Christian Atheism: How to Be a Real Materialist

by Slavoj Žižek

If we want to be true atheists, do we have to begin with a religious edifice and undermine it from within?

Slavoj Žižek has long been a commentator on, and critic of, Christian theology. His preoccupation with Badiou's concept of 'the event' alongside the Pauline thought of the New Testament has led to a decidedly theological turn in his thinking. Drawing on traditions and subjects as broad as Buddhist thought, dialectical materialism, political subjectivity, quantum physics, AI and chatbots, this book articulates Žižek's idea of a religious life for the first time.

Christian Atheism is a unique insight into Žižek's theological project and the first book-length exploration of his religious thinking. In his own words, "to become a true dialectical materialist, one should go through the Christian experience." Crucial to his whole conception of 'experience' is not some kind of spiritual revelation but rather the logic of materialistic thought. This affirmation of Christian theology whilst simultaneously deconstructing it is a familiar Žižekian move, but one that holds deep-seated political, philosophical and, in the end, personal import for him.

Here is Žižek's most extensive treatment of theology and religion to date.

Genres: Philosophy, Theology, Psychoanalysis, Nonfiction, Religion, Theory, Christianity

287 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2024

About the author

Slavoj Žižek is a Slovene sociologist, philosopher, and cultural critic.

He was born in Ljubljana, Slovenia (then part of SFR Yugoslavia). He received a Doctor of Arts in Philosophy from the University of Ljubljana and studied psychoanalysis at the University of Paris VIII with Jacques-Alain Miller and François Regnault. In 1990 he was a candidate with the party Liberal Democracy of Slovenia for Presidency of the Republic of Slovenia (an auxiliary institution, abolished in 1992).

Since 2005, Žižek has been a member of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts.

Žižek is well known for his use of the works of 20th century French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan in a new reading of popular culture. He writes on many topics including the Iraq War, fundamentalism, capitalism, tolerance, political correctness, globalization, subjectivity, human rights, Lenin, myth, cyberspace, postmodernism, multiculturalism, post-marxism, David Lynch, and Alfred Hitchcock.

In an interview with the Spanish newspaper El País he jokingly described himself as an "orthodox Lacanian Stalinist". In an interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! he described himself as a "Marxist" and a "Communist."

Reviews

[Elliot · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have very little interest at this point in Zizek’s writings or projects. Nowadays I only find Zizek worthwhile as someone to use for immaculate conception as Deleuze puts it, on using philosophers for our own gain and creating a child/monster.

Some of what’s really phenomenal in here and deserving of 5 stars: Zizek’s immanent critique of religion and that critique’s relation to psychoanalysis. Some genuinely great insights into psychoanalytic understandings of religious belief. Also, Zizek displays more clarity here on his interpretation of Hegel and Lacan than many other works I’ve read- some truly great commentary on what it means to move from epistemological lack to ontological lack/gap/cut. On this point there is a truly great chapter on quantum mechanics and what it means for materialism/philosophy/religion. It’s actually quite impressive how Zizek handles it.


With that being said 3 stars overall because there is so much 1 star level garbage throughout. One ultimately has to sift through a significant amount of said garbage to produce the aforementioned monster child. The one star bits are mostly Zizek’s most recent Compact articles repurposed- garbage stuff on IdPol, “wokeness,” trans stuff, Law and Order, etc. If you’ve read any of it previously, you know it’s bad.

I’d have a hard time recommending this to anyone who isn’t already familiar with Zizek and the wider world of theory he represents- if that is you then this one is definitely worth a skim for the gems in between. (Definitely check out chapter 3 on quantum mechanics)

[Seppe · Rating 4 out of 5]

"There was only one Christian, and he died on the cross"
- One of Nietzsches aphorisms, is fully backed up by Žižek. Not only God the Son died on the cross, also the Father, the Holy Spirit is a Spook living through the followers. The point is made that the kernel of atheism is present in and throughout Christianity. "The only way towards atheism is through Christianity" Z proclaims, heavily inspired by Paulinic teachings and Hegels interpretation of the Trinity.
You'd be disapointed if you expect a thorough examination of theology, rather Z gives a hotchpotch of his formed ideas on theology using provocative language.
Published as recent as 2024, contemporary events in geopolitics are discussed, quantum mechanics, anti-semitism and trans-rights. An interesting read, especially the claim that politics are inherently theological. Faith is interwoven in the most everyday things. The gap between 'knowing' and 'believing' is worthwhile to explore.

