My second response to the atheist contention that the inescapably subjective nature of descriptions of God means that knowledge of God cannot be certain has to do with the very notion of subjectivity. In my opinion, though I am not really a philosopher, we are much too careless in our use of the adjectives ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’. I am not sure that the two exist as independently of one another as we tend to assume. The classic example in this case is in the realm of color. When we look at the color blue, we tend to see ‘blue’ as an objective quality of whatever we are beholding. But how do we know that ‘blue’ is not something completely subjective, that someone else’s vision of ‘blue’ isn’t different from my own? We can’t ever know for certain. However, the fact that non-colorblind persons tend to point at the same objects and call them blue gives us grounds for accepting this designation as more or less certain.
The linguistic way of going at this problem is to say that our experiences of the ‘objective’ world are always mediated for us by a set of concepts given in our language. But language is conventional and therefore only ‘objective’ to the extent that we agree to adhere to the same definitions. Different cultures separate colors into slightly different categories, such that ‘blue’ is only an ‘objective’ color when a language decides to designate a certain range of colors in that area.
In regards to the opening statement of this post, the point is that conventional language about God is more or less the same as conventional language about any other ‘object’ that we humans describe. There will always be an interpenetration of the objective and subjective, and the stability of something’s existence is not dependent on whether we can conceive of it ‘objectively’, apart from cultural convention and mediation.