Tell me, what makes this wrong.

[Belacqua]

Does this statement apply to all religious people of all time everywhere? Or are you thinking of some specific subset. 

Because obviously there have been many brilliant religious people who have written critically and well, about ideas within their own religion, as well as about materialist consumerist society.

For example, Kitaro Nishida believed in God, and wrote perceptive, deeply learned books about how the concepts of Zen Buddhism illuminate certain concepts from Heidegger's work. Do you feel that Nishida's religion made him unable to practice critical thought?

You're putting words into my mouth. I never said all religious people are incapable of critical thought but the entire premise of strictly believing a set of teachings as absolute truth that can't be revised and don't hold up to current scientific knowledge is the antithesis of critical thought. Science, on the other hand, is ever changing based on the constant stream of discoveries and data. Sailors used to think that St. Elmo's fire (a blue glow on the masts of ships during a thunderstorm) was a sign of salvation by the saint because it occurred near the end of the storm but now with science we know it's a corona discharge that occurs when there is a significant imbalance of electrical charge causing molecules to tear apart. 

Furthermore, Trumpism politics are very much a culture of anti-science and dangerous. Not accepting science leads to beliefs like the antivaccine movement and not accepting global warming.

OK, I see what you mean.

When you say that "religion is the antithesis of critical thought," you don't mean religion per se. Because obviously there are and have been many many religious people who are capable of critical thought. 

What you mean, if I'm reading you right, is that "strictly believing a set of teachings as absolute truth that can't be revised and don't hold up to current scientific knowledge" is bad. This of course I agree with.

All of us should keep in mind that we may be wrong, all of us should be most critical of our own beliefs, because, as the man said, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."

Actually I'm not sure you should say that about "don't hold up to current scientific knowledge." Because after all current scientific knowledge may well change. History shows that science progresses through changing and improving its conclusions. So being critical of current scientific knowledge is an important part of critical thought in our era. (This is not to say that science is bad, only that one must not accept it uncritically.)