[Solomon Holmes · Rating 4 out of 5]

Zizek being Zizek volume #???

[Ben Hall · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's always difficult to review any book by Zizek having got to the end not sure if I read one book or six, but I'll try.

The titled idea of Christian Atheism was the most intriguing part to me and what it means for Christianity. For Zizek Christianity as a revolutionary/emancipatory practice hinges on the death of Jesus. Most Christians would say something similar with the addition of Jesus' resurrection, which I think is a key distinction.

How I have come to understand Christian Atheism is that Chrstianity takes on its universalist revolutionary character through the transition from an exclusive group organized by a mutual relation to God (big Other), to a group united through a shared relationship to the Holy Spirit that is part of them. This transition can only happen by the big Other destabilizing its established position through death (Jesus' crucifixion). This leaves us with a Holy Spirit community that is truly universal, with true commonality, that can then achieve truly emacipatory, revolutionary ends: "not just a group of individuals pursuing their particular interests but a group of comrades acting on behalf of a Cause."

Chrstian Atheism helps place Christian theology back in its radical place. Definitely worth a read.

[Silvester Borsboom · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dikwijls bijzonder grappig en inzichtelijk, maar ook absurd chaotisch en slordig. Kortom: Zizek. De religieuze dimensie stond minder centraal dan gehoopt. Veel verder dan het telkens herhalen van de welbekende Hegeliaanse opvatting van de kruisdood als het sterven van de God "aan gene zijde" (waarbij Zizek een wel heel seculiere interpretatie aanhangt van de Heilige Geest als de in absolute vrijheid samenkomende geloofsgemeenschap die, bevrijd van door God opgelegde wetten, haar eigen morele koers moet bepalen) komt het wat dat betreft niet. Wel veel boeiende analyses van Oekraïne, cultuuroorlogen enz.

[Lowell AfdahlRice · Rating 3 out of 5]

I always enjoy Zizek's writing style and most the time am engaged with the content. With this, my 36th book that I have read from Zizek, I was put off by the bricolage of content expecting a more philosophical approach on "Christian Atheism".

[Aljoša Toplak · Rating 4 out of 5]

More than about one thing, this is a series of Žižek's analyses of the current state of the world, but I'd like to highlight one quote:

"The conclusion that imposes itself is not that every ethical stance need some fi ure of the big Other to rely on but, on the contrary, that a truly radical ethical position emerges when the subject is deprived of the support in a big Other, so that it has to make a decision in the abyss of its freedom. Such a decision stands for the moment when ethics gets political, for the moment of the political suspension of the ethical : the subject has to make a decision which cannot be fully grounded in any kind of “higher” neutral principles (“don’t do to others what you wouldn’t like them to do to you,” etc.), it has to make a decision about how to apply these principles, a decision which always gives them a particular spin."

What a delightful way to bring ethics back to Earth and our immediate connections with beings; it's not that if God is dead, everything is permitted, but that we're now fully responsible for our actions. Even if life is a contingent and meaningless sequence of events, even if we're grounded in some completely arbitrary facticity of our lives -- e. g. we have two legs rather than three and we're a white man from Slovenia instead of a black woman from Sudan etc. -- we can still cultivate the wisdom to make decisions that will not only be smart, but also grounded in recognizing and accepting the world of another.

Žižek also gives a delightful compliment to the Enlightenment values of the West:

"At the same time, we should not be afraid to assert that the language of global emancipation has its roots in European tradition of Enlightenment. European civilization is characterized by a unique feature: permanent self-criticism is part of its identity. Yes, the liberal West is hypocritical, it applies its high standards very selectively. But hypocrisy means you violate the standards you proclaim, and in this way you open yourself up to immanent criticism – when we criticize the liberal West, we use its own standards. What Putin’s Russia is offering is a world without hypocrisy – because it is without global ethical standards, practicing just pragmatic “respect” for differences. We have seen clearly what this means when, after Taliban took over in Afghanistan, they instantly made a deal with China: China accepts the new Afghanistan while Taliban will ignore what China is doing with Uyghurs . . . – this is, in nuce, the new globalization advocated by Russia. And the only way to defend what is worth saving in our liberal tradition is to ruthlessly insist on its universality."

