For the record, you misunderstood Paul's geniune words of welcome.
***Can the belief in God every be rationalized with a true belief in the scientific method.***
There is not one version of the scientific method as most philosophers of science will tell you. There are methods that are accepted in science. Scientists often debate the methods used in both discovering and justifying their theories. One thing is for sure, empirical evidence is convincing.
In the case of God, God's existence is a metaphysical question that tries to explain order (e.g., the cause of it) in the universe. Science is ill-equipped to make that kind of determination.
***Has the advent of skepticism killed God? Nietzche said that God was dead? Many prominent scientists today are openly athiestic (it is almost as trendy as saying you are homosexual, not that there is anything wrong with that)just look at Richard Dawkins, the late Sagan, and all the way back to Darwin and Einstein. Has science killed God?***
Dawkins is an atheist, I believe. Sagan was an agnostic. Darwin was probably an agnostic. Einstein was a theist. Science has only enriched the debate about God's existence. I will say that it has somewhat limited the kind of God that can reasonably be said to exist.
***And if not, isn't it only through major rationalizations and justifications that we can rectify the differences between belief and skeptical attititudes? Won't religious devotion always conflict with questioning and contemplation.***
I'll quote Einstein: "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind".
Warm regards, Harv