Science is the understanding of the world and the universe around it, and any other possible plane of existence around that. So, if a theory proposes that a god does exist, and it's a strong theory, then a theory on god will exist. If solid evidence of god becomes apparent, then that theory becomes a de facto theory (or in laymen's terms, a fact).
However, since there is no solid evidence of a god, nor is there any good holding theory of a god. It has led us to conclude that the existence of a god is unlikely for what evidence we have now, and most scientists speculate that their isn't a god on the logic that they don't speculate there's a teapot spinning around the belt of the planet neptune.
In addition to that, with our growing understanding of the universe so far, it's becoming more and more apparent that even if a god exists, a god was not needed for the creation of the universe, or the creation of life, as the questions and the uncertainties around those areas are rapidly shrinking. Quantum foam theory, String theory, Particle theory, all of these theories each in their own way explain a reasonable case on how the universe is created, and with the discovery of the higgs boson, quantum foam theory seems to have taken the lead over the previously leading theory that was string theory. With particle theory kinda being a bit herpy derpy after Einstein's time (he was heavily convicted on a newtonian base universe, which we know is no longer the case, and that macroscopic laws are built upon base quantum laws).
On the other hand, if a god does exist, it would become a part of science. The two terms are not mutually exclusive. If god exists, he/she/it would be a fact in science. Science measures everything it possibly can, it has never stated at any point that it would not explore and measure and try to find an understanding of the spiritual world, all it's said is that as far as evidence shows, any spiritual or supernatural element in the universe is as likely to exist as much as a god exists.
Which is not likely.
Where does that leave philosophy?
For your views on theologians and philosophers, science actually originates from philosophy, what was called natural world philosophy (Isaac Newton being one of them), is now called physics, and biology, and chemistry, the three major holds of all fields of science today. For a while, philosophy and science lived hand in hand, and philosophers would speculate using logic certain things, that science would then be able to answer and rectify.
However, nowadays, with our understanding so large, and our methodologies so evolved, philosophy can since been left in the dust, with the only good philosophers who can hold relevance or contribution towards understanding where we are, to actually have some very good scientific understanding of the world itself. So they can speculate.
The majority of philosophers however, talk about abstract ideas like morals, or emotions, and try to come up with ways in order to live our lives, and to try and answer these abstract ideas. Now, the methodology is either through pure logic, which as we know does not comply with applied logic of the universe, and therefore is all really wishy washy, and kinda redundant. The other is to use life experience, and to really sift through trial and error of what is and isn't true on how to live your life, which is fine. The other is to just kinda say "hey that sounds nice" and go with it because your emotions say it's nice, which is retarded.
You often here things like "oh he's a great philosopher, such wisdom, such emotion, so moving", which is meant to bring some weight to the understanding of who we are etc etc. Which, on a completely physical scale, is nothing more than relevant fiction.
So, as far as understanding how the world works on a "spiritual level", it's just irrelevant, and of no worth whatsoever.
On a "how to live your life" level however, there is obviously some great words of wisdom, which is usually a combination of "hmmm that feels nice" to give yourself a positive and enthusiastic outlook, and on experience because experience gives good insight to what has and hasn't worked for us on an individual/societal level. The purely logic methodology doesn't apply to the emotional aspect of our lives, unlike in applied logic (or common sense as it's usually called), therefore the pure logic side, something you usually see theologians like william lane craig use to try and prove god with, is redundant in both aspects of philosophy for any use. (An example of his logic is, "From the universe we live in, that will forever expand, and die of a heat death, there would be no hope. However, with a god, there is hope. I then place it to the atheists to prove that we feel no hope, in order to disprove god. If we do feel hope however, then therefore there is a god". It doesn't hold any valid application in life).
So, that leaves philosophy only really asking about the personal and societal questions, some of them redundant (for instance a purpose in life, which only came about when it was commonly agreed that a god had made us a for purpose, with that kinda going out the window, we don't really need to even consider there is a divine or common purpose for us past 'we're here to continue trying to be here'), and some of them valid (how do we live together, can we sustain our lives, how to live a happy life, how to feel and be successful, how to love one another, or how to hate one another etc etc).
So, basic summary.
Philosophy birthed science, science was a part of philosophy, however science adopted a new methodology of empirical measurement and theory based on evidence. While philosophy stuck to emotion, pure logic, and experience. Science has since taken the lead as it was more effective, and it grew more and more effective in a means to understanding the world. While philosophy has slowly lost weight on those subjects.
Now, philosophy only really holds weight on questions involving us on a personal, emotional and societal level. And those who are philosophers of science, also should require a very good understanding of the world, and therefore should at least be a scientist of some sort, on the side of being a philosopher, otherwise they're not fit to help out.
Also, to add - if science starts gaining new ground on questions involving us on a personal, emotional, and societal level, which is kinda already has loosely, then philosophy should take a hint and back off a bit. As they've only really proven to be a more earlier form of answering questions before becoming developed into a science anyway.
As for philosophy on the spiritual level and all that. (i.e. theologians), let me just respond to that with an ending thought.
I wonder what colour the tea pot around Neptune is...