Right. It is interesting how (in the European and American context) we have not developed this idea much from the Enlightenment (Spinoza, Pascal, etc). We know

Right. It is interesting how (in the European and American context) we have not developed this idea much from the Enlightenment (Spinoza, Pascal, etc). We know this idea and yet cannot get past it. The realization does not shake the belief itself, unless it was very weak to start with. The German philosopher, Ernst Bloch - I think in his work "Atheism in Christianity" - insisted the the 'atheist is very close to the true believer' in the sense that both are responding to the same impulse. Darwin doesn't wreck my idea of the possibility of a God. And I do not mean in the sense of "Intelligent Design" or whatever it is called. It seems hard to accept that if there is 'an allpowerful creator being thingie' that it would be completely beyond our ken. And any approximation would be an approximation of something infinite and thus as good as nothing. Less than the shadows on the cave in Plato's image. This idea is at least as old as the combined JudeoChristian tradition. Arguably (and I am not competent to argue this - just was taught it years ago by a Franciscan so take it for what itis worth), arguably the oldest book of the Hebrew Scriptures is Job. The oldest text. And to me the answer to this idea is in that book. (and if you happen to be in NYC check out Wm Blake's Job prints in the Morgan library exhibit) That idea of god is incomprehensible, terrifying and at turns mild, beatific. Like those alternately anthrophagous and beatific buddhas on Tibetan or Mongolian tapestries. Over the years a few things I have read have given me the same chill as the lines of God responding to Job from the whirlwind (Stephen Mitchell's translation). Like the ending of "King Lear" or Prince Arjuna looking over the plains at his immense enemy spread before him but then realizing his charioteer is Krishna. Moments of almost obliterating awe - the realization of the absolute otherness of creation of which we are a part yet separate through consciousness trying to get back... Which gets to why I think Bloch was right. The atheist and the true believer they are human responses to the same impulse. I do not get the in between - ie articles like this - is this a new idea?