Ummmm, I am deeply religious. I am also a syncretic, believing a mix of Christian, Buddhist, Taoist, and Shinto ideas.

It isn't deeply religious vs heretic. It's deeply religious vs nonreligious.

That said, Isaac Newton basically made "gravity" when science of the time already had a theory for why objects fall (protip: it has to do with mass in much the same way as buoyancy). He was a hack who pushed fake science to convince us all that water that curves and sits upside-down like it does in round Earth theories makes sense.
That his theories were accepted had less to do with him testing them or being right, and more to do with the secular powers wanted to push globalism.

And unfortunately, I have seen too often the sort of "intellectual" atheist, who not ironically has a lot to do with the violent thugs of the French Revolution.

That seems true. A lot of inventions have precursors. They follow along on centuries of slow development.

I agree that Aristotle was held in too much esteem; eventually the innovators of the Enlightenment left him behind. I appreciate your understanding of history; let me ask you (to me) a related question. I posit that history states that many of the so-called "innovations" of the High Middle Ages actually had their foundation in the the ponderous and sometimes incremental discoveries and extensions of the early Middle Ages, many in the early universities formed in Europe. When does one "claim" that an invention was "developed", for example, the telescope, patented in Holland in 1608, when clearly the precursor development of optics, with lenses available to the Assyrians in the 700's, etc. led to it's final form? The Greeks made mention of the atom- do they deserve credit for the atomic bomb? When is a precursor invention no longer a precursor? Just a thought.

Yes, that does seem to be the case. However they relied on Aristotle too much. In his own time there were many other theories (some of them better). Many were just acceptable though since they couldn't be fit into Christian thought (even doing that with Aristotle is difficult).

But underlying assumptions regarding the Unmoved Mover were, as I understand it, were considered "scientific" by his great mind, and others. We might call it a "God of the Gaps" fallacy today, but unexplained order, especially in the fields of astronomy or cosmology was a foundational assumption that presumed an answer, albeit incomplete, could eventually be found.

I agree. He wrote widely on religion too however. I'm not sure that was considered scientific even then.

I agree. I don't see LB's objection here. It seems there's a forced false dichotomy, or feigned continuum between either "Voltaire and the RC Church." Arianism is still a (heretical) form of Christianity- as opposed to Buddhism or atheism, for instance- and I'm not quite sure how Newton's heresy refutes the article at hand. Newton also searched for the Philosopher's Stone, and it is well known he studied occult sciences. Overall, his interest was, as best he could muster in the 17th century, purely scientific.

Even more an honest representation of the Reformation and Counter Reformation, untainted by the historian fallacy.

Total BS, even if you just consider the Umayyad conquest of Spain alone, not to mention the Balkan, Sicilian, and extremely barbaric Mughal invasions and repression of native Christian and other cultures during your so-called "Golden Age." Indian populations were reduced by 75%, the greatest genocide in human history. Christians not persecuted till the 12th century? Do you consider us totally ignorant of history? This is an idiotic representation of militaristic and typically brutal invasion of other lands by Muslim conquerors, unalloyed by "tradition in new and 'wondrous' ways." Screw you.