Scientific efforts to explain belief formation have increased, and explanations are nothing less than bewildering. The aim of this paper is to show why the recent claim that "conflicting networks" in the brain that explain belief and unbelief in God cannot be true. Firstly, why someone believes in God is a question about a person's reasons and evidence, and not about what is going on his brain. Secondly, a belief, and believing something or someone, is not what scientists think it is: it is not an act of either a mind or a brain, and it is neither a process nor a state of either the mind or a brain. And thirdly, the nature of the conflict between evolutionists and biblical creationists, the source of belief and unbelief from the perspective of Scripture, and a brief description of what it means for a biblical creationist to believe in God should make scientists realize that their Darwinism, materialism and/or atheism is an inadequate conceptual framework to explain belief or unbelief in God. There is no such thing as conflict between brain parts or science and religion; only between persons subscribing to different worldviews.