PZ has stepped up to the plate, with a numbered list of Christianity’s sins against science. The one that sticks in my throat the most from his list (although they all more or less get to me,) is his number 1, theft:

Atheists know this one on a daily basis: Tornado demolishes home, tearful survivor comes before news cameras and “thanks God” that she was spared. Football player scores goal, drops to knees and praises god for his touchdown. Cancer patient goes into remission, lies in bed surrounded by his expensive, highly trained medical team, calls it a miracle. What religion does is steal human accomplishment and bestows it on a fickle imaginary being. Modern medicine is not a product of religion, it’s the highly refined outcome of years of empirical science, yet people still babble about miracles and prayers.

It’s not so much a sin against science as it is a sin against humanity. Sure medical science is an area of human achievement that is often appropriated by the religious as a miracle, but it’s far from the only one; works of art, strength of will, even basic kindness are frequently spoken of as though they come directly from God rather than the actual person or people involved in the act. A corollary to this is a sin that PZ missed (presumably because it doesn’t really apply to science):

guilt: Not only does religion take credit for all of it’s adherents successes, but it pushes all the responsibility for their failures right back onto them (not forgetting the failures of their all ancestors, ever). How many sportsmen do you hear criticising God for not giving them the skill or determination to score a winning goal when they’ve lost? How many down-​and-​outs curse God for not turning their life around and giving them the drive to make something of themselves? None. Of all the features of Christianity, it’s that utterly unequal (and after the fact) apportioning of blame and credit that angers me the most.

As a (somewhat) aside, Mike The Mad Biologist has an interesting point by point response to PZ from the perspective of his own beliefs, which is well worth a look. I do, however want to take issue with his example of “good faith”:

Most movements that have led to profound change were not forgone conclusions, and require incredible faith–that is, an irrational belief that right would will out in the face of extensive oppression–to sustain them (e.g., the civil rights movement). In retrospect, many such movements appear inevitable, but it certainly didn’t look that way to those engaged in those movements at the time. So, some ‘faiths’ are not bad.

If change was not a foregone conclusion — and I’m inclined to agree — if it didn’t look inevitable at the time, then I don’t see how you can talk about those people as having faith that right would out. It seems to me that they had was hope that they could overcome the odds and a conviction that it was worth putting it all on the line in the attempt. In fact surely, if they had faith that right would out, then they’d have been less inclined to make a stand; why risk everything when you have faith that things will turn out OK? No — what those embattled agents of social change had is the opposite of faith: they had the knowledge that things wouldn’t just turn out alright, and that it takes the voice and the actions and the sacrifice — sometimes the ultimate sacrifice — of people of conviction to even stand a chance of changing the world for the better.