not nice

James Wood, criticizing both the New Atheists and some of their critics (including the literary critic Terry Eagleton) says their God-- the one they disbelieve in-- is too literal, too much like Santa in the clouds. Real believers believe in something more abstract and subtle and ethereal, less substantial and anthropomorphic. That, and the non-literal value of religious ritual and "mythos" (as opposed to "logos"), is Karen Armstrong's line in her new Case for God, too.

Doesn't this run the risk of vaporizing God into something too thin to grasp, even imaginatively?That's the old knock on the "god of the philosophers."

But if you make Him too "real," there's another risk: you won't like him. That's the upshot, for many, of considering Leibniz's theodicy and the problem of evil. Does anyone want to worship and pray to a control freak?