To lack of evidence. Hence, it cannot

To
Dawkins, religious belief are arguments with lack of evidence. Hence, it cannot
be justified. I agree in this point. He may use the concept of science to
explain it but I wouldn’t. For example, in some religion, the followers are
told to kill gay people, or to kill people that do not believe in their religion.

They will justify these actions as part of their religion, their faith.

However, any form of murder other than some extreme cases such as self-defense,
should not be allowed or justified because it’s against humanity. Also, science
faith is different from religion faith. While science concepts are the product
of common-sense ways of seeing the world, religion faith are believed without
even being understood. Even the followers can’t use common-sense to explain it,
they will use the existence of god as the explanation. For example, there is no
way that water can change into wine or a person can walk on the surface of
water. There is no way that we can use science concept to explain these events,
but with religion faith, they can easily explain it with the existence of god.

We can see that we cannot apply science concepts to religious knowledge systems. So, we cannot use scientific methods to
test whether religious ideas and beliefs are valid. I think we should test
whether that religion have false doctrine or not by testing that doctrine’s
Authority, spiritual growth and consistency etc. For Authority, in Christianity,
the doctrine should come from the Bible. For spiritual growth, the doctrine
should benefit our spiritual growth.