Hmmm, I assume I'm being rational and objective
If there IS a god then I can explain no better than this:
We are not to suppose that any truth concerning the Natural World can be an Enemy to Religion; for Truth cannot be an Enemy to Truth, God is not divided against himself; and therefore we ought not upon that account to condemn or censure what we have not examin’d or cannot disprove; as those that are of this narrow Spirit we are speaking of, are very apt to do. Let every thing be tri’d and examin’d in the first place, whether it be True or False; and if it be found false, ’tis then to be consider’d, whether it be such a falsity as is prejudicial to Religion or no.
Which I've posted once elsewhere, this is from The Sacred Theory of the Earth by Thomas Burnet which "proved" using the Bible that Atlantis existed IIRC.
If there is a god then by definition god gave us the free will and thirst for knowledge that we have, plus the senses and thought processes we use to evaluate that information, therefore if there is a god and science is wrong it's because we've been misled or incorrectly equipped BY HIM to think about the world.
The religious applicant may be right, but as per the post above, if the applicant finds himself in a situation where his beliefs conflict with science he'll choose his belief. It's a question of "would you hire someone who operates in the real world using the observed laws of that world, or do you want someone who hypocritically uses them until he decides they no longer applyand then goes against them?"
I'm not sure about
According to their thinking it would be irrational not to believe there is a God
admitted according to their belief that's true, but other than pointing at the bible and saying "it says it's true here" there's no substantiating evidence, as opposed to science which is nothing but susbstantiating evidence (well, not 100%, but you know what I mean
)
What proof would both sides accept? Well the scientist/ sceptic will accept that god exists if there solid evidence. As far as I can see the believer will not accept non-existence on any proof, it's a matter of faith.
It comes down to if there is no evidence of god then there is no need for belief, on one side, and the other side says, effectively, regardless of lack of evidence I WILL believe. In fact I vaguley remember reading somewhere that one prominent believer said "if the church itself should prove there is no god, it would still not alter my faith". That is a good defintion of irrational.
