By Christopher Watkin
Reviewed by means of John D. Caputo, Syracuse collage and Villanova University
Being an "atheist" isn't really an easy topic. while Derrida says that there are "theological prejudices" imbedded in "metaphysics in its entirety, even if it professes to be atheistic", he signifies that whilst metaphysics poses because the ideally suited authority that declares "there isn't any God," it easily reenacts the position of God. It leaves the "center" status and reoccupies it with different metaphysical pretenders to the throne: guy, heritage, technology, cause, any model of Žižek's "Big Other." that's not anything greater than a palace coup that leaves the palace approach status. Such atheism, which loads of us might name "modernist," Watkin says, "imitates" theism and is "parasitic" at the very framework it purports to negate. Atheism, he argues, is "difficult," a problem Nietzsche proposed to fulfill whilst he stated "God is dead," the place "God" intended not only the Deity however the complete procedure of "values," of "truth" and the "good," from Plato to the current, each try and determine a middle, a starting place of information and morals, together with glossy physics, that's additionally an "interpretation." Watkin thinks this atheism is uncovered to a "difficulty" of its personal, which he calls its "ascetic" procedure, since it calls upon us to make do with the ensuing particles or "residue" of misplaced foundations (the "death of God"), to stay with finitude and imperfection, giving up on a pleasing transcendence and placing up with an unsatisfying immanence (133). It doesn't quite annul where of God yet simply leaves it empty (6-7), like Camus' "absurd man" shaking his fist on the void. this is often an atheism that regrets that it really is right.
The ascetic model faces an extra hassle: after we undermine foundations, we have now undermined any foundational argument opposed to the previous God. That binds the arms of atheism, fighting any knock-out atheistic blow, thereby leaving the barn door open to non secular religion. Kant used to be being an ideal Pauline-Lutheran Protestant while he acknowledged that he chanced on it essential to delimit wisdom with the intention to make room for religion. The "difficulty," in brief, is that atheism wishes foundationalism to chop off the get away path of religion, yet foundationalism reenacts and repeats theism. both concede our irreducible finitude, which leaves the limitless inaccessible and a potential item of religion, or in some way scramble over to the facet of the limitless and bring to an end the break out direction of religion, which runs the other threat of taking part in God. That explains "post-secularism," the postmodern "return of religion": as soon as modernity is delimited and the metaphysical gunfire over God subsides, a postmodern model of classical spiritual religion is loose to elevate its hoary head. This "colonisation" of recent atheism by way of faith has relatively gotten Watkin's goat (239).
Watkin proposes a fashion out of this obstacle -- if no longer, we are going to by no means be rid of faith and all its ensuing woes -- less than the identify of what he calls a "post-theological integration." this implies, in Lyotard's phrases, inventing a brand new ("post-theological") video game and never being content material with a brand new circulate within the age-old online game (theism as opposed to atheism). Is there how to imagine "after God" or "without God" that doesn't act as though it's God (parasitism), whereas no longer giving up at the principles of fact and justice (asceticism), that means that it may be "integrated" with rules commonly linked to God? (13) much is dependent upon what Watkin ability via "integration," which runs its personal danger of aggression and colonization -- fidgeting with faith and explaining it to itself. Philosophy (father) is aware most sensible, is aware greater than faith what faith is conversing approximately. Philosophy is aware that issues will be "better" -- it's the "consensus" (239) -- "without" God and faith. much additionally is determined by "without," a venerable be aware of Meister Eckhart's Latin (sine) and German (ohne) vocabulary, reflected upon at size via Heidegger and Derrida (sans). in terms of being an atheist, who's with out sin (sine peccato, anamartetos)?
Watkin takes up Alain Badiou ("axiomatic atheism"), Jean-Luc Nancy ("atheology") and Quentin Meillassoux ("divine inexistence"), each one of whom he thinks has simply this sort of post-theological undertaking in brain. The French concentration omits not just Nietzsche but in addition Žižek, however it has the benefit of together with Nancy -- rather than easily writing off deconstruction as (like God) lifeless and proscribing the controversy to the recent or "speculative" realists -- in addition to a short yet illuminating dialogue of Jean-Luc Marion. the matter is attention-grabbing, the query is especially properly framed, and the structure of the ebook is impeccable (without sin). we will be specially thankful to Watkin for offering exemplary expositions of those authors, in particular Nancy, an extremely elusive and allusive author who calls for a examining in French. The ebook is stuffed with refined and intricate commentaries to which no assessment can do justice. tough Atheism represents a worldly contribution to the debates that experience arisen within the wake of the "theological turn", and it benefits cautious research via somebody attracted to those issues.
