But it's not. All you have done is exposed the lie behind your facade of tolerance for religious belief, because you are tacitly denying the validity of people's beliefs. Not the accuracy of their beliefs, but the fact that they ACTUALLY DO believe that.

A point I made numerous times on the WoTMB is that the ultimate temporal religious authority doing something does not make it okay for everyone else to do it. The Church's role in medieval society was justified to the extent that it was, because they possessed divine authority, apostolic succession from the men ordained by God to teach His truths, and actual theological power. For the White Tower to attempt to hold the same role, without possessing, or even claiming to possess those things is not remotely just as acceptable. Especially for a Roman Catholic, which was a point you seemed to miss when you cited the former as an example of why the latter is so.

As far as Muslim "curbstomping" goes, they hammered on first the decadent moderates who kept making heretical compromises with the Faith such as the monophysites, manicheans, monothelites, arians, nestorians and the like. It was the stubborn intolerant old Westerners who stopped the advance at Tours, and refused to be conquered in Asturias. And it was Christian science that cooked the Arab navy at Constantinople. In subsequent years, the Muslims (mostly Turkish nomads) advanced against the most advanced and educated city in Christendom, while the descendants of "thirty barbarians squatting on a rock" advanced against the urbane and sophisticated society of Al-Andalus. The Crusaders got "curbstomped" at the far end of an extremely long logistics train, and because their leaders kept being diverted by worldly goals like taking over Antioch. Aside from that, the only really one-sided Islamic dominance took place in the Balkans, the intellectual & cultural backwater of Christendom, the Appalachians of Europe. And, again, it was the Turks doing all that, not the Arabs, who shot their bolt centuries before.

The idea that we're going to run out of that stuff is kind of arrogant, and scientifically suspect. An economist made a bet with Paul Ehrlich that the reserves of any ten natural resources Ehrlich cared to name would INCREASE over the coming decade, rather than be depleted. He won. Pseudo science points out how much of the Earth's surface is covered by water to indicate the inevitability of running out of resources. Sane people know that we get most natural resources from UNDER the surface, and that this ball of rock is so enormous we can barely tell it's a ball from here. To go out in extremely hazardous and expensive conditions to dig into much smaller pieces of rock is kind of ludicrous.
The CIA?

In theory. In reality, "three hundred pounds per annum spent/On making brain and body meeter/For all the murderous intent/Compromised in villainous saltpeter...No proposition Euclid wrote/No formulae the text-books know/Will turn the bullet from your coat/Or ward the tulwar's downward blow"

Robert Jordan did not have primitive ignoramuses repeatedly defeat the Forsaken, products of the epitome of education and scientific knowledge because he was an fundamentalist Bible-thumper, but because he probably had observed enough of the world to see that's how it goes. Shallow idiots who major in creative writing think education wins wars. People who read history like George RR Martin, Robert Jordan, Robert Howard, JRR Tolkien and Frank Herbert tend to write books where the barbarians win. Practical experience makes the Modern Major General a figure of derision and parody, instead of the ideal of education.

All of your diatribe on science is not too far off...but you are dogmatically assuming that YOUR vision of science is going to be the accurate and successful one. In all the objections and criticisms regarding global warming, I have NEVER heard the one about God promising never to flood the world, and had I the opportunity to think about it for half a second, I'd probably have offered your exact retort out of pure contrariness. But then, I make it a point not to listen to the exact sort of people who would say stuff like that, assuming they exist outside of liberal masturbation fantasies where they serve as strawman opponents.

I'm curious how someone who seems to believe that profits are evil because he thinks commerce is a zero-sum game can possibly believe that improving the capabilities of ignorant people can redound to the benefits of the rest of us. Zero-sum game means that if your view of the difficulties that result from ignorance is true, the rest of us will have less trouble from them.