... and here's a link to the New Scientist piece Gordon links to: Concept of 'hypercosmic God' wins Templeton Prize.
I happen to believe that drawing any spiritual conclusions from quantum mechanics is an unfounded leap in logic ...
It would be nice to know why she happens to "believe" that. Perhaps it "comes down to good old-fashioned faith," which is what she says the notion "that spirituality is a viable means to access" "a partially unknowable reality beneath reality" comes down to. It would also be useful if she made clear what she means when she uses the term faith.
D'Espagnat's veiled God, on the other hand, is partially – but still fundamentally – unknowable. And for precisely this reason, it would be nonsensical to paint it with the figure of a personal God or attribute to it specific concerns or commandments. The "veiled reality", then, can in no way help Christians or Muslims or Jews or anyone else rationalise their specific beliefs.
Again, it would be nice to explain why it is nonsensical to think of a "partially – but still fundamentally – unknowable" God in personal terms. Ms. Gefter should take a look at The Cloud of Unknowing and look up the word apophatic. Moreover, since the concept of deity is one of the "specific beliefs" of Christians, Muslims and Jews, it is hard to see why d'Espagnat's views "can in no way help" then to explicitate rationally that belief (rationalise seems a poor choice of words).