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).