Agnostic science. Really?
No, science is not agnostic. Science is non-theistic, without a god. It is a-theistic in the pure sense of the term.
Science does not wonder if perhaps there are gods that we don't know about. Science does not refer to gods at all, because there is simply no reason for doing so.
Reference to a god requires that we then explain the god, so explanation via a god only defers the explanation. Science is our attempt to seriously account for what we actually do experience.
Science does not take the position that perhaps a god exists but we simply don't know about it. No, science does not even bother with that as a possibility, as there is no serious reason to do so.
Funny response since I already gave you a serious one.
Is a hammer agnostic?
A hammer is just an object, not a methodology able to draw conclusions about the natural world. Science is not agnostic in the same way it is not geocentric, or criationist.
Hammer was meant as a joke, because it is a tool.
Methodology = mental tool
Ok, but you get what I mean. Mental tools are able to draw conclusions about the reality.
Yes. Of course. Like I said the hammer reference was meant to be a joke. My other response was the serious one. ;)
Yes, you are correct. It is a perception thing. People have somehow started viewing science as a belief system and some people DO use the term as a belief system.
Yet you and I know it is simply a tool designed to try to find answers without bias. It requires that the findings and experiments can be replicated by other people. It welcomes challenges to those things at anytime in the future as long as those challenges come in a non-biased fashion.
It can prove things. We say THIS IS HOW IT WORKS. Someone can come along and say NO IT DOESN'T, HERE IS WHY. Then as long as each case is something testable by other people it can 100% change almost instantly. It can mean the "This is how it works" that was there before could be destroyed completely, or it may have been close and need some adjustments and further testing.
It is actually a pretty beautiful tool. <--- this is my opinion and biased so not scientific. :)
Atheism in and of itself is a leap of faith. An atheist cannot prove that God does not exist, the atheist can only state that they do not believe in a God.
Science cannot not disprove God. The hypothesis that, "God does not exist, " can be refuted as we do not yet understand everything. If we obtain an understanding of everything in order to reject the God hypothesis, do we not meet the definition of God?
Science must necessarily be agnostic. It can only acheive an theory, but never proof.
For science existence is the exception, and inexistence is the rule. That's why phlogiston, Vulcan Planet, luminiferous Ether are all inexistent for science, althout in the past they were all sciencific hypothesis.
Science can disprove the existence of God in the same way that it already disproved the existence of a lot of other hypotheses. But note that science never reaches absolute certainty about anything, their proofs only serve to bring us reasonable certainty, never absolute certainty.