Here's what I wrote:
Luke, your problem here is that this "God of classical theism" is actually incompatible with the god of (say) Genesis or Job. Classical theism presents a multiply worked-over god concept that in the Christian tradition has been superimposed on the biblical texts, but when we look at those texts without the "benefit" of millennia of interpretation and metaphorisation, there's no spitting distance between YHWH, Zeus, Amun-Re or even the FSM.
If the Greeks had bothered (and some evidently DID), they would have had no problem at all in identifying the GOCT as Zeus, and vice versa, just as Theistic Christians (as opposed to Atheistic Christians) have done, and just as could be done for Amun-Re (which would be really cool - I'd love to see Karnak re-open as a functional temple to Amun).
I would also argue, of course, that this means that Christianity doesn't actually require a god to exist for it to *work*, and the same may (arguably) be true for many other religions - we should encourage atheistic versions of them too (Ancient Greek, Egyptian, Islam, Hinduism, etc). God is like the gap under an arch - when you're standing atop it, you feel like there is something there, but the support is actually coming from elsewhere. And whichever arch you fancy, go for it.
A lot of Christian people know this already, but don't feel that they want to come "out" with it, for fear of upsetting their friends and family (in much the same way as you don't want to tell the kids about Santa, but let them work it out for themselves).
Any thoughts?
[Luke's blog, btw, is absolutely excellent, and a must-read for would-be philosophers of religion. He deserves to go far, and I predict you will be hearing a lot more of him in the future. Keep up the good work, Luke!]
