Einstein had his own definition of god, something like Spinoza.

A teleological god like a watchmaker does not have to design all consciouness and existence. This process was observed by Charles Darwin who made the case that evolutionary biology was responsible for consciousness and existence.

If one supposed there was a god who designed all this, you would have to come to the conclusion that he made some serious errors.

Still, LH may be closer to the opinion expressed by Carl Sagan to some devout believers,
"Your god is too small."

Still when "faiths" collide, then the notion of faith as a value becomes suspect. Right now,
Philip Pullman illustrates the idea that two worlds are colliding and the war is over "free will".

The inalienable right to be-lieve or not to be-lieve, that is the question.

LH, apparently you believe in a monothesistic god rather than a pantheon of gods.
You seem to believe in a god that is not personal or caring for you individually.

You do seem to state that religion is a form of politics used as a control device to manipulate others.

Alaska Mike, there's a new saying out, "Nothing fails like prayer". Controlled experiments conducted by the Templeton Foundation show that prayer doesn't work.

I am on the fence about whether I consider religion harmful in all cases. I agree with Joseph Campbell that myths serve a function. I also respect the US Constitution written by Thomas Jefferson (who published his own version of the bible excising all the nasty stuff).
I'm not ready yet to condemn all believers but consider their actions separate from their belief system.

I think that it's important for science to get involved and test these hypotheses that are made by religion. The idea of a god is a hypothesis. Let's test it.

Strsngr