Personal dogma is a pet that ends up pissing on everyone else's carpet.
Despite the efforts made by atheists to prove that there is no God or the efforts made by those who believe in God to prove that God exists, there is still no evidence either way.
Because everything that we know and believe is held in limited observability and considering that the question of whether or not God exists or doesn't exist is also held in that same limited observability, the most reasonable approach to exploration in my opinion is to remain open to the possibility of both points of view. I say this because anything held in limited observability, yet declared in absolutes, risks the promotion of dogma.
Dogma filters our ability to explore and examine our own point of view which holds the potential to transcend what we currently know and believe to be truth. The filters of dogma are the most disabling limitations placed upon human beings and does not promote the use of our natural inclination to be curious.
I have been told by the atheist community and the religious community alike that one of the most dangerous places to be is somewhere in the middle but I disagree. To be open and unbiased about both positions allows my curiosity to thrive in the exploration and free examination of meaning, purpose, intention and truth, regardless of whether those things are in my knowledge or my faith. Since, the question of God is one of the most deeply personal exploration in the human experience, the very last thing we need is limitations in regards to that. Now that doesn't mean that limitations are bad because the use of boundaries are limitations in regards to trust and trustworthiness. These limitations are beneficial to everyone for the purpose of discerning the intentions of others and our own need of safety in the world.
Openness is an honest elimination of the limitation of dogma on both sides of the discussion whether that be religious dogma or intellectual dogma, so that curiosity and the possibility of personal transcendence and growth and development can take place for the one who asks the question of whether or not God exists.
Hypothetical questions of why or what if are important questions for human beings to ask.
I was raised to be catholic...and as child, I was naturally inquisitive. So, I asked lots of questions. More often than not, the answers I was given ended with...because God. This failed to satisfy my curiosity to say the least, and not only that but I was discouraged to explore or examine beyond that answer. Eventually, I stopped asking questions altogether and surrendered to the limitation of dogma.
As I am now 48 years old and thoroughly enjoying my personal exploration of evolutionary processes, I have found a similar dogma in regards to the intellectual and scientific community that limits exploration and examination with similar answers that end with...because evolution. Well, that fails to satisfy my curiosity as well.
At this point, I refuse to surrender my curiosity to the dogma and limitations of both contexts. I'll just rely on my own observations and enjoy the freedom of open exploration without the necessity of a context. Openness is freedom to explore and examine life on our own terms and whatever a person discovers will almost certainly be held in a continued, limited observability. Whatever conclusions a person comes to is also their freedom and so long as that freedom doesn't hinder another person's exploration with dogma, then curiosity and openness to possibilities and new discoveries will remain a journey of growth and development, rather than a destination of limitation.
I am open to the idea that there is no God and that there is a God, and I enjoy a freedom in my curiosity about both ideas. If it were proven without a doubt that there is no God (and I think that would be impossible) but if it could be proven, then I would experience a loss of exploratory freedom and my curiosity would end up relegated to a limitation of one possibility without the other. If the opposite were true and it was proven that God exists then I would also experience a loss of exploratory freedom and my curiosity would suffer as well.
The benefit of not being able to prove either affords a greater openness to personal curiosity and that benefit of openness cannot be derived from one without the other.
Bottom line...dogma promotes limitation and openness promotes growth and development. Maybe the latter of the two leads to a greater mutual appreciation of what it means to celebrate human curiosity and the question of...what if? Maybe science and faith without the filters of dogma can remain curious about both possibilities.
It would be refreshing to see a paradigm shift in that direction instead of the incessant arguing and belittling of one position over the other.
That's all I really wanted to say on the issue.