[51] So we can say: in any case, he who denies God^a as a matter of ultimate concern^b, affirms God. He who is really concerned about his atheism^c, is a very good theist. He is somebody who is NOT indifferent; he is concerned, and, being ultimately concerned, he affirms EVEN--not "even," [but] "JUST"--by denying God, because he affirms the passionate character of his ultimate concern. This is so because God^d is the fundamental symbol for what concerns us ultimately. Now again, perhaps from the theological side, I may be asked: "Does that mean that 'God^e' is nothing but a symbol^f?" The next question would be: "If He is only a symbol, a symbol for what?"--because every symbol points beyond itself to something else. And then: If we say God is "only a symbol," then we must answer: "God" is the symbol for God. And here we have exactly the same paradox to which I referred before: God is the symbol for God. This means that in the notion of God we must sharply distinguish two elements, the element of ultimacy (which is a matter of immediate experience and not symbolic in itself); the experience of ultimate concern is in immediate, NON-symbolic experience. And on the other hand: the element of concreteness, the imaginary element, which is taken from our ordinary experiences and then symbolically applied to God. The man whose ultimate concern is a sacred tree can be analyzed from the point of view of these two elements. He has both things: he has the ultimacy^g of his concern--he sacrifices many things, perhaps himself^h, for it; his life is centered around this point of holiness. At the same time, he has the concreteness of the tree, which symbolizes his relation to the ultimate. So in this man we have both elements, which belong to religious symbolsⁱ: the one non-symbolic element, namely the ultimacy of the concern; and on the other hand, the concrete element, namely the tree. But of course the tree, if it appears in this context, is not a tree in the context of physical experience--this it is, TOO, but at the same time it means something beyond this, in another dimension. Or let us give another example: a man who adores the Greek god Apollo^j is ultimately concerned, and his ultimate concern is symbolized by the divine figure of Apollo. The divine figure of Apollo is the material of his symbol, but what is meant is ultimate concern. The man who glorifies Yahweh, the God^k of the Old Testament,