The entire Christian theological claim is that Jesus of Nazareth, a "son of man" and the "son of God", walked among us in history, and that these things should and must be tested and verified according to the historical method.

See Paul of Tarsus (a former persecutor of some of the first Christians) writing to the Corinthians circa 55 AD:

"And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead."

See Luke the physician writing to Theopilus:

"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught."

I'm going to disagree with the "or merit" part. For two reasons - the first being related to theology itself, and the other related to another field which is sometimes classified as being without scientific rigor - philosophy.

One merit of theology is the study of religious traditions and whether or not they should continue or be discouraged for various reasons, as an example.

Not only scientific pursuits have merit. I'm not sure if that's what you were trying to imply with your combination of statements, but it's possible to infer that from your choice of words.

Indeed, and thanks for the feedback, esp. in the form of pointing out the interpretation rather than assuming things or putting words in my mouth. I agree with everything you said. I think it would be good to make a distinction between the anthropology of religion and theology (the latter as the study of the "divine" itself, as though there's such a thing to study. Anthropology has merit for sure and even the practice of religion and even belief in things that aren't scientifically supported may have utility or purpose even if their premise is factually baseless (which isn't to say that everything lacking scientific evidence is necessarily false, just well, lacking scientific evidence).

I agree (and others do, too) that there should be a greater distinction between anthropological study of religion vs. theology - and it is argued by some that "religious studies" is more appropriate a classification of that than theology itself. I don't have too strong an opinion on the matter, personally, but still appreciate your clarification on what you meant. It's a muddy topic (as tends to be the case with anything surrounding religion).

See reductionism: https://xkcd.com/1734/