Suppose, just suppose that science finally finds the god! If this happens, then how will you recognize him to be god? Will you ask him to perform miracles? Will you ask him how he created the universe? Will you tell him that you are an atheist who did not believe in him? Will you ask him questions that Epicurus and Shelley asked?
After you have strained your imagination this way, do you really believe that science can some day truly discover god?
This is probably a very ignorant answer but I don't think I would know it until I saw it. I say that because it would have to be something so amazing that I can't even conceptualize it because after all, god is supposed to be so amazing the we humans can't even conceptualize him.
Madhukar, Richard Dawkins, from my perspective, is a groundbreaker. He is the first scientist I read who made sense to me about rejecting religion. It was only recently he began to state that it is not scientifically prudent to make a claim that god does not exist. I thought he was rather timid at first, but more confident now to express agnosticism. That does not express doubt in lack of evidence for god, it expresses a scientists view of proof.
Dawkins’ outrage over the 6,000-year-old universe is real, sincere, and justified. Claims of some fundamentalist Christians cannot stand up to scrutiny and when I listen to the charlatan-crusaders, I feel a real need to speak out loudly and confidently as I can muster. So does Dawkins. The Young Earth Creationists present uninformed, reckless claims that the gullible believe.
When you write, “If we believe that gods existence is a scientific hypothesis then how can science fail to prove or disprove it?,” Dawkins does not make a statement of evidence of god’s existence. It is statement that the hypothesis is not yet demonstrated. If he made a statement, he would have to prove it. How can one prove god does or does not exist when there is no god?
“And this is coming from a scientist! I request my atheist friends here to enlighten me on this matter.”
From my perspective, a scientist does not make a claim that cannot be supported by evidence. Dawkins is more of a scientist than I; I make the statement that I am an anti-theist and I give as evidence historical records from the Old and New Testament, from archeology, geology, history, and evolution as well as current events. These records are all I need to be able to stand confidently, competently, and even a little courageously in face of disagreement, as an anti-theist.
One question that I have asked has remained unanswered. It is of course hypothetical but becomes relevant in the context of the agnostic belief that some day science may find god. Suppose this happens, how will anyone know that what has been found is really the god?
I think we'll have to make a definition of what a god is and then set up a test situation - we should have its DNA of course and see how it behaves in classical lab test situations. But the definition is difficult; gods seem to be rather slippery. I think the definition won't be complete before we'll have found and tested at least a few gods.