Yes.
But the beauty of science in in its nature. Hypothesis, thesis and experimentation.
Faith in science is always tempered by the expectation that what is known may not be correct.
Faith in religious constructs excludes challenge to itself.

The problem is that no one can fully define what is scientific and what is unscientific. By your definition, I take a scientific approach to religion and have for some months now and, in turn, many scientists are in fact unscientific in their ideas, since they establish supposedly immutable "laws" and place an artificial burden of proof on those who disagree with such laws. I also question any deterministic theory. While my understanding of it is limited, I tend to agree with quantum physics in its indeterministic ideas, since they suggest that there is something guiding the universe that we cannot, at least in our present mindsets, fully understand. This is just a hypothesis, but it is possible that the truth is somewhere between the assertions of Einstein and Hawking. God may not gamble, but it is possible that God's guiding hand is out of our possible perception. I see God in somewhat pantheistic terms, by the way.

__________________
"Some people complain about the system. The system is not good, so they can't do anything. It's an excuse. Freedom is in your heart." (Jin Xing)

Not if you take the existence of deities as a given, you don't. Here's a quote of your from later in this post: "God may not gamble, but it is possible that God's guiding hand is out of our possible perception. I see God in somewhat pantheistic terms, by the way."
Those who posit immutable laws are theists and not scientists. The scientist will dig in and furiously defend his turf... and then fold when faced with resounding evidence to the contrary. Those who can not adapt become curiosities and relics; cautionary examples to other scientists. Eisenstein and his static state theory, which he admitted to be theologically based, is one recent example.

Actually, while this is somewhat tangential, I think I'll describe my understanding of God (which could be wrong, of course). I would describe myself, above all else, as a monist. I can't find logical grounds for ultimately separating any two entities. If I state that I believe in God, therefore, I am simply stating that the characteristics that are traditionally attributed to an anthropomorphic God (free will, compassion and so forth) exist, as do human beings, as fragments of a whole. To put it in the simplest possible terms, my disagreement with atheism comes from the fact that most forms of atheism, I think, lose a part of the whole meaning in the semantic reduction of entities to materialism. For example, to cite an example I read in Britannica, I think that "The body Carnap is in a state of green-seeing" loses some of the meaning contained in the statement "Carnap sees green" (individual identity, emotions, etc...). I see thoughts themselves as defining existence and all attempts to reduce thoughts to their core as losses of part of their original meaning. Would it be fair to state that, in the philosophical rather than the colloquial sense, I am an idealist, or am I some sort of neutral monist?

__________________
"Some people complain about the system. The system is not good, so they can't do anything. It's an excuse. Freedom is in your heart." (Jin Xing)

There are scientific or at least not non-scientific grounds for taking into account the existence of a deity or deities.
1. A deity exists as an idea. Of course this particular argument does not lend itself well to metaphysical debates.
2. God is the idea used to symbolize all things that are unexplainable or unknown. With such a definiton, God Himself changes as our information base does.

When it comes down to it, most theological and non-theological arguments along the line of this thread are not so different as they seem. The soul does indeed transcend the flesh. It is merely a question of whether the soul exists in another realm or state (unknowable while in this realm) or whether the essence of a person continues in a more tangible way (as it does, in the memories of survivors, in the ways the person changed the world by existing- in purely scientific terms- thinking chaos theory- this is far more than we usually think of) can indeed compose a soul of the departed.
The energies that made up the person's being will also be recycled in some way whether speaking in purely mundane or spiritual terms.
If the persn's soul does indeed exist through the memories left behind it is a real idea and the question of rest or other life, as it comforts those who retain the memory, is applicable.

If nothing else, spiritualism is metaphor for reality... and it does have real effects on the well-being of individuals. So in some way the soul does exist, as does God. Perhaps not in the way we usually think of it, but in some way.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

I think that if all is one, an idea that I personally cannot refute, then the traditional definition of time must in some way be altered. To dismiss time as meaningless, however, is to retreat from monism (i.e. by stating that propositions can be divided into "meaningful" and "meaningless" ones). I suggest, then, that time and being are the same thing. Imagine a vertical line, then imagine a horizontal line. Now picture them intersected in a plus sign (+). One could say that time elapsed as one thought of this, but it could also be stated that being unfolded, since all of the ideas contained within a plus sign are contained within its every part. Indeed, it can be stated that the plus sign exists within each zero-dimensional section of itself. In the same way, eternity exists in each moment. To put it in overly simplistic terms, we have all "already" experienced eternity. I think I am borrowing heavily from Kant here.
As for God, each idea unfolds infinitely into an infinite idea, much as a 0-dimensional point contains within it all of the ideas of infinite space. One is left with something that is one and all-inclusive. This means that God (again, I'm oversimplifying) includes human qualities but is not limited to them. What I'm really stating, I think, is some combination of the ideas of Kant and Hegel (correct me if I'm wrong).

__________________
"Some people complain about the system. The system is not good, so they can't do anything. It's an excuse. Freedom is in your heart." (Jin Xing)