Badiou's assault is directed opposed to "ascetic" atheism, postmodern post-Kantian skeptics approximately "truth." His atheism is easy: theism is fake; atheism is correct. The dichotomy stands and one department is damaged off. through insisting upon our "finitude," the postmoderns enable the "infinite" (God, the single) to flourish like a toxic mushroom in the dead of night soil of the "inaccessible." So Badiou reclaims the limitless for philosophy, stiffens the spines of the philosophers approximately fact, leaving the previous God nowhere to conceal whereas maintaining fact and justice. not anything is left over; not anything can break out the sunshine of the belief. this can be performed via invoking a selected model of set conception which wrests the endless from the only of the Platonic-Christian culture and transfers it to multiplicity. yet, Watkin issues out, Cantor used to be a Roman Catholic who unusual a numerical infinity (the transfinite, quantitative multiplicity) from the "absolutely infinite" being of God (divine simplicity), that's neither numerically finite nor numerically countless and as such the province of theology. there's not anything in arithmetic which authorizes arithmetic to talk about what's no longer mathematical firstly. that's the very circulation Badiou desires to bring to an end. All Badiou can do with Cantor's contrast is to comb it off and claim "The One is not" an axiomatic determination (27-29). Ontology simply is arithmetic, adopting a posture usually struck in Vatican encyclicals and within the Bible belt below the identify of the "Word of God."
Nancy directs his assault opposed to this type of easy modernist or "imitative-parasitic" atheism we see in Badiou. As a deconstructionist, Nancy undercuts the "binary opposition" among theism and atheism (132), treating atheism because the turn facet of onto-theo-logy. Theism and atheism are reflect photos. He situates himself at the terrain of the "finite," which is helping us keep away from pretending that we're God, as Badiou has performed. for this reason Nancy speaks of a deconstructive "atheology," now not "atheism." Nancy describes an unlimited "open" that's in basic terms ever in part crammed through any finite development, an unbounded "sense" which can't be saturated by means of any determinate "signification." there is not any ahistorical arche or telos that shuts down or "axiomatizes" the open. The inspiration that whatever ahistorical breaks in upon the historic and henceforth adjustments every thing -- the way in which the matheme ruptures the mytheme for Badiou -- is the very gesture of "Christianity," of the Incarnation, or what Nancy calls the "Christmas projection" (37). So it's Christianity that wishes deconstruction.
But to deconstruct anything is to open it up, no longer shut it down. Deconstruction is un-closing, dis-enclosing. whereas Nancy's deconstruction of Christianity will supply no convenience to the Vatican or Nashville, it is going to divulge a sens deep inside Christianity that "Christianity" (a signification) has a tendency to shut off. As Derrida issues out, that attaches hyperbolic value to Christianity itself, culling the wheat from the chaff, the spirit from the lifeless letter. this is often made transparent via the heritage of Derrida's be aware déconstruction, which interprets Heidegger's Destruktion, which in flip interprets what Luther referred to as the destructio of medieval metaphysical theology so that it will get better the pristine middle of the hot testomony, which itself interprets apolo in I Cor 1:19, which interprets Isaiah 29:14. Heidegger's Destruktion retrieves the reality (aletheia) in metaphysics from which metaphysics itself is barred. Watkin concludes that Nancy's deconstruction is "parasitic" upon Christianity and never surely post-theological (39-40). Neither Badiou nor Nancy escapes parasitism. every one convicts the other.
But isn't Nancy's "repetition" of Christianity with no Christianity precisely what an "integration" should be? may perhaps we now not distinguish a flat-footed parasitism from an ironic, unsleeping and inventive one? Is there no longer an phantasm embedded in talking too strongly of the "post"-theological as though the theological should be over and performed with? we won't pull ourselves up by way of our personal bootstraps and create de novo. we commence the place we're, with the languages and traditions we have now inherited, which we search to re-think and re-open. the belief isn't to decontaminate ourselves from those traditions yet to remodel them, to get well what's going in them, with out being trapped by way of them. occasionally Watkin speaks of the post-theological as though "God," "theology" and "religion" have been like AIDS, and the post-theological query is how we wipe out this possibility. The post-theological is expounded to "reoccupy" and "integrate" with theology as a way to subvert it.
