Not entirely, as the empirical requirement discounts personal experience. For example, the only way I know that I am a conscious entity is because I experience it. There's no empirical test for consciousness, and as a result the only way I "know" that people around me experience it like I do is implication. They seem to behave and respond in the same way I do, therefore I assume they are experiencing the same thing.
Say I observe something unexpected, like I meet an alien. The alien tells me he's the only one here, and they won't be back because earth sucks and they hate it. The he leaves. Now I *know* this happened because I experienced it, but if I told you about it you'd think I was crazy. (Just as an aside - I've never really met any aliens) So while my personal experiences can't be used to prove something to you, they are how I acertain the truthfulness of most things I know. The same is true of everyone. Things that don't correlate with our personal experience, we tend to disregard. Science is a useful way of applying some rules that allow us to show that something we think is true works most/all of the time, but it doesn't apply to the full spectrum of human experience (eg: consciousness example above) and it ultimately can't identify something to be the truth - just the best model based on our current ability to observe. The Ptolemaic System is a classic example of that.
So what am I saying? I'm saying that religion (or more appropriately, faith) is a personal thing, is not untrue simply because it doesn't fit within natural science, and while you're free to select your own belief system you shouldn't belittle others for having their own. There's an infinate number of absurdities out there, which includes the one you believe, and at least one of them will be true.
Each new user of a new system uncovers a new class of bugs. -- Kernighan