It's true that economic behavior can be studied as psychology and sociology, but I was referring to competing economic theories and policies such as Keynes or free market vs. socialism vs. communism. While we can study the history of these ideas and their effects, how people respond to them, and their general successes, science can make no comment or do lab experiments on various economic theories as science can on, say, astronomy theories or theories of bird migration. Economics is not in science's wheelhouse. Human behavior is; historical assessment is (maybe); economics is not.

> Science can't comment on ... economics

I just want to nitpick there - economic behavior can be scientifically studied, so I think that item doesn't belong in your list of what science can't comment on.

Science has no jurisdiction in the area of whether or not God is "necessary." Science tells us the what (and some of the why) of the natural world. Science can't comment on philosophy, theology, politics, economics, literature, and many other disciplines. It is outside of the purview of science to say what is "necessary" or not. It seems that your statement has some kind of underlying assumption that is not being made clear, such as maybe "Religion was just invented because ancient superstitious ignorant people didn't understand science." Regardless, science has no voice to comment on what I or anyone else deem to be spiritually necessary.

Secondly, science has no reach into metaphysical reality. It can't possibly tell us whether or not spiritual realities exist and what their role is, how they function, and how they interact with the natural world. What science says, therefore, cannot speak to the necessity of God.

What makes you believe in God even through consensus of science says that God even if he is proven to exist is unnecessary?