One major difference between [the Abrahamic] religions and Shin Buddhism is that we (Buddhists) freely acknowledge that our sacred story is a metaphor and not historical fact. To see it as true history would be to miss the point and be a grave error. As the Buddha said, ‘it is the finger that points to the moon.’ The finger is not the moon but indicates the direction of the moon. So many people get confused thinking that the finger is the moon (truth).

From an article on Amida Buddha by G.R. Lewis

(Edit: Just want to make clear that there are those within the Abrahamic traditions who also do not take their sacred story literally. And thanks to mateysopaderosas for pointing out that people might not infer that from this quote.)

Can religion tell us more than science?

Art and poetry aren’t about establishing facts. Even science isn’t the attempt to frame true beliefs that it’s commonly supposed to be. Scientific inquiry is the best method we have for finding out how the world works, and we know a lot more today than we did in the past. That doesn’t mean we have to believe the latest scientific consensus. If we know anything, it’s that our current theories will turn out to be riddled with errors. Yet we go on using them until we can come up with something better.

Science isn’t actually about belief - any more than religion is about belief. If science produces theories that we can use without believing them, religion is a repository of myth.

Myths aren’t relics of childish thinking that humanity leaves behind as it marches towards a more grown-up view of things. They’re stories that tell us something about ourselves that can’t be captured in scientific theories.

Just as you don’t have to believe that a scientific theory is true in order to use it, you don’t have to believe a story for it to give meaning to your life.