Is philosophy then aggression, a strength of "occupation," a antagonistic army takeover which "exploits the resources" of faith (99)? that will prevail merely in being "integrated" with theological imperialism! what's the distinction among the "post-secular colonisation" of atheism and the "post-theological occupation" of theology -- except whose part one is on? Or is philosophy a repetition that might continuously be hyperbolic approximately whatever -- in a different way it'd be "ahistorical" -- writing sous rature, deploying paleologism and a common sense of the sans (Derrida's faith sans religion), as Watkin explicitly issues out (79-80)? that may be a even more soft operation than the single Watkin ascribes to Badiou -- as though faith have been an item uncovered to the sunshine of the belief and the "philosopher" have been the "master" who can clarify faith to itself, whereas mocking its self-understanding as an insignificant "fable." yet any proposal, "theological" or "post-theological," is at odds with itself and is moved through its personal inner tensions. A deconstruction tracks the way in which issues are consistently already invaded by means of their different, continuously divided internally, however it isn't exploitation, aggression, career, a plundering of faith or the murals -- merci à Dieu!
At this aspect, Watkin is confident we've reached a draw: neither place has came across its method transparent to post-theology. Badiou makes a primal choice concerning the axiomatization of being, stating that the only isn't really, which whether traditionally "motivated" is a contestable religion that mathematical considering is "better." Nancy is also not able to flee the shadow of theology, distinguishing a determinate trust (croyance) in a determinate "principle" (or signification) from a deeper yet divided religion (foi) (in sens). This religion isn't really against cause yet is a protecting religion with or being "true" (treu) to cause that vitamins cause. cause wishes such religion on the way to functionality, given its personal insufficiency, in order that cause is rarely extra "reasonable" than while it acknowledges that it wishes the complement of religion. A self-sufficient cause is idolatry; precise cause is unclosed, incomplete, inadequate, uncovered to religion (115-16). Nancy calls this "atheology," the confirmation of the unprogrammable, un-axiomatizable, sens of the "world." yet this, Watkin thinks, simply keeps to privilege Christianity. Atheism might be not just tough yet "incompletable" (121), led again to a Gödelian position: atheism can't whole itself (Badiou) with no turning into inconsistent, and it can't be constant (Nancy) with no being incomplete (123).
Enter Meillassoux, who claims to supply an atheism either constant and whole. utilizing Badiou's critique of finitude, Meillassoux assaults Kantian "fideism" (denying wisdom to make room for religion) and offers philosophy limitless authority over God, rationalizing revelation -- no longer removing it -- now not not like Spinoza or Hegel. Philosophy denies either the transcendent God of theism and the God-less immanence of atheism, yet instead it produces a brand new God of its personal building, an "inexistent" God. Philosophy isn't really experimental technological know-how, whose methodological limits (finitude) play into the fingers of non secular religion, yet nor is it classical metaphysics, which posits an important being. accordingly it assumes a "speculative" shape which denies the belief that we're compelled to select from the contingency of the various (postmodernism) and the need of the single (God) (metaphysics). Readers of theology will realize that "voluntarist" or "divine will" theology, God as important, transcendent and inscrutably unfastened to change the legislation of nature and morality, does provider for "God" at huge for Meillassoux. The "speculative" place is to claim the need of contingency, the need that every little thing is contingent, which Meillassoux calls the primary of the "factial" (le factual). It can't be that the contingency of items is itself contingent.
This precept is argued for through a wierd type of tables-turning approach to "conversion" (162). A minus (reasoning to an important being falls into countless regress, explaining one contingent factor via one other) turns into a plus: this failure is a right away perception into the non-necessity of anyone being and of the need of the contingency of each being, which gets rid of the necessity for religion (146). Being not able to come back up with a enough explanation for any being is an perception into the impossibility that any specific being can be useful (147). What's finally "wrong" with God for Meillassoux is that we're forbidden to invite the place God got here from. Or back: the "strong correlationists" continue that fact may possibly continuously be in a different way than the way in which now we have developed it in language or cognizance. that isn't the skeptical relativism it desires to be, yet an instinct that it truly is inescapably valuable that issues may perhaps continually be in a different way than they are.
