2. It's probably a bit unorthodox, but it may work.

I wondered how were religions different, how were religions same, it was intriguing to see millions (..well billions) have faith and belief in an entity which could not be perceived with our senses ! An entity, that may have merely been hypothesised when one finds him/herself in scenarios he/she feels helpless in or when one cannot explain the events occurring around, but had to find some reason for their state, irrespective of whether the scenario was good or bad. Well, there had to be some...cause, I guess. Which is why I do understand a "modern" scientific perspective where any faith or belief in a hypothetical god is moot....lets take a step back for a while. There have been many phenomenon that are well explained in today's day and age which were considered ridiculous in earlier periods of known human history. The existence of a god may be ridiculous now but in time could perhaps be proven true..or false ! So I propose, we need some form of a catalyst that could help our curiosity build over the subject at hand and find scientific (probably theoretical) ways to either prove or disprove this "god". Well, what is that catalyst ? I was always fascinated with Richard Feynmans perspective on science. At some point in time, I saw an old clip of Richard Feynmans view on scientific method in which the below was stated.

Src: youtube, Richard Feynman on Scientific Method

"Now I’m going to discuss how we would look for a new law. In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.

If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is … If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it." 

So to sum up a scientific method, Guess a law -> Compute the consequences of the law -> Compare the results of the law to experiment or experience. His explanation was truly remarkable, not just for its simplicity but for its intricacy. It seems like the approach could be universal to any form of scientific method...ANY, form ?...I wonder if the same could be applied to what is preached in religions. Could we perhaps, find a deeper understanding of the universe we live in from these holy texts ? So if we had to use Richard Feynmans approach in religious texts, our guess would of course be the existence of an entity known as god. Well, then how could we compute the consequences of this law ? Further, what "experiment" could we compare the results of this law to ?....I may have an answer. It's probably a bit unorthodox, but it may work.