. . as to the validity of an anthropomorphic "made in our image" God. This makes no sense to me, nor does it make any sense to me that we would understand God's will and/or motives any more than the aformentioned pigeons would understand multiprotocol routers. Their viewpoint is different.
Pagan gods in human image were created to illustrate and make easier understanding natural and social forces. Some might seek to propitiate one or another as a means to manipulate such forces to personal advantage, but the fact they are constructed aids to human perception is not hidden.
The anthropomorphic One God is constructed in similar fashion, but His purpose is to justify and forgive acts that have no justification and for which forgiveness is inappropriate when viewed from a broad human perspective, and to provide and justify the authority by which a few rule the many.
He is a convenience also for insurance companies that wish not to be held liable for damages from events characterized as "Acts of God".
Do I then reject possibilities beyond physical reality, or the posibility of higher forms? Clearly no. Physical science leaves too many things unanswered (generally by claiming the question is not valid). I do not, however, consider God as made in our image, nor the other way around (except in a most metaphorical way).
Do I reject the concept of a "personal God"? I accept the possibility of higher forms of consciousnesses that take a personal interest even in individuals, but this would not be "God", but "near side" intermediate forms. To think otherwise would be to place severe limits on the scope of God.