Read other letters about this article
Redefining God is not something religious followers AND atheists/skeptics/agnostics are willing to do ... both groups are too lazy and reluctant to think outside their own traditional parameters of thought and try to contemplate a Creator that cohabits with science as well as faith. People like Kauffman and others (Einstein is a great example) are trying to do just that, but their audience wants to stick to their traditional view of God and remain entrenched in their beliefs (again, both atheists and theists alike).
I will quote michaelben, a poster from pages past, who summed it up nicely: Bottom line: both God-is-a-crutch-(that-I-don't-need) atheists as well as I've-seen-God-(and-you-haven't) theists will need to change their ideas about what "God" could and should mean *in this day* if they are to stop wrangling over what are in fact long out-of-date and cartoon renditions of God in the minds of both parties.
If we look at God as an entity of sheer physical force of nature of a magnitude that we, as humans, can never fully comprehend (and perhaps are never meant to), then it becomes easier to allow for the possibility of the existence of an entity of overwhelming power and "intelligent design" beyond ourselves. A Creator, if you will. Such a definition would not necessarily negate teachings in the religious texts (texts that were often conveyed in simple parables and symbolisms/metaphors that primitive society back then could understand more readily), and would also make sense in the realm of science, as it should.
@ Lynx (and others) ... it's pretty laughable how absolutely hostile and up-in-arms atheists get when it is even suggested that a higher entity (hell, you don't even have to call it God if the word frightens you to death so much, jeez) may in fact exist. What's the matter, does it hurt your brain too much to allow that realm of thought to occupy your mental real estate?