Originally Posted by SATCHMO

I agree wholeheartedly with everything you and Mr. Sagan have said. I think that one of the reasons why the popular concept of "God" has taken on a human form in the minds of theist is the way in which humans relate to whatever "God" represents. It's a bit of a double-edged sword. On one hand, relating to "God" as being an autonomous, human-like entity provides a degree of personal intimacy in relating to the whole of all being and the scientific laws that govern existence, which is my way of expressing what God represents as neutrally as I possibly can. On the other hand, by relating to God as if "he" were a human we impose certain human like qualities, like motive, that God, the universe, does not possess.

Hinduism and related Vedantic sects and philosophies really get into the area of pantheistic/solipsistic philosophy, and it's important to note, as it is with any other marginally theistic belief system that each deity in the hierarchy of gods is symbolic of a particular aspect or quality of of the divine. Whether you divide the divine into a pantheon of gods, or espouse the belief in "one true god" you are essentially pointing at the same thing. Atheist and theists both have a difficult time realizing that "god" is both a concept and a symbol that points to something that is very subjective, very experiential, but at the same time very real, as intangible as it may be.

The problem is that a theist will balk at the idea of God as simply being a component of one's own essential, pragmatic psychology and consciousness, one's mind, and an atheist, rather, a materialist, will use that fact to invalidate the entire experience. Essentially they are both doing the same thing with different motives. That is a sweeping generalization; forgive me for that, but it's one that I find is true more often than it's not.