Atheism

First off, let me clarify that I'm an agnostic atheist and a pluralist. Naturalistic determinism seems to make the most sense to me, but from a social standpoint, compatibilism seems like the best option.

It would be ignorant to assume that all who believe in God lack critical thinking skills. But belief in God does imply that those skills are not being applied consistently.

Some religions do not have gods, and some are atheistic. Furthermore, polytheistic religions can offer explanations and models for the world that fit what we experience (see Ocean Keltoi on YouTube). I'm currently of the opinion that what we experience with our limited senses/tools is all there is to our reality (how would I know differently?), but I think it would be foolish to assume that our senses are synonymous with all of reality.

You say this is an essay about religion vs. science, but from the get-go, it seems that when you say religion, what you really mean is monotheism.

Let’s address the elephant in the room. Most religious belief is emotional, not philosophical.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to justify this claim. First, I think what you mean to say is that most people who follow a particular religion do so for emotional reasons, but given the varied religions throughout the centuries that do not necessarily promise afterlives or operate upon fear, it is hard to justify why people pick Mysticism over Druidry, Wicca over Heathenry, Daoism over Zen Buddhism, etc.

You might want to cite a source here.

Even if religious belief were somehow compatible with scientific reasoning (and it isn’t), we would still be left with the undeniable fact that religion has caused more harm than good throughout history.

Which religion? Religion is not a monolith. Again, I think you mean monotheism (and probably a particular kind). I don't recall a single time in history when witches murdered entire populations for not practicing magic. Furthermore, religions like Druidry have a history of seeking wisdom and knowledge; they got a lot wrong, but in a sense, they are early practitioners of science.

If you're going to say religion in general is a net negative, you should point to examples where it has been beneficial and make the case that examples like the Crusades and Inquisition outweigh the positive examples.

Also as a writing side note, see if you can include negative examples that aren't the Crusades or Inquisition. They get pointed out as examples every time this topic is brought up to the point that it is almost passé. I think you'd have a far more interesting essay if you can come up with other negative examples.