That sounds logical, though I tend to think philosophical ideas don’t really get proven or disproven, just proven relevant or proven not-so-relevant.
For example, if Rowland says something philosophical like every human interaction is commerce…
…and it turns out his archnemesis Charlie Marx said essentially the same thing (minus the part about leftists not acknowledging it) –
Labour-power, then, is a commodity, no more, no less so than is the sugar.
– does that prove Charlie right or Rollo wrong about the philosophical part? I think not. (For the record, I was disagreeing with Rollo about that, so I would also disagree with Charlie.)
When you say valid, in the context of a religious belief, it sounds like right as in right vs. wrong, not relevant as in this belief helps me understand things better and ultimately achieve a superior result in my life/work.
A belief may indeed be right and therefore valid. But how would you prove it scientifically?