There's also some interesting arguments against god as an indispensable possibility:

"/.../ for a true materialist, it is only in this way that we really renounce god – by way of renouncing him not only insofar as he doesn’t really exist, but even if he is real. In short, the true formula of atheism is not “god doesn’t exist” but “god not only doesn’t exist, he is also stupid, indifferent, and maybe outright evil” – if we do not destroy the very fiction of god from within, it [will continue to hold its power over us]."

There's some answers to how to deal with global catastrophes:

"Our ultimate horizon is what Dupuy calls the dystopian “fixed point,” the zero-point of nuclear war, ecological breakdown, global economic and social chaos, etc. – even if it is indefinitely postponed, this zero-point is the virtual “attractor” towards which our reality, left to itself, tends. The way to combat the future catastrophe is through acts which interrupt our drifting towards this “fixed point.”

And an unexpected analysis of Himmler:

"Himmler goes to the end here: further in the speech, he imagines the case of an SS offi cer on the Eastern front confronting a Russian mother with a small child, both scared of him, trembling and crying. His fi rst reaction is, understandably, compassion: is really his duty as a soldier to kill these two helpless human beings? Himmler’s answer is an unconditional YES: his fi delity is only to the German people, which implies total indifference towards the suffering of the members of other races and nations. Bearing in mind the suffering the German people are exposed by the continuous bombing by the American and British planes, any compassion with the two poor Russians is nothing less than treason – an act of ignoring the suffering of one’s own people."

And as always, some pretty interesting movie analyses:

"The idea for Melancholia came to von Trier in a therapy session /.../ the psych. told him that depressive people tend to act more calmly [under the] threat of catastrophe. [This is a split in reality] – the social universe of est. customs and opinions in which we dwell – and the meaningless brutality of the Real: they cannot be thought within the same subjective space, one cannot be “normal” in both situations."

And so on, and so on ... Delightful read.

[Nik · Rating 4 out of 5]

...norec ni le berač, ki misli, da je kralj, ampak tudi kralj, ki misli, da je kralj: kajti kdor misli, da je Bog, je tudi največji norec.

[oscar · Rating 4 out of 5]

might be the zizekiest zizek

[Jared]

Hard day for woke

[Keelan]

A very powerful ending to a book that is consistently provocative and often laugh out loud funny, in a good way. Now some of the comments here are definitely right in identifying the redundancy in much of the content and the lack of focus on the titular concept. I, indeed, was hoping for a much more focused analysis on what exactly Christian atheism entails. While this does become clear enough by the end, the theme itself does not lurk strongly throughout. It is nonetheless recommendable; for it is, in fact, the home of fresh ideas.

[独活 · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's a pity that such a good book cannot be published in China, a socialist materialist country, simply because it discusses Christianity, completely ignoring the fact that it is a book defending materialism. Because many book companies dare not touch topics related to religion or politics. In my company, such topics were directly rejected by the boss, and I didn't even have the opportunity to participate in the topic selection meeting.

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

The content was brilliant, but the editing? Disgraceful. Does Bloomsbury assign unpaid interns to work on Zizek's text?

[Leon Banik · Rating 2 out of 5]

I really enjoy reading Zizek but this one just wasnt really it. Its like listening to a broken record, with him mentioning so much stuff he has talked about already. The book makes a good point but could have been 50 pages of „Read Hegel“ „Listen to two of my talks and read sublime object of ideology“ „*actually new stuff*“.

[Radu-andrei Oarcea · Rating 2 out of 5]

"The only way to be an atheist is through Christianity” is the crux of his new found identity, where a dead god and the meaning of such a condition are lumped together irrespective of his other beliefs such as the psychological need of meaning found in the Other. "This big other can be called natural necessity, evolution, or whatever. We, humans, are nonetheless reduced to a position within the harmonious whole of evolution,... , but the difficult thing to accept is again that there is no big other, no point of reference which guarantees meaning”. Christianity, in essence, is atheistic and at least, one of the possible paths to reach it, is through Christianity. That’s why Slavoj Žižek identifies himself as a Christian Atheist. Talking about thesis, antithesis, synthesis, about the destruction of subjective sovereignty!

