Interesting commentary, FractalizingIron. We're in agreement for the most part although using different terminology and concepts in some areas.

We need to understand the limits of intellect. The intellect thinks that it can 'know' everything, but there are many things that transcend intellect.

That, and "we can indeed understand the nature of God, because God created us, and we are part of both the material and spiritual world" sounds a LOT like Iain McGilchrist, who I've mentioned to you(?) before. His books discuss the two intertwined, co-dependent, yet very distinct worlds brought into being by the two hemispheres of the brain. Your comment that the intellect thinks it can "know" everything" echos a point McGilchrist makes repeatedly about the Left hemisphere. He goes well beyond that, actually:

The left hemisphere is not in touch with the world. It is demonstrably self-deceiving, and confabulates - makes up a story, when it cannot understand something, and tells it with conviction. Michael Gazzaniga first demonstrated this in split-brain patients. Subsequent research shows that, unlike the right hemisphere, which tends toward self-doubt, it takes a distinctly flattering view of its own capabilities. ~ ibid, p. 31

It [the left hemisphere] is not reasonable. It is angry when challenged, dismisses evidence it doesn't like or can't understand, and is unreasonably sure of its own rightness. It is not good at understanding the world. Its attention is narrow, its vision myopic, and it can't see how the parts fit together. It is good for only one thing - manipulating the world. Its world is a representation, a virtual world, only. It neglects the incarnate nature of human beings, reducing them to the equivalent of brains in a vat. It reduces the living to the mechanical. It prioritises the procedure, without a grasp of its meaning or purpose. And it requires certainty where none can be found. ~ ibid, pp. 31- 32

The left hemisphere tells us that the quest for meaning is meaningless, because it is not equipped to deal in meaning or understanding, but manipulating and processing. ~ ibid, p. 33

Meaning emerges from engagement with the world, not from abstract contemplation of it. ~ ibid, p. 36

from The Divided Brain and the Search for Meaning

And below, from Ways of Attending: How our Divided Brain Constructs the World -- a good place to start btw; the paperback is only 32 pages:

I believe the essential difference between the right hemisphere and the left hemisphere is that the right hemisphere pays attention to the Other: to whatever it is that exists apart from ourselves, with which it sees itself in profound relation. It is deeply attracted to, and given life by, the relationship, the betweenness, that exists with this Other. By contrast, the left hemisphere pays attention to the virtual world that it has created, which is self-consistent but self-contained, ultimately disconnected from the Other, making it powerful -- but also curiously impotent, because it is ultimately only able to operate on, and to know, itself. ~ ibid, p. 23

Experience is forever in motion, ramifying and unpredictable. In order for us to know anything at all, that thing must have enduring properties. If all things flow and one can never step into the same river twice - Heraclitus's phrase is, I believe, a brilliant evocation of the core reality of the right hemisphere's world - one will always be taken unawares by experience: since nothing is ever being repeated, nothing can ever be known. We have to find a way of fixing it as it flies stepping back from the immediacy of experience, stepping outside the flow. Hence the brain has to attend to the world in two completely different ways, and in doing so to bring two different worlds into being. In the one, that of the right hemisphere, we experience the live, complex, embodied world of individual, always unique, beings, forever in flux, a net of interdependencies, forming and reforming wholes, a world with which we are deeply connected. In the other, that of the left hemisphere, we "experience" our experience in a special way: a "re-presented" version of it, containing now static, separable, bounded, but essentially fragmented entities, grouped into classes on which predictions can be based. This kind of attention isolates, fixes and makes each thing explicit by bringing it under the spotlight of attention. In doing so it renders things inert, mechanical, lifeless. But it also enables us for the first time to know, and consequently to learn and to make things. This gives us power. ~ ibid, p. 22