What follows only stands a chance of being comprehended if both posts are read first (without necessarily reading the pages of comments). Please do note that my analysis is not complete, nor was it elaborately pondered, reconstructed and edited. I am merely attempting to give my take and perhaps raise further questions in the short time I have. In terms of an ongoing dialog, therefore, I must concede that my time to devote to this is limited, so I am making no promises. Onward...

Julian wrote: "I wonder too if in buying into these sorts of fallacies we ignore the possibility that much of what has been called religion can be understoood as a kind of psychological defense mechanism and that contemporary spirituality might be transcending precisely that defense in the name of a more integrated and honest adult practice-based methodology."
What seems to be missing from this cerebral argument is the acknowledgement that the genealogies and anthropologies of humanity have repeatedly demonstrated that we create mythologies that both give us a context for our lives and encourage the hero's journey. So, while Julian would like for us to give up words like God and "transcend" our discredited mythologies, he does not demonstrate an understanding that we seem to need mythologies nor that his argument itself is based on a newly emergent mythology. That emerging mythologies are integral or synthetic does not mean that they represent a truth that is lasting; they transcend and include - by their very definition - all previous known mythologies that themselves were the closest representation of truth in their own times, and they will themselves be transcended by the mythologies of the future.

What continually amazes me about arguments such as the one presented by Julian is that the perspective seems to transcend and reject rather than transcend and include.

Near the end of Julian's argument, he poses the following:  But I can't help but wonder why we need to tie these kinds of intellectual/spiritual riffs to an invisible mythic  god? Which perhaps raises the question: Is there an invisible god that is not mythic?

I do not think that those who have developed integral insight continue to use the word God in an attempt to make ties with an invisible mythic god. When we retain the use of the word God, we retain the ability to meet people where they are at and to talk to them from a shared We space. We risk alienation and further entrenchment of Amber belief systems by rejecting the word God, which has already been sufficiently accomplished by intolerant application of Enlightenment ideals, rampant materialism and New Age narcissism.

Furthermore, what I do not see conveyed in Julian's argument is the recognition of I-Thou phenomenological realities. Wilber's writings, and my own experience, suggest that this underlying and fundamental phenomenology - a felt sense of a personal relationship with our source - transcends belief systems and constructs. We DO all come from the same source, after all, and the experience of communion with that source (i.e. a transcendent state), and the ecstasy, love and healing that may arise within that context, offers us a shared ground from which we can establish communication, despite the fact that we apply divergent constructs based on our level of development to explain such experiences. It seems to me that it is this profound I-Thou relationship that Wilber, Brother David Steindl-Rast and increasing numbers of religiously progressive people are attempting to recognize and encourage in us, not the mythology that is used to explain it. So when Julian asks (in the comment section), why use the word if it's overwhelmingly common usage means something else altogether and we can use other words with more precision and evocative power?, I challenge one of his underlying assumptions: that the overwhelming majority of religious believers in the U.S. today (I can't speak for the rest of the world) are literalist believers that all hold identical ideologies. I used to think that, but recent evidence suggests otherwise. Wilber suggests that a mere 25% of the population is expressing Amber-level belief systems. Regardless of the percentages of people at different stages on the spiral, it is an undeniable fact that the word God is entrenched in the worldspace at this time, and it seems obvious to me that continuing the usage of the word is unavoidable and, perhaps, advantageous. Precisely because it is entrenched, we can use it as a tool to begin new conversations that encourage further development.

Julian also seems to want to root out every last superstition and pre-rational idea because, gosh darn it, those pesky little remnants of our shared history prevent us from being fully integrated and integral adults. But is this true? Or is it more likely that moving into hyper-rational (rather than trans-rational) modes of being-in-the-world and denying our sometimes superstitious nature is an act of violence against ourselves and our history which prevents the actual emergence of the stage that he exalts? When we fool ourselves into thinking that rooting out words like God will somehow deliver us from our bloody past, and that all pre-integral belief systems are "delusional," we risk cutting ourselves off from true integral which hosts an understanding of the rightness of such belief systems within the context of the spiral of development. (Besides, humanity can be xenophobic and violent all by itself without the props of religion.)

Instead of rejecting our previous ways of being-in-the-world, which included superstition and Amber-level mythologies, as integrally-minded people we start to look at how myth-making is inherent to the human condition. We start to look at patterns instead of just content. Because if we are really honest, we know that we still create mythologies and belief systems for the purpose of relating to ourselves, each other and the world. We have seen science elevated to the level of religion and mythologies imbedded within that context abound. Many believe we can cure human disease and that doing so will create more happiness or at least less suffering. We are starting to believe that we can act quickly to repair the Earth, prevent ecological crises and save humanity from itself.

What I find troubling, though, is that hyper-rationalists seem to focus only on religious horror stories and fail to recognize - with more than a quick glossing over before returning to the main argument - all of the good that results from religious beliefs and ideals. My German Lutheran mother is a fantastic example here. She is an active member of her church where she volunteers time to help others and shares compassion in a community of peers. She never uses her faith to attack others, and I believe this is true for all but the most pathological (and loudest in the public sphere) believers. Many church members deliver food to sick or grieving families and offer genuinely felt prayers on their behalf, which is itself an expression of love. I could go on with multitudinous examples, but I think you get the point. To reduce religion to superstition and tie it only to the shadow side of humanity is to do violence to the billions of people who do their best to live by high religious ideals while operating in a world that went mad a long time ago.  And when we do that, we have what translates to a life-and-death fight on our hands, as is so prevalent right now in the multi-tiered clashes between religion and science.

I have gone through many cycles of rejecting concepts that I previously held as Truth, as well as rejecting people who still hold such beliefs. At this point, the road that lies ahead involves synthesizing instead of rejecting. My vision of humanity is held with an ever-expanding understanding of our history and the patterns that are encoded in the very fabric of our being. And that comes with tremendous respect for our past and compassion for us all as we struggle to survive and thrive in an ever-changing, evolving and chaotic world that is nonetheless miraculous and precious just as it is.