The Death of God as Source of the Creativity of Humans

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper intriguingly explores the notion of the death of God and its implications for contemporary thought. It effectively elucidates how this concept catalyzes provocative new avenues for theological inquiry, drawing from historical perspectives such as Hegel's notion of divinity emerging within secularism and Nietzsche's anticipation of a post-linguistic cultural landscape. It sets a promising stage for an examination of the relationship between the demise of traditional theological constructs and the flourishing of human creativity.

The paper engages deeply with the existential ramifications of the death of God, initially positing it as a catalyst for human creativity. By delineating between traditional notions of divine creation ex nihilo and the more nuanced understanding of human creativity as emerging from a state of foundationlessness, the paper navigates complex theological terrain with clarity and insight.

The subsequent discussion traverses diverse philosophical perspectives, from Hegelian notions of immanence to poststructuralist critiques of representation, culminating in Nietzschean reflections on the potentiality inherent in cultural collapse. The incorporation of thinkers like Žižek, Agamben, and Badiou enriches the discourse by extending the analysis into the realm of contemporary secular thought, highlighting the post-secular turn towards reimagining religious paradigms.

My general assessment of the paper is decidedly positive. I offer some constructive suggestions aimed at the possible improvement of the paper, emphasizing that these are not requirements for publication, but rather suggestions for further enhancement.

1. While the paper adeptly navigates complex philosophical terrain, it could benefit from further clarification in certain sections. Particularly, the initial part of the paper effectively contextualizes the thesis about the foundational role of the absence of God in stimulating human creativity.  However, that section could benefit from further clarification regarding the precise mechanisms through which the death of God engenders human creativity. Additionally, strengthening the connection of the theme of creativity with the rest of the paper would enhance coherence.

2. The concluding paragraph might sound somewhat hasty. While the incorporation of diverse philosophical perspectives enriches the discourse, ensuring coherence and seamless integration of these perspectives could enhance the overall cohesion of the argument.

Some minor remarks:
(a) In the abstract, some words contain unwanted spaces (“This”, “difference”).

(b) The first sentence of the paper reads as a bit abrupt: “The enormous interest of this topic lies…”. Since the topic has not been mentioned yet, a revision of the paragraph is recommended.

(c) the term “analogia” on p. 2 is partly in italic and partly in Roman (unless this intentional)

Overall, the paper presents a compelling exploration of the nexus between theological absence and human creativity, drawing from a rich array of philosophical traditions to elucidate its central thesis. The depth of analysis and breadth of scholarship exhibited in the paper warrant its publication. Its nuanced engagement with theological themes and contemporary philosophical discourse makes a significant contribution to the scholarly conversation surrounding the death of God and its implications for human creativity. It is also particularly suited to a special issue titled “The Creative Death of God”. Therefore, I recommend its publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I've found a mistake in page 8, line 332, at the final word it lacks a hyphen. I suggest to put in the right order the name of Angelus Silesius in page 2, line 42.

Author Response

I corrected the order of the names in Angelus Silesius. 

I cannot find the "mistake in page 8, line 332, at the final word it lacks a hyphen."

The submitted ms I download from the mdpi site does not have line numbers nor even the same pagination.

Thank you for the comments!

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a deeply impressive, extremely well thought-through, argued and written article and a pleasure to read and think with.  As I started reading the section 'Two contrasting paradigms of Divine death' [line 337 following] i wondered initially why it began with Nietzsche and not  Hegel, given Hegel predates Nietzsche. while this became clear by the end of this section I do offer the suggestion that a brief line explaining why Nietzsche then Hegel is engaged with in this way in this section is added as a guide to the reader. Perhaps this ties to the question of  why- as stated in line 398, Hegel is far more optimistic regarding the death of god. Is this why a far more productive creative response arises  from engagement via Hegel than Nietzsche?  And this in tun set me thinking along the lines of Berlin's famous two forms of freedom and their outcomes. Anyway those are just the asides of an engaged reader.

Author Response

I find that the discussions of Hegel and Nietzsche are closely intertwined all along, and although the suggestion of some explanation for why Nietzsche is treated (really only mentioned) first made sense to me, when I tried to place it somewhere I felt I was interrupting rather than enhancing readability and finally gave up.

Thank you for the comments!

Reviewer 4 Report

The article titled "The Death of God as Source of the Creativity of Humans" delves into the profound and intricate connections between the concept of "the death of God" and human creativity, oscillating between the realms of philosophy, negative theology, and literature. Invoking a diverse array of thinkers, including Hegel, Nietzsche, and Dante Alighieri, the author presents an argument that the metaphysical crisis following the "death of God" simultaneously acts as a catalyst for unprecedented human creativity.

At the outset, the Author adeptly introduces the reader to the topic, suggesting that the proclamation of "the death of God" is not merely a contemporary provocation but has its roots in classical Christian thought and can be seen as a key element in discovering new possibilities for theological thinking. This thesis is intriguing as it turns the traditional understanding of both Christianity and postmodernist critique of religion on its head, proposing that it is precisely in the face of the absence of a transcendent order that human creativity finds its most fertile ground.

The discussion then turns to negative theology, proposing that the inability to fully capture God through human language and concepts is not a limitation but an opportunity to explore the limitless areas of spirituality and creativity. While this thread is fascinating, one might wish for more detailed examples of contemporary artistic or literary works that embody this dynamic.

The analysis of Dante's "Divine Comedy" as an example where human creativity becomes a form of coping with the absence of an absolute foundation is one of the brighter points of the article. The Author skillfully combines historical and literary contexts, showing how even in deeply religious works, there is space for innovative forms of expression resulting from the confrontation with the elusiveness of divinity. This perspective opens up new possibilities for interpretation not only for the "Divine Comedy" but for a wide range of literary works.

In the section dedicated to modernity and postmodernity, the Author demonstrates how changes in the understanding of transcendence and immanence have shaped contemporary culture and thought. This is an insightful observation.

In summary, the article constitutes a valuable contribution to the discussion on the relationship between "the death of God" and human creativity, opening new perspectives on understanding how people cope with fundamental metaphysical crises. The Author demonstrates deep knowledge of the material and the ability to think synthetically, which allows for a comprehensive and multidimensional approach to the topic. Nonetheless, the article could benefit from a more concrete analysis and broader application of its theses in the context of contemporary cultural works. In this way, the argumentation would not only become more accessible to the reader but also more convincing by showing the direct implications of theoretical considerations in the real world of art and thought.

Author Response

The request for more examples especially from contemporary art and literature illustrating concretely how human creativity is stimulated by the absence and death of God is certainly right in the direction it points. This could point to quite substantial revision with a new and substantial section to the essay. Instead, due to pragmatic considerations of time and space, I have added reference to related works where I do discuss contemporary art in greater detail.

Thank you for the comments!