>>46 because he always unified these things in the end. As a scientist, he stressed how important consistency is to logical thinking (see: the scientific method - utterly relies on objective consistency). The separation of science and belief (and soul and body) is dualism, and such is the antithesis of what he describes as logical thought through his method of thinking (and philosophy/science in general, in my opinion).
Yea he mentions god, but his description of god is so non-fundamentalist and so non-anthropomorphic that you could replace "God" with "the infinite universe" and it wouldn't detract from his philosophy much, if at all.
As for the reality of his senses, He used an analogy of candle wax in his second meditation to state that they aren't part of any objective reality (as they aren't), in the sense that the sounds and colors we take in are created in our own mind (as they are). His "dualism," if one might consider it that, is merely considering the relationship between our subjective senses' input and the objective world that our perceptions feed from.
>>47 good god it would be terrible.