I infer from footnote 10 that an unspoken subtext of this is that footnote 1 is that while the reader may choose a (simplistic) atheist's formulation of the idea, the author does not,

which would be consistent with their interest in the question of the "divine" and human reasoning at all, especially as argued about by theologically inclined philosophers much admired by Judeochristians.

That subtext being, discovering that our models or knowledge are incomplete somehow increases the territorty of what he's calling mysterious. By which I take it he means, knowable to and to not beat around the burning bush, attributable to the divine. By which I take it for him that he means a Judeochristian god.

One of the great and persistent bemusements of my adulthood is discovering that other adults take their religiosity not just seriously but central to their understanding of themselves, and their context generally.

It's a relief that such people have participated in construction of a society within which such beliefs are considered personal, as it saves a lot of embarassment for people such as myself, who find such notions wince-inducing, and, both their origins and utility quite transparent.

> I infer from footnote 10 that an unspoken subtext of this is that footnote 1 is that while the reader may choose a (simplistic) atheist's formulation of the idea, the author does not

Author here. I'd describe myself as atheist/agnostic.

I just dislike the God of the gaps argument. I understand its utility in debating the dishonest moving goal post arguments of young earth creationists, but taken outside of that debate, I don't think it holds water.

> One of the great and persistent bemusements of my adulthood is discovering that other adults take their religiosity not just seriously but central to their understanding of themselves, and their context generally.

I take religion and religious questions seriously. If I took religion less seriously I'd be religious because I enjoy religion. We owe each other a certain level of honesty on truly serious matters even if it is uncomfortable.

> By which I take it he means, knowable to and to not beat around the burning bush, attributable to the divine. By which I take it for him that he means a Judeochristian god.

That is certainly how a 16th Century religious Italian would understand it and I find that an interesting perspective to contrast with my own somewhat blander late-modernist beliefs. One of the reasons I enjoy reading books from prior ages is seeing how much that was taken for granted as a universal truth of that culture has changed.