He does raise an interesting point, although it is limited in
its applicability.
The "God is You" / Ego argument does not necessarily apply to
all religions. He describes New Age very well. He describes
"roll your own God" groups.
But what of very elaborate religions that do NOT ascribe to the
"God agrees with me"?
For many believers, it's a constant battle of acceptance, and
actually, if it _isn't_, they got off WAY too easily in their
religion/denomination/group.
If what he says is true, why are there "tests of faith" - a
constant theme in many religions? If God agrees with me and I
agree with God, then I am God and God is me. But if I'm fighting
it constantly, going between rejection and hesitant acceptance,
to acquiescence and PERHAPS further... that's not a "me fighting
me" situation.
It might not be a "me fighting God" either. I'm agnostic for a
reason - I have no freakin' idea.
His argument falls apart when speaking about people who are
attempting to embrace a system that goes against their wishes
and thoughts. He's speaking of the easy faith groups but not for
the challenging ones, imo.
