I read the God Delusion in hardback and gather this quote is on page 59
Did Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead? Did he himself come alive again, three days after being crucified? There is an answer to every such question, whether or not we can discover it in practice, and it is a strictly scientific answer. The methods we should use to settle the matter, in the unlikely event that relevant evidence ever became available, would be purely and entirely scientific methods.... Can you imagine religious apologists shrugging their shoulders and saying anything remotely like the following? `Who cares? Scientific evidence is completely irrelevant to theological questions. ... We're concerned only with ultimate questions and moral values. ...scientific evidence could [n]ever have any bearing on the matter one way or the other.' The very idea is a joke. You can bet your boots that the scientific evidence, if any were to turn up, would be seized upon and trumpeted to the skies."
Is that the case? I now only have a paperback edition and can't find that quote - has it been edited out, or have I simply not come across it?
In ancient times, far more than even now, death was misdiagnosed. Thence it is not so much the How Resurrection? question (How? = not really dead), but the Why Resurrrection? questions that matter. Namely here, why trivialize Jesus' Resurrection by having so many other Resurrections, like Lazarus', in the New Testament? What's going on? St Paul even posed that without belief in Jesus' Anastasis and Awakening, then is their Faith in vanity. "Physician cure thyself"?
However, I would not say that description of scientific mechanisms would be irrelevant to the belief in Resurrection, as in the RD unjustified evocation, because description of how Resurrection could have happened without any physically impossible miracles, leaves so many people bereft. Absence matters. People want God or Holy Spirit to have directly intervened just the once, to save Jesus and Gospel; if not for the most important person, then what is God up to? Recovering from being stabbed in the heart to death would have had a 0% survival rate at the time, hence a Crucifixion conspiracy by the Olympic Roman army, the noble Judaean Sadducee hierarchists, and Jewish women would have been suspected, unless a very high status Secular noble had testified that Jesus, a Caesarian challenger, was well and truly dead. Why is there no such statement? Probably because it was censored out as anti-Roman. Suppose Gospel had reported that Seneca gloated at killing Jesus. He later wrote a book of hate against God called "Against Superstition", blamed by the historian Josephus as main cause of the death of about half the Jews and Christians in the world. It would have been embarrassing to Rome if it had been known that the monster puppeteer of Nero, Seneca could have been prevented, by killing him for killing Jesus.