Response: Metaphor and Inexplicability

In response to Rachel Niddrie's post "How is 'He' Any Different?" (April 5, 2012):

The Roman Catholic conception of God is not the only one, or even the only common one, in Christianity.  Different sects have very different ideas of what exactly God is.  Furthermore, it is likely, given the literary traditions in the time of its writing, that the Bible was never meant to be interpreted literally.  Many of the stories within it are metaphors, the goal of which is to communicate a certain message about how to live.  Of course, many Christians (particularly, as the above post suggests, Roman Catholics) interpret the Bible literally anyway, in spite of the frequent and obvious contradictions found within it.

Additionally, even when some (apparently literal) description of God seems to contain an impossibility or a paradox, one can justify it with the argument that, as God is infinitely greater than we are, these seeming impossibilities are in fact not so.  Of course, this may seem like a rather weak excuse, and it certainly does not allow one to prove God's existence.  It does prevent others from disproving it, however.

This may not be enough to convince many people of God's existence, and that is fine.  An atheistic viewpoint is certainly not irrational, as long as the atheist does not claim to be able to prove God's non-existence.  Neither are theistic viewpoints irrational, as long as the theist does not claim to be able to prove God's existence.  In short, if one feels that it is necessary to have empirical evidence before one will believe in God's existence, then one is an atheist.  If one is willing to go on faith, then one is a theist.  If one does not wish to believe either way, then one is an agnostic.