If we use critical thinking, then we will conclude that there is more than what meets the eye.
If you disagree, then your level of critical thinking has perhaps not reached the level where you are critical about your critical thinking enough.
I love words, and the word God is a fascinating example of what the original speakers (may) have meant when they used that word.
Fist off, etymologists say that the word is related to the word 'gut' as intestines and such. I already know the meaning of the word, so I can translate this into feeling the movement of food in your body without actually seeing it.
That means that the original speakers viewed God (or gods) as something we can experience for real, but then for that what is not immediately obvious.
The Dutch use the same word, God, and in their etymology department they find the word 'giet' which has a different meaning than 'gut'.
'Giet' translates into 'pour' as in it is raining, it is pouring. The idea is the same. While not in the water, when it pours you will get wet as if you were in the water.
Thirdly, I found the word God in the romance languages, Dio in Italian, a bit too similar to their word for Two, duo. Looking at 1, 2, 3, I found the following words in Italian: Solo, Dio, Terra -- Solo, Duo, Terza.
If indeed we follow the obvious, then we have 1 (solo) and Sun (Solo), 2 (duo) and God (Dio), and 3 (terza) and Earth (Terra).
Sun and Earth are actual entities, but the in between state is where God is placed. Stand in the shade of a tree, and move out from the shade and you will experience God, not visible, but experienced nevertheless.
The beauty of course is that we can use the original meaning of God and place that next to the current use of God.
It turns out that we started living in far more complex societies, with greater distances, for instance, between the leader(s) and the regular folks. We established an abstract reality in which governments make decisions and we barely feel affected by it other than in small ways (that can lead to the slippery slopes of personal demise, I have to add).
So, you critical-thinking position is rather far removed from the real lives that we live. You have a brainy position in which the abstract rules.
Spinoza, 400 years ago, made the point already that God is indeed real but exists at the abstract level only.
So, I think your point is about indoctrination.
The best approach to combat indoctrination is by speaking the truth, showing people what the truth is (and there are many truths, I will agree). You need to bring down the conversation to a human level and then people will see that they placed God in a spot that is too far removed from ourselves. We need a God we can actually feel but not see.
