In discussions, some people argue for or against a particular image of God, without acknowledging that it’s one of many possible – and existing – images of God. I especially notice this among some atheists, such as Richard Dawkins. It’s unfortunate since it tends to distract from the intended focus of the discussion, and it can also come across as (a) intellectually dishonest, (b) myopic, (c) valuing shock value over accuracy, and (d) lack of interest in sincerely exploring the topic.
For instance, Richard Dawkins often argue against a Christian image of God, and even one particular image of God found among some Christians. (I am not even sure if they would agree with how he represents their views.) Other Christians have other images, as do other religions and spiritual traditions. And some of these are quite compatible with science.
For instance, Daoism and Buddhism, when approached with curiosity and a scientific approach, are very much compatible with science. And if reality – as it is – is called God, then science is one of the ways we can explore God.
This seems very obvious, which is why I usually don’t write about these topics, but I thought I would mention it this time.
………….
………….
………….
– some discussion, people argue against/for a particular image of god, without acknowledging it’s one of many possible and existing images of god
– intellectual honesty, accuracy
– comes across as not so honest, not very interested in accuracy, not very interested in sincerely exploring the topic