Which God(s) do you (not) believe in? An interview with Christopher Watkin, Journal of Baudrillard Studies

Which God(s) do you (not) believe in? An interview with Christopher Watkin, Journal of Baudrillard Studies

https://christopherwatkin.com/2020/02/13/which-gods-do-you-not-believe-in-an-interview-with-christopher-watkin-journal-of-baudrillard-studies/
— Read on christopherwatkin.com/2020/02/13/which-gods-do-you-not-believe-in-an-interview-with-christopher-watkin-journal-of-baudrillard-studies/

I think the third option he misses for the sake of thinking is the basis of his thinking. As in my post before this one, he avoids the fact of the application of his critique can be applied to the very act of his proposal through proposing it. In other words, by making his proposal he is not only reifying that it is belief which constitutes the question of veracity of God and his theocratic histories, but also relying upon the obscurity gained through the reorganization of terms and phrases to denote an argument about whether any form of God may or may not exist. He is, in essence, saying either we believe or don’t believe because there is an either/ or problem to force one to believe or not believe, Or, that Becuase there is no clear way to discern whether or not whether we should believe, we thus need not put the term religion within bounds to believe or not believe, which by that ordainment of reason thus forces us to believe or not believe in the arrangement of terms and phrases.

In short, it’s a very erudite circle jerk of masturbating intellects which appear to give us something…

but really give us, once again in the very very modern-post-modern sense Nothing as if this nothingness has substance.

In other words, in order for his discussion or argument (the link) to have any meaning whatsoever, in light of what I’ve just pointed out about it, One must have faith, one must view it through a certain orientation, a certain manner of appropriating what reality exactly is — but not in a subjective phenomenal sense where any meaning is allowed, but indeed a particular and specific manner — at that, not only for the thinker herself but for all of humanity.

That is religious by any definition, the Godhead implied in the structure of the method (dishonesty if intentional or a mistake if not noticed) as opposed to naming it what it is (scholasticism).

Still we have to ask Heidegger’s question:

Have we have yet begun to think ?