What does this correspond to in your analogy? What this part does is show that the scientist questioning the methodology is correct, and the original experimenter is wrong. However I don't see any objective evidence that your "methodology" is better than a methodology that allows for God.

However, if you're trying to mean that your "correct" methodology is science in general, and that accepting evidence of God is inherently unscientific...

If you want to raise specific points of evidence for god, I can explain how the analogy relates, unless you have better evidence which I haven't heard before.

yes, that's what you're saying. OK. That's largely what I was wondering—in your mind, there's no possible way to reconcile religion and rationality. Because the only evidence for God was found using a bad methodology, namely, personal experience.

"Personal experience" as a general term does not describe a set of methodologies which are universally bad. In my experience, the set of methodologies which have been used to produce evidence for god are all bad, but it's not because they're personal experiences. Besides which, not all proposed evidence for god comes in the form of personal experience. I didn't spend years studying religion just so I could brush it all away by shoving it all into a single category I could dismiss out of hand, or so that I could argue persuasively that it wasn't true.

I think it's a mistake of rationality to try to reconcile religion and rationality, in the way that it seems to me that you're doing, because in general you don't want to try to reconcile rationality with any specific conclusion. You just follow the evidence to find what conclusion it supports.

Does the available evidence support the conclusion that the earth is 4.5 billion years old? It either does or it doesn't, and if it doesn't, then the conclusion probably isn't true. Does the available evidence support invisible gravity elves? A link between HIV and AIDS? In each of these cases, the answer is simply yes or no.

Sometimes we make mistakes in our judgment of evidence. We don't expect any human to be perfect at it. We have disagreements here about factual matters, and we acknowledge that this occurs because some or all of us are making mistakes as fallible human beings. But most of us agree on the matter of religion because we think the evidence is clear-cut enough to lead us to the same conclusion.