The more I think about it, what Taylor seems to be aiming at is that in a crushingly technological age such as ours religious feeling should not be ruled out of court. In this he is of course absolutely right. But I believe that the best way to go about it is not to stress the alleged commonalities between science and religion, but quite the contrary to bring out as sharply as possible the distinct character and function in life of the two endeavors. They ought to stand side by side and be affirmed as worthy exercises of the active self (for whomever chooses to engage in them) precisely because they fulfill fundamentally different needs, precisely because they cannot be reduced one to the other or be brought under some common denominator. The best argument in favor of the indispensability of religion vis-a-vis the stupendous strides of the scientific spirit in the past few centuries is that religiosity was not extirpated in a modern environment suffused with this-worldly rationality. Modernity was not desacralized or disenchanted in quite the thorough way that M. Weber diagnosed or feared. On the contrary, in the interstices between the regions of life pervaded and guided by means-to-ends rationality the poetic spirit still managed to thrive in new intense ways. And of course the notion of God is the supreme creation of the poetic imagination. In this region of Wittgensteinian silence which is the flip-side of "all that is the case" logicism religion and art can find all the oxygen they require to thrive.