In short, no.
Penn Jillette alluded to this matter when he discussed science
versus religion (ISBN13: 9781451610369), but here we adapt the same idea to
discuss science versus art. If James Clerk Maxwell had never been born (b1831),
would we now lack a theory of electromagnetism? No, we would, by now, most
assuredly have developed the same theory of electromagnetism - it's just that
someone else would have published it. In fact, it is quite common in science
that several groups are competing to solve some current problem, and the person
that solves it first gets the credit. The other groups were most likely quite
close behind.
Now consider
Beethoven's Ode to Joy (I must admit, the only piece of music I have ever
listened to that brought me to literal tears). If Beethoven had never been
born, how long would it take (if ever) for someone to write Ode to Joy? Most
likely, it would be absent from the universe forever. And that, in a nutshell, defines art versus science.
As someone who
chose science as a profession, realizing this difference between art and
science is quite depressing. Specifically, if an individual scientist believes
their life's work is advancing the arc of mankind's development, they have to
recognize that whatever they discover would, sooner or later (more likely
sooner) be discovered by someone else. However, an artist can likely be assured
that the universe would forever be
absent of their creation if they had not created it. The individual
scientist is wholly dispensable to man's development; the individual artist is
not.
But now we have
to reconsider Penn Jillette's original criticism;
i.e. since the same religions are unlikely to be exactly re-created if the
world went through a cataclysm and had to start over, they are in some way
invalidated. However, by the above criteria religion is firmly in the field of art and not science. So the same
analysis can be made: are great works of art in some way invalidated because
they are unlikely to be (re)created if the world had to start over? Clearly no.
Michelangelo's David, Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa, Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody
(if you like), and so on, are powerful and significant human achievements even
though they are unlikely to be exactly replicated in another place/time. Why should religious thought not be given the
same consideration? Imagine a typical college creative writing course, and
students are tasked with writing prose that will elicit a strong emotional
response from the reader (laughter, tears, fear, etc.). Few students will
succeed. Now imagine the instructions being to write prose that will result in
the deaths of hundreds of millions and cause constant war over hundreds of
years (not to focus on the negative, it's just a college exercise after all).
If you could write that, you would get an A++ (and the professor's job;
although that would not be particularly attractive). Religion gets into a
problem when it attempts to compete with science - it always loses those arguments,
because it's not a science. Religion is a remarkable human achievement in art,
and can powerfully motivate people the way great art can; just because it would
not be exactly replicated does not diminish this human achievement. As with any
art, you are always free to say "It might be great art, but I personally
don't like it".