Finally, his impressive examining of Hume: the shortcoming to discover the mandatory dating among the antecedent and the resultant is an highbrow perception into the genuine loss of causal necessity, thereby switching the "non-reason" from us (skepticism) to the issues themselves (realism). Meillassoux isn't announcing that the wildlife is chaotic yet that it's topic to a non-observable (speculative) contingency (143). There are legislation and regularities or even causal connections in nature, yet they're all contingent. Gravity is a legislations, however it isn't really invaluable. it truly is thinkable that the next day there'll be no gravity. Chaos is disease, yet radical contingency is a "hyperchaos," which means that sickness should be destroyed through order simply as simply as order should be destroyed via sickness. From the main of "insufficient reason" (there being no enough cause of any specific factor) we will finish to the need of contingency (145) and to the primary of non-contradiction, for if a specific thing have been either itself and its contradiction it'll already be any "other" that it will possibly develop into; it can then be an unchangeable and important being. yet each being is contingent.
None of which means Meillassoux is completed with God. faraway from it -- he's the main "aggressive" (231-32) of all by way of post-theological "integration." After allotting with the God of the ontological argument, God as an ens necessarium, it continues to be attainable that God may possibly take place to return approximately, whether God occurs to not exist now. God's present inexistence doesn't exclude a potential destiny lifestyles. certainly, it truly is totally important that God (like every thing else presently inexistent) may very likely exist in a while. Why Meillassoux might ever be ended in say this sort of factor -- he's not anything if now not daring -- brings us to the query of justice, the opposite notion (along with fact) with which post-theology desires to "integrate itself," and to the age-old challenge of evil. Justice calls for we supersede either classical theism (because it affirms a God who allows the worst injustices) and classical atheism (because it permits the injustice performed to the lifeless to head unrepaired) via positing the wish for the prospective emergence sooner or later of a God who will increase the useless and present them for his or her hitherto unrequited anguish when it comes to a Christ-like determine known as the "Child of Man." Like a strange Hegelian, Meillassoux desires to "occupy" every little thing that (the Christian) faith has to assert! That yields a "philosophical divine" (207), a God, faith and resurrection within which we might wish strictly in the limits of cause by myself, of the primary of beneficial contingency.
Watkin thinks that Meillassoux's precept of the need of contingency undoes itself. Given the unbroken rule of contingency, such a necessity must be temporally certified as "according to the shortly winning criteria of rationality" (151). probably the next day morning what's judged rational or simply this day can be judged irrational and unjust, whereas what's irrational and unjust can be judged rational and simply. The very notions of considering and rationality, of necessity and contingency are all contingent and topic to alter sooner or later. in the event that they are usually not, then they're valuable and exempt from the main of the factial. Meillassoux both erects a God-like idol out of pondering and rationality (parasitic atheism) or calls for an act of religion that cause won't mutate below the strength of hyperchaos (ascetic atheism) (155).
In Nancy, justice comes all the way down to a "call" that for Watkin is just too susceptible to be powerful and to be powerful will require miming a divine injunction. Badiou tells us his view of justice is inspired through his own adventure of the occasions of may perhaps, 1968, which compares to his view that his axiomatic choice to assert that ontology is arithmetic is stimulated via the calls for of modernity; whereas biographically attention-grabbing, this lacks the universality politics calls for. Badiou bases his atheism on an axiomatic determination; Nancy builds religion into the very notion of cause; and Meillassoux, resisting either strikes, makes an attempt an illustration of his founding precept, however the demonstration calls for religion. Taken jointly, all 3 thinkers posit an axiom, a decision or an instinct during which we needs to simply have confidence (233-34), that are thought of eo ipso "good" and are given a move on having to extra justify themselves. He concludes with Fichte's comment that the type of philosophy one chooses will depend on the type of individual one is. Philosophy consistently hazards such circularity, that is the last word trouble in turning into an atheist.
