There is a tendency to portray Religion generally, or specific religions, as monolothic unchanging and clearly and uniquely codified. This is never true, and results from a mistake in buying how most religions describe themselves, and a wider reluctance from the scientific perspective to look at the development of ideas including scientific ones anthropologically. The same is often the case about science, such as in Popper's picture that scientific practice is constantly approaching it's ideal.
To get a perspective that is not rooted only in our own time, we shoukd look not at what credoes say about themselves, but what do they do for people, in practice? This was taken up by Foucault. Not in contradiction to true knowledge about how the world works, but to explain how ideas propagate and are given importance.
Scientific practice cannot be exempted from critique or set outside history. That woukd put it on the pedestal, instead of observing it in practice. Scientific community practice clearly has strengths, in resource-finding and technology. But there are dangers in valueing knowledge as morally neutral, because it isn't. There are ethical restraints, on weapons research, on animal experiments. But frequently moral thought and training are seen as outside the scientific curriculum. Very little energy is put into the supposed gold standard of science, repeating observational studies. And power structures impede and distort the emergence of new ideas. Perhaps the greatest danger, is in writing off all the lessons of human history on recurring moral dilemmas and healthy communities, which could be absorbed from reflective study of the attempts of one era to speak to another, which are religion.
Science contributes increased knowledge. But religious practice has had benefits for community cohesion and moral thinking. We shouldn't see current scientifuc cukture as the end of development, in awe of where we are now, but look also for the next steps. We must not only explain, but be.