There's no scientific reason to believe in God, only spiritual ones. But it is heartening to me to see that so many atheists seem to agree with me that Dawkins was spouting bullshit when he said that God is a phenomenon that can reasonably be examined scientifically. I think we're making progress.
Can you tell me what he said exactly because I didn't read the whole thing but I got a different take on it.

I'm wondering: God the concept, or god the actual supernatural entity?
The belief in the concept of god arising when it's conclusively false is already examined by mutually exclusive comparative religions and fake religions started for study. Teaching children to pray to a knowingly made up god, some will come to experience that god, have revelations of that god, and cling to the god very strongly. Unwavering absolute and even delusional faith, sets the brain up to perceive things with respect to those beliefs. It's examining the psychology behind a god figure that can be investigated scientifically.
God the being however, must have played a physical role and thus have had a measurable influence on our universe. A fish in a opaque fish tank may not be able to investigate the people who feed it, but they can see influences of the people like little pellets of food dropping from the sky. Unfortunately, god's absolute inactivity while we are alive (and degrading evidence from his creation days of intervening) would seem to make it impossible for us to investigate him.