I take Steve’s points but would protest that I wasn’t arguing that “childish” explanations should be provided to the masses.

I was rather trying to get across the idea that different explanations may be suitable for different audiences. Certainly, many theologians write of a Creator that is beyond human comprehension.

Should that force them into the position of saying it is wrong for people to anthropomorphize their image of the Supreme Being? A metaphor is not a lie.

And Derb, why is it wrong for atheists and agnostics to believe that religion can be a force for good?

Ambivalence is the natural state of the thinking man. It is perhaps not the natural state for a healthy society.