After dealing with the obvious cop-out answer of if this were truly all there was to do in life, it would have to be enough, the author goes on to honestly suggest that perhaps, despite our theological desires to offer the proper answer, we'd have to answer incorrectly.  That it wouldn't be enough, and isn't enough, because there's so much more that needs to be done.

I disagree with the way he's arranged the equation.  He seems to assume that the other things that we do in life are an outgrowth, an addition to knowing God, rather than a process by which we know Him.  Not mechanistically, not ex opere operato, but simply that in doing all of the good that can be done in the world, we learn more about God.  Knowing God is all we are created for - but we want to limit knowing to some sort of rationalist intellectual definition.

But our lives are vivid proof to all the learning that occurs outside of a book, outside of a classroom, outside of the confines of our own head.  I would dare say that our most valuable and lasting learning comes in precisely those experiences that this author ends up defining as additional and separate from knowing God.  It's not that we aren't supposed to do these things - he's dead on right there.  It's just that he appaers to be limiting his definition of knowing to something far less than I believe God ever intended.  

Go and do what is permitted, and what is expected.  And in the process, you'll know God.  How cool is that?