Another thought on this. Dark might agree with some forms of “agnostic theism,” which is a type of agnosticism where the person believes in an xyz god does not have knowledge of it – which comes awfully close to fulfilling the silly “blind faith” argument that skeptics throw around. I can understand having a blind faith in a pre-belief sort of way because there could be a trust fulfillment prior to an intellectual/spiritual movement towards God, but I think a true faith in God constitutes that proper knowledge I mentioned in my first comment and doesn’t involve that kind of agnosticism.

In my philosophically uneducated opinion, there are some things we can know about God (via divine revelation, etc.), but some things we are incapable of knowing as participants in God’s creation, however higher up on the “food chain” we are as the imago dei. For instance, I’m of the Plantinga (maybe Aquinas?) camp that knowledge constitutes a certain type of internalized knowledge that is virtually unprovable to anyone outside of ourselves – but within our internalized mechanisms it would qualify as “correct” knowledge. That’s to say for us this “knowledge” of God’s existence/properties is sufficient enough for proper belief, i.e., we’re not “fooling ourselves” with respect to a belief in God but we are convinced enough to hold that belief fairly strongly.

It’s the American way to want more though and knowledge fits into that tenet of our belief system. The idea that we will ever know what God knows is ludicrous. Even in an afterlife with God, we will not see what He sees. That will drive the faithful crazy, but the truly content in God will have peace in it. My guess is St. Francis embraced the smallness immediately and that John MacArthur types will be really disappointed at first. : )