, by all means, to think otherwise bynthe human race would now be absurdly egocentric as well as ethnocentric, I should think. All of the major religious figures, at least from the standpoint of their ethical philosophies, have been, pretty uniformly, brilliant, however, I will not focus on any one as being a central dogma for huiman existence either. I tend to pick and choose, accepting certain viewpoints, while dismissing others. Science has nothing whatever to do with religion, to my way of thinking, other than as a philosophy for the objective evaluation of evidence. There is a mathematical theorem by the logician Kurt Godel, to the effect that nothing, essentially, is provable, only disprovable. I can explain more if desired ,espec about such topics as quantum mechanics, if desired, however, neither that, nor any other theory is suitable, in my view, for consideration from a religious standpoint, though, that is, of course, my own viewpoint, certainly. Also, any deity must, of necessity have two principal abilities, telepathy, and psychokinesis. However, I think it the monumental height of human hubris to think that the deity is at all concerned with the everyday goings on of the human race. And, if there is a deity here, then all other civilizations, on all other planets, must also have a deity hence, they must all be the same deity, for one to exist at all, any other view, to my mind, would essentially be reductio ad absurdum, if you will. I hope that was of interest, do not expect to be agreed with, by any means, by anyone, and would be eager for anyu thoughts, hoping that all of the foregoing at least helps engender discussion, if nothing else, many thanks.

Some versions, especially the fundamentalists in Christianity, Islam, etc. are absolutely an impediment to the pursuit of scientific knowledge.

Well brother, how about you check into whether Isaac Newton, Gregor Mendel, Mark Hopkins, and Immanuel Kant found religion to be an impediment to scientific knowledge, and then we can talk about it?

There is tension where there are overlapping factual claims, but they aren't inherently or always in conflict. Science, for example, has nothing to say about the nature of gods or souls, i.e., whether they exist or not, what properties they'd have if they did exist, etc.. Organized religions, by contrast, often insist on having scriptural accounts concerning the natural world treated as fact, even when abundant scientific evidence exists to the contrary. But this isn't always the case.

Some believing scientists - Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins come to mind, as well as the late Theodosius Dobzhanski, who said "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution,"- see no conflict. And the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) makes it quite clear on its website that science and religion need not conflict.

Of course, Intelligent Design is actually pseudoscience. ID proponents and institutions like the Discovery Institute have yet to offer data to support their claims, relying instead on assertions and superficially appealing claims without offering evidence to support them. Postulating irreducible complexity and couching claims in scientific jargon is all well and good, but if there isn't any way of testing the claims according to the scientific method, there's really nothing to study. And even design proponents freely admit to wanting a looser definition of science so their ideas appear to have merit. In any case, the point is that unresolved philosophical differences do not suggest equivalency with regard to actual science.