I think that science strives for objectivity. It tries to penetrate through to an understanding of the universe as it is in itself, independent of the personal ideosyncrasies of any single observer. But that's kind of a cognitive ideal more than it's a reality. Not only is there the problem that experiments interfere with what might have happened had no experiment occurred (which can totally change things on the microscale), there's also the problem that we inevitably find ourselves conceptualizing things in terms of our existing conceptual vocabulary. It's true. Not only that, there's a question of cognitive processing-power. A cockroach can tell when I've turned on the light and it runs for cover. But a cockroach will never comprehend Maxwell's equations. The physics of light kind of overflow the cockroach's limited ability to uniderstand. So scaling the analogy up, what confidence can we have that human beings possess the unique ability to understand whatever principles underlie reality itself? I'm skeptical about whether we do. So our scientific quest for understanding might turn out to be kind of an endless quest into the unknown, in search of a hypothetical destination (a true 'theory of everything') that human beings like ourselves can never attain. I'm inclined to agree. The thing is, that kind of makes 'God' synonymous with 'the unknown'. That's an argument for agnosticism more than for theism. Probably most scientists in history have entertained some kind of transcendental religious ideas.