I think in fact you'd get a variety of yesses - accompanied by hasty explanations of what "literal sense" might mean.
They would be rejecting the "Ditchkins" position (Terry Eagleton's conflation of Christopher Hitchens & Richard Dawkins).
Thomas Aquinas for example would have said that, yes, God exists - but in an analogical, not literal, sense.
He would have seen the notion of God's existing like other existents in the universe (e.g., you, me, quarks, compassion) - just the most powerful one - as being rather crude idolatry. (And that of course to be fair is what Ditchkins is rejecting, too.)
--CGE
Or, as a friend of mine said long ago, one's reach should exceed his grasp - or
what's a metaphor? On Jul 9, 2011, at 11:33 AM, Dissenting Wren wrote:
>> ...The mainstream Protestant denominations stopped being Biblical literalists a long time ago.
> I've been told by an alum of one that no one in any of the mainline schools of theology really believes in God in any literal sense, and mostly take the bible and such to be metaphors.
>
> Doug