Sure, you can be anything, even doctrines that are seemingly contradictory (in the case of Buddhism there being no absolute godhead), you can kind of just shift around frames of reference if you want and adopt a paradoxical vantage point if you're into that sort of thing. Or like some schools of Tibetan Buddhism have a concept called "Buddha nature" where the fundamental nature of everything is that it's all already enlightened and you could call that immanent/transcendent principle 'God' if you were so inclined since it seems to jive well with the whole Neo-Platonic conception of the Godhead which inspired the fuck out of a lot of Christianity iirc.
Actually come to think of it Gnostic Christianity is weirdly Buddhism-like in a lot of ways but I think that has more to do with like a Hermetic influence or something.
I actually think that Syncretism can be an excellent way of reinvigorating systems of spiritual or religious practice and philosophy but it requires a lot more work and literacy to understand what you're doing and not just create some ridiculous or impotent eclectic New-Age hodgepodge. But what I think is that with a lot of long-standing traditions a lot of stuff tends to get crystallized into a kind of formalism but when you're taking up spiritual practice in earnest you're always making it your own interpretive, living breathing thing which can be easier to remember if you're broadminded and experimental about it.
I think there's both philosophical and religious 'Buddhisms' and even the philosophical kind has a lot of doctrines that are provisionally adopted (regarding rebirth, the six realms, karma, etc, for example), which feels a lot like religion. I think a lot of religions are basically systems of spiritual practices, soteriological doctrines, and moral trainings where you provisionally adopt certain viewpoints (rebirth, for example) with the expectation that it will pay off down the line through the self-transformational process. I think a lot of that stuff (belief in God, rebirth, whatever) is like that, adopting it is actually rational in the sense that it's a part of testing or examining the terms and processes of the given system to see if it does what it's supposed to. It's not really about dismissing critical thinking and believing everything you're told, but following the recipe and seeing for yourself if you end up with the kind of thing you're promised afterwards. Though I'll say that any that promise the goods after death only are probably fucked and if freedom can't be gained in this life (never mind if you seek it or not, but it has to be an option), that seems to bank way too much on faith.