[50] statements without evidence), then this wouldn't be true because statements without evidence don’t need to be symbolic. But if faith^a is the state of being ultimately concerned, then of course ONLY symbolic language is possible. And I want to resist what I said last time: "Never say 'only a symbol,' in a depreciating sense." Instead of "only a symbol," one should say, "not less than a symbol." Every non- symbolic speaking about God^b would be less than a symbol, would be less than a symbolic speaking, and not more. Therefore don’t be afraid about losing the reality of the divine when you use symbolic language, or when you understand that religion necessarily uses symbolic language. Don’t fall down BELOW the level of symbolic language: that is what l would say here. Of course the fundamental symbol of our ultimate concern is God^c. And this symbol is always present in ANY act of faith^d, even if the act of faith includes the denial of the concept of God. Where there is ultimate concern, God can be denied only in the NAME of God! Where there is ultimate concern, God can be denied only in the NAME of God. One God can deny the other one, but [ultimate?] concern canNOT deny its own character as ultimate. Therefore it canNOT deny its affirmation of what is meant with the word "God." Therefore: the word "atheism^e", from a mere analysis of the religious language, is a very questionable term. It is very often used by BOTH sides, those who defend it and those who attack it. But it should not be used because it is extremely ambiguous. It can only mean the attempt to remove ANY ultimate concern, to remain UNconcerned, about the meaning of one's existence. This is the ONLY form of real atheism, this is the only way in which atheism can be affirmed at all. Indifference to the ultimate question... is the only imaginable form of atheism. Now whether this is possible is another question. I don't believe it. I believe it is certainly possible to do that consciously, but whether there is an unconscious ultimacy in everybody is another problem, where I would say: you can show everybody, if you go deeply enough into his being, where his ultimate concern lies. But of course it can be so hidden that one doesn’t notice it, and that one can take on an attitude of indifference towards the ultimate question.