Key point: although it was the only game in town
This view seems to assume that had it not been there then something else would have filled the same role in the same way. We have plenty of evidence form human society that this is in no way true. Almost all human societies have had no similar game in town.
I'm simply objecting to the idea that says "if it wasn't for religion, we wouldn't have science".
That to me is just obviously wrong.
If someone says "we
wouldn't have modern science", I'd agree. This is rarely the argument being made though (outside of apologist circles anyway). The argument is that it is quite plausible that we would not have developed it, at least in the same time frame, had it not been for specific influences from religion (view of nature, view of human cognition, funding, mass education in natural philosophy, increased literacy, preservation and transmission of scientific texts, social prestige for those working on 'useless' (i.e. non-productive) ideas, personal motivation to study, progressive view of history, etc).
Any values that can be created in one belief system can obviously be created in another. The assumption that they would have appeared at the same time or faster without Western religion is not supported by any real logic though.
We have plenty of evidence that this combination of beliefs were not common in human societies and there is no teleology to human history that says they must be created in any limited timeframe though.
If you play poker and get a royal flush in your 10th hand that is something that is very unlikely. It is possible next time you play that you get one in even fewer hands, it's certainly not probable though.
There seem to be 2 broad ways of looking at the issue:
1) What were the unique and contingent conditions that made possible the emergence and persistence of the modern concept of science? (Why did it emerge in a particular time and place given the many thousands of other societies that could have 'invented' it but didn't, and why did it catch on rather than disappearing like other intellectual fads with minimal practical benefit
at that time?)
2) Given its inevitability and intrinsically progressive nature, what are the factors that have inhibited or slowed down the development of science and the scientific mind? (As a 'natural' activity it should have appeared earlier, who is to blame?)
The argument that religion significantly contributed to the development is based on 1, proponents of the Conflict Thesis myth seem to assume number 2. Number 2 is a bit too much like Divine Providence for my liking though. There is no reason why any ideological system must necessarily develop.
If 1 is true, the it becomes quite easy to note the contributions of religion to the development of modern science.
People came up with it, whatever their motivation might have been. And clearly it doesn't "require" religious underpinnings either. It isn't dependent on it in any way, shape or form.
It doesn't require religious underpinnings, but it does require underpinnings. Many of these were provided by religion.
It's perfectly fair to note that there is no need for this in modernity, but historically, something had to provide them and that something was the Christian tradition and institutions (although not solely these, there were other inputs too).