All sciences are now under the obligation to prepare the ground for the future task of the philosopher, which is to solve the problem of value, to determine the true hierarchy of values.I don't know as they, or rather scientists as a whole, are obligated to do this . I do think it's a darned good idea though. Each and every single individual who has ever lived is just as qualified as any other to expound on a given religious belief. What training does it take to have faith and discard or embrace the "revealed" truth of another?
~ Friedrich Nietzsche
Science is about seeing what is objectively, empirically there, and then rationally and logically explaining how it became so in a manner which is verifiable by anyone, regardless of what their personal experiences and feelings may lead to them believe; or to want to believe.
What is most important for our species survival? How do we practically discern and functionally implement these survival tasks? These values?
John McBride has a reasonable and valuable perspective.
Religion is not a primary need
"Facts are the enemy of truth."
-- Don Quixote de La Mancha
One need look no further than the Middle East and Israel's battle with Islam and Islam's battle with Judaism to be totally baffled by human nature and to cause one to doubt the outcome of humanity's struggle to survive.
Both sides human, neither side "needing" Judaism or Islam to survive, and both sides willing to kill the other and to sacrifice their own to defend the "righteousness" of their position just as Christianity and countless religions and political establishments have before our time, and perhaps will continue to do after us.
How can such behavior be viewed as an evolved, qualified "tool" for the long-term survival of any species, and in this particular case, ours?
Further, isn't such intellectual or psychological behavior equivalent to an evolved, "physical," environmentally specific tool likely to make us as extinct as any animal that was physically and neurologically very good at being what it was in environment A but couldn't adapt to environment B when environment A ceased to exist or was melded with environment B?
In other words, let's propose that I'm raised Christian, and then encounter Islam, and Islam encounters me. Islam prevails and I refuse to change or Christianity prevails and Islam refuses to change or neither prevails over a third religion and both refuse to change. Neither is necessary since Buddhism works fine, too. And Buddhism isn't necessary either. Nothing is really necessary in place of religion from an evolutionary perspective if it begins to threaten survival since it is a secondary tool for survival, not a primary tool. And even as a secondary tool it evolved in many places in many different forms readily changeable as conversion to any other "philosophy" frequently exhibits.
Food is primary. Air is really primary. Water. Shelter. Procreation. Sleep. Recreation.
So, in the pre-Industrial, Industrial and post-Industrial ages we poison the air, pollute the water, work too long hours, don't get enough rest or exercise, and eat questionable diets.
But we kill each other over religion. By the millions we kill each other.
We plot nuclear war and plan the use of other weapons of mass destruction to assert such "truths." Do we adapt? Not really. We simply negotiate short-term pauses until the next, even more barbarous slaughter. How is it likely that that species long-term prospects for survival are very good?
Is it any wonder so many of us who were religious and have come to doubt religion or who never were involved in religion dismiss it or harbor suspicion toward it?