He says he is not a cultural Christian, and he does so with a hint of disdain towards their inability to comprehend the true horrifying conclusion of the death of God and the heavy burden that entails upon us the followers. One could say that cultural Christians, their warm complacency and lack of existential dread, make them as productive socially as if following a purely materialistic project.

I want to mention here Alain Badiou, a communist and anti-Marxist philosopher in search of some kind of radical historicism, a gnosis, which combines humanistic perspectives with hollowed out precepts, a history without history, a Black Box, if you will. For Badiou nothing is unachievable, thus we must reject God entirely, there is no Truth beyond the conditions that shape reality in a materialist way as modes of operation for art, economics, politics, science, all of them instances of processes that create truth and meaning.

Badiou proposes an ethical framework based on sipping retroactively through historical Events, by way of deciding to give into it intentionally, and attributing meaning. This is how the new and the meaningful is inscribed in History, and one fundamental such Event is the Revelation. No true ontological meaning, no belief, no sacredness as Rudolf Otto would put it, not even Kierkegaard's metaphysical poetics, and which Zizek states he loves. Not even about a Hegelian History of the Being, he doesn't believe in the science such an Event would need in order to break this ahistorical round up, all the preconceived notions and events that make up History. The Event is only important retroactively and because it serves us with a programme for the betterment of humankind, something akin to Saint Paul's Church of the Spirit, where hierarchical differences are abolished. This for him is fiction, like everything else.

Zizek is constantly inoculating himself with the thought that “beautiful” Hegelian dialectics and Marxism is his destiny and the answer for everyone. This mythical revelatory dogmatic view, combining the Hegelian dialectic as the most elaborate sophism of philosophy of history, which coerces religion in a sort of hardboiled fiction, together with the "merry revelation" of Marxist atheism and Comtean ultimate Humanist religion, is the stuff a monster's dream is made from. Hence the awkward stories about Indian pariahs and caretakers, as true “materialists” who just can’t stop being the odd ones, wanting to do the odd job! He is both excited and repulsed by the real events, in such a way that he cannot but end up as the worst of misanthropists and pessimists. This serves more as a template for some kind of cultural criticism rather than anything resembling a coherent philosophical movement.

I think it's worthwhile to mention certain reformist ideas that circulate in the world of ideas in this dying age of misanthropy and "informed" nihilism. For example, Jacob Taubes rethinks some theoretical aspects in theological jurisprudence that make Saint Paul a crux of Judeo-Christian messianism and ethics, rather than part of the ecclesiastical body, liturgical tradition and cultic experience.

The new advent in the philosophy of history became a cannon in Giorgio Agambens’s purely humanist notion of the messianic time when he proposed that time is immanent to every instant, a subjective passing of time, suspended for the operatic quality of the state of exception; now it is praised for its “extractive” political gain as an anti-end of time ethical paralysis, a fortuitous break from the continuity of time and push towards revolutionary action. Within this emancipatory, anti-linear, anti-traditionalist, notion of messianic time, one can find a political strategy that is not about awaiting a future saviour but about acting in the present, a time of "divestment" from the values of capitalist time and accumulation, leading to a standstill in the ongoing flow of historical injustices.

When trying to attribute evil entirely to God, Zizek shrewdly conjures G.K. Chesterton, who is transformed into an apologetic parrot, caught in the headlights in such a manner, and punished for his naivety, for his inability to outright quench Zizek's skepticism regarding the existence of God. Also, when Chesterton was talking of the lack of virtuality of God, he was referring to the lack of interpretation one is forced to accept when talking about God. There are other ways of talking about this in what is called the apophatic theology, found in the Eastern Church. God’s will is always for good, and because of this essential part of the subject’s freedom to act, what follows, for good and for evil, this part is man's role in creation, and his alone. Between the ineffectual liberty of man and the eternal, the grace of freedom is invested in each contradictory moment of action. The beauty of Divine Creation stands in the fact that it allows otherwise destructive forces to unearth an abundance of possibilities, a tapestry that includes us and that which mirrors the tangled mess in our hearts. Sin might be looked at as a godlike privilege of phenomenological indeterminacy, not a godlike quality, why would you think of God as evil?