But what is going round comes round. Watkin concerns that the "colonisation" of atheism via "post-secular" theology ends us up again in theology, no longer atheism. that's obviously undesirable simply because, good, atheism is "good." yet what's so solid approximately atheism? Why is atheism not only as good-and-bad as theology, the place all of it is determined by how theologians and atheists behave either as thinkers and social brokers? Why may still we search a "post-theology" that purges either the imitation and the residue of theology from atheism? simply because atheism is sweet and an intensive clean-sweep atheism is even higher. The "post" in Watkin's post-theology is like Žižek's interpreting of the Hegelian dialectic as a double no: atheism capability no God; post-theology capability no God, now not even a hint of God.
But why is "post-secular" theology no longer "good?" It belongs to a revolutionary wing of theology desirous to soak up the insights of radical thinkers from Nietzsche to Žižek with a view to have interaction in critical self-criticism and to undermine the demonization of atheism by way of theology. If we criticize theologians for no longer analyzing such writers, are we then to criticize them after they do? Postmodern theology ends up in a looking out feedback of the violence and fundamentalism of faith from inside of theology itself, that's significantly better than any exterior feedback of theology. If we attempt the belief on Watkin's phrases, via its pay-off by way of justice, post-secular theology enacts an auto-deconstruction of theological imperialism, militarism, patriarchy, racism, and homophobia, drawing upon a theology of peace and justice stretching from Amos to Martin Luther King (which is why non secular everyone is so usually came across operating one of the so much destitute humans on the earth) and calling down upon itself the hearth of conservative spiritual experts. If such theological considering have been the coin of the area in faith this present day, non secular violence wouldn't be within the headlines.
That being stated, I do partially percentage Watkin's trouble with post-secular theology, even though which may come as a shock to him, on the grounds that Watkin numbers me one of the post-secularists he criticizes, which I characteristic to a slightly glancing examine my paintings. I regard the "post-Kantian" model of postmodern theology as an attenuated or abridged version of postmodernism; it's strong however it should be higher. It regards postmodernism because the modern model of "apologetics," removing reductionistic evaluations of faith and permitting classical spiritual orthodoxy to face untouched. A extra looking model of postmodern idea calls for a extra looking (and post-Hegelian) feedback of what's occurring in faith and theology. That calls for a cautious old and significant learn of the Scriptures, of the heritage of theology and of what we're speaking approximately after we westerners communicate in Christian Latin of "religion." the end result could take the shape, for my part, of an exposition (an expounding and an exposing) of the "events" that ensue in faith -- occasions of promising and hoping, giving and forgiving, mourning and recalling, justice and hospitality, and so forth. it can divulge a deeper "faith" (foi) which runs underneath the "confessional beliefs" (croyances), the place either "theism" and "atheism" are handled as croyances, whereas religion has to do with a deep-set confirmation or hope of anything we wish with a wish past wish, a wish that overtakes us all, theists, atheists or nonetheless attempting to decide.
I imagine, and Watkin turns out to agree, that there are not any non-circular arguments opposed to the life of God, if via God we suggest a being open air house and time. If that's what an intensive atheism may suggest, there's no such factor (243, n.3). What assets may possibly we ever marshal to teach what there isn't in an international past area and time? whether it is "difficult" adequate to attempt to turn out that anything is there, it truly is even tougher to end up there's not. yet I do imagine that the nice previous God of St. Augustine and his two-worlds conception has run its path, that it has earned our "incredulity," to stay with Lyotard's accurately selected notice, an incredulity that's quite often came across one of the theologians themselves. That, although, is some distance from giving up on God, or extra accurately at the identify (of) "God," or extra accurately nonetheless the "events" that occur in and below the identify (of) "God." Pursuing what I name a "radical theology," i need to be "after" God in as many ways as attainable, not just after/post the dualism of town of God but in addition after/ad the identify of God that offers phrases to a hope past wish, which Derrida has subtly if enigmatically set unfastened in texts like "Circumfession." This eccentric restaging of Augustine's Confessions is a deeply nuanced deconstruction of Christianity or even extra so of his personal Judaism, "haunting" the spiritual ideals it repeats, making them tremble whereas additionally suggesting they include anything they can not include. Deconstruction isn't really "critique" yet an indirect confirmation. Derrida doesn't attempt to "occupy" the Confessions like a conquering colonial military yet to "repeat" faith "without religion," in accordance with the sophisticated good judgment of the sans, thereby exposing the constitution of a extra profound foi that's happening within the Confessions whereas no longer being held captive through its doctrinal croyances. Deconstruction isn't really "occupying;" it's examining, slowly and meticulously.
