It certainly doesn’t follow.
I grew up without it. And I know for a fact that a claim of necessity is nonsense. For example, you certainly can develop a system of morality without it. I did so myself.
Neither does it follow that you should study science.
But how can you decide whether either of these are of value or interest to you until you take a look at them for yourself?
That is what I did. I took a look and I found both of them to be quite valuable and interesting to me personally.
Well first there are my reasons for believing in more than science: What Would You Consider Your "Intellectual Reasons" for a Godly Belief? - #4 by mitchellmckain
Then here are my reasons for choosing Christianity: Why Should Christianity Be the Truth? - #54 by mitchellmckain
The basic challenge of religion (how you will live your life) is not one you can avoid. How much thought you choose to put into that choice is up to you. But those claiming to live by science are deceiving themselves. Their choices in that regard is not science and science simply cannot help you with such a thing. Science is objective observation, while life is subjective participation. The two cannot be more disjoint in what they require.