[T]here is in the unconscious an archetype of wholeness that manifests itself spontaneously in dreams, etc., and a tendency, independent of the conscious will, to relate other archetypes to this center. . . .

Consequently, it does not seem improbable that the archetype of wholeness occupies, as such, a central position, which approximates it to the God-image. . . .

Strictly speaking, the God-image does not coincide with the unconscious as such, but with a special content of it, namely, the archetype of the self.

It is this archetype from which we can no longer distinguish the God-image empirically.

We can arbitrarily postulate a difference between these two entities, but that does not help us at all.

On the contrary, it only helps us to separate man from God, and prevents God from becoming [hu]man.

Faith is certainly right when it impresses on [our] mind and heart how infinitely far away and inaccessible God is; but it also teaches [God’s] nearness, [God’s] immediate presence, and it is just this nearness that has to be empirically real if it is not to lose all significance.

Only that which acts upon me do I recognize as real and actual. But that which has no effect upon me might as well not exist.
The religious need longs for wholeness, and therefore lays hold of the images of wholeness offered by the unconscious, which independently of the conscious mind, rise up from the depths of our psychic nature ~Carl Jung; “Answer to Job”; CW 11, par. 757.