Once the binarity of theism and atheism is displaced, as soon as the grip of those "-isms" is damaged, then considering and performing after God can commence, as loose from theism as from atheism, but additionally, speed Watkin, as unfastened from atheism as from theism.
Read Online or Download Difficult Atheism: Tracing the Death of God in Contemporary Continental Thought (Crosscurrents) PDF
Similar philosophy books
In a sequence of philosophical discussions and creative case stories, this quantity develops a materialist and immanent method of smooth and modern artwork. The argument is made for a go back to aesthetics--an aesthetics of effect--and for the theorization of paintings as an elevated and complicated perform. Staging a sequence of encounters among particular Deleuzian techniques; the digital, the minor, the fold, and so forth.
Written via either the 1st and moment individual singular, 'Passionate Being' takes its writer and its reader on a trip that has them deliberating their event of and belonging to language and the potential of an example of the realm taking-place with no prejudice and exclusion.
At its starting, it brings to its writer the query ‘What are you able to say? ’ The responses that take place flip our realization towards presupposition and approximately how ‘singularity’ may be acknowledged. The ebook additionally brings into play, between others, the paintings of Giorgio Agamben. It asks us to view either language and the area taking-place with out presupposition, revealing either the political implications, and people for dwelling, that this imaginative and prescient holds. it's a paintings to be learn two times with excitement, after which again.
'Here Yve Lomax, the most unique and demanding artists and writers operating this present day, proves back why her paintings has been primary to the institution of the self-discipline of paintings Writing.
'Passionate Being' is either end result of and departure from earlier paintings. It takes the "art of writing" to a brand new measurement and is important interpreting for all those that search an immersive adventure with language and the realm. ' - Anne Tallentire, Professor of excellent paintings, significant St Martins collage of artwork and Design
""Passionate Being takes the 'art of writing' to a brand new size and is important studying for all those that search an immersive adventure with language and the area. ’"" -- Anne Tallentire, Professor of good artwork, vital St Martins collage of artwork and Design
About the Author
Yve Lomax is Professor in paintings Writing at Goldsmiths collage and examine educate for fantastic Art/Photography on the Royal university of paintings. Yve Lomax's books Writing the picture: An event with paintings and idea and Sounding the development: Escapades in discussion & issues of paintings, Nature & Time have been released through I. B. Tauris in respectively 2000 and 2004.
- Der Poet
- Philosophy Today, Volume 55, Number 3 (Fall 2011)
- The Cambridge Companion to Leo Strauss (Cambridge Companions to Philosophy)
- Zoos and Animal Rights
- Why Philosophize?
Additional resources for Difficult Atheism: Tracing the Death of God in Contemporary Continental Thought (Crosscurrents)
This reading is inexact. Nancy’s preferred articulation is not that philosophy-as-metaphysics is finished, but that it is exhausted, and that this exhaustion is what is indicated by the ‘death of God’ (OP 64–5). Nancy clarifies that we only say that metaphysics has ‘ended’ ‘pour dire qu’elle épuise ce qui prétendrait achever aussi bien sa rétrospection que sa prospection. 55 To say that metaphysics is exhausted is not the same as saying that it has ended, because what metaphysics has exhausted is its end.
Heidegger, ‘Nietzsche’s word’, p. 69. 31. Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, p. 117. 32. Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, p. 586. 33. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, trans. C. K. Ogden (New York: Barnes and Noble, 2003), p. 157. indd 18 18/03/2011 12:15 Atheisms Today 19 34. Husserl, Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology, p. 134. 35. Henry, L’Essence de la manifestation, p. 349. ‘Immanence has been defined by reference to transcendence and through the exclusion of the latter from its internal structure’ (Henry, L’Essence de la manifestation, p.
From the instant that, with all my strength, I link myself as the only possibility to a universe where my presence has no meaning, I must completely renounce hope; from the instant that, toward and against everything, I maintain my will to see everything clearly, knowing that the obscurity will never diminish, I must completely renounce rest; from the instant that I can do nothing but question everything without giving anything, even this questioning, an absolute value, I must renounce everything, even this act of refusing everything.
Difficult Atheism: Tracing the Death of God in Contemporary Continental Thought (Crosscurrents) by Christopher Watkin