He is the definition of fun police. Also the murder, starvation and general oppression of indigenous populations.
some added context
Technically he is not directly responsible for all of these things but in all cases played some role. Death to the great man theory of history and so on.
Pointing to specific instances of scientific development and religious interference with scientific development does not create an argument. You have to add analysis that places these examples within their respective historical, political, economic, and cultural contexts. Then use that to support a defensible claim.
Regardless, none of your examples address the core of my argument which was, to clarify, that investment in abstract sciences originates from specific economic necessities rooted in the dominant mode of production rather than ideological dispositions. The existing ideological perspectives surrounding scientific development form as political and social justification for the meeting of those material economic needs. Not the other way around.