Zizek was right in implying that Chesterton put great efforts in trying to lessen the indeterminacies, and thus to convey the delicate superiority, found in Christian thought, and the incommensurable weight that comes with such boisterous self-proclaimed burdens. But Zizek cannot participate in these tribulations, he is just a disclaimer of the aspects of Christianity that are not sufficiently researched or thought of. Just like his Protestant counterparts, too viscerally adverse to the idea of penitence, who would rather, again, knife a cathedral's door, Zizek can't ''penetrate'' Christianity because he doesn't understand theosis, they can't accept that deeds can be thought of as a source for good, as long as they stem from Divine grace and end up in the same ontological pocket, thus making one's life Apostolic and naturally saintly, become godly by grace, through participation, not merely an intellectual assent.

Zizek jokingly mentioned that with Catholicism one can commit sins but be pardoned by confessing to a priest, with Protestantism one can commit sins but be pardoned by feeling a little bit guilty at the end of the day. The joke being that in the second case the feeling of guilt enhances the enjoyment of committing a sin, so in his view, the Protestants incorporated this as a Freudian element. This lackluster excitement is the crux of his "in-human" Christianity, theorized by a Christian zombie, that dares critique the inclusionary precepts of formal Christianity, as conflictual and capitalist. Capitalists like the Catholics when they formalized the absolvement of sin through penitence bills, also dishonest and adept to soft-humanistic, small-bourgeoise, universalism, that rather excludes and discriminates. Poor man, for some cats are dogs and dogs are cats, for some are bound to wander the Earth forever, and Zizek is something lesser.

Zizek doesn’t come up with a secular perspective that can be relevant for our modern times like Badiou tries to, delusional as he may be. For Zizek, a pessimist, Badiou, his "old friend" is an idealist and a fool. Protestants and materialists, the ''dialectical sort'', don't have spiritual amplitude. What else to do other than joke and obfuscate us of the real dangers of Christianity, enticing us while rationalizing every step of the process, but without any hope of consummation, becoming just some other Hegelian theoretician that wants to confabulate reality into conflicting logical entities, destroy them, then reintegrate them. Slavoj Žižek, a heretic of sorts.

[Dennis Lundkvist · Rating 3 out of 5]

"So at the bottom of hell, Freud met the mayor of Vienna, the 'Master of Vienna', one of the most influential politicians in that part of the world at the time, a very popular populist leader notorious for his blatant anti-Semitism, idolized by young Hitler. The lesson of this encounter in hell is an anti-Jungian one: when we descend to the bottom of our Unconscious, what awaits us there is not the deepest truth about our personality but what Freud calls the fundamental Lie; we don't encounter there the pure flow of libido or its eternal archetypes freed from the oppression of paternal authority and 'binary' logic but the obverse of this authority, figures of obscene superego authority which enjoins us to enjoy and thereby sabotage our ability to enjoy much more efficiently than the patriarchal Law. Sometimes there is nothing liberating in bringing up to the daylight the obscene secrets of our unconscious - what we find there are prohibitions and injunctions much more brutal than the paternal Law." (p.248).

"In Twelve, we get a unique series of overlapping of the opposites: the poem praises the October Revolution, but it is as far as possible from the usual revolutionary pathetic, full of vulgar low-class language and course gestures. Christ at the head of the group which patrols the Petrograd hell of natural and public chaos - let us not forget that their goal is to prevent social chaos, i.e., to maintain the new law and order. This is and authentic image of the theologico-political short-circuit, an image of what Christian Atheism means as a political practice. Christ is not their leader, he is just a virtual shadow whose presence signals that the twelve are not just a group of individuals pursuing their particular interests but a group of comrades acting on behalf of a Cause. There is no promise or heavenly bliss in this image, it is just a group of comrades acting out of utter emergency, without any assurance of what the final outcome will be - maybe they will be liquidated by the enemy, or they will simply perish in the blizzard. Even if they are not aware of it, they act in their utter dedication as if Christ is at their head. Even in our "developed" West, we recently encountered such groups which were inspecting locked-down areas for the victims of the pandemic, or looking for abandoned survivors of flooding and heat waves, or - why not - patrolling an area and searching for Russian mines on the Ukranian front. And the list goes on: a group of artists engaged in a collective project, a group of programmers working on an algorithm that may help in our struggle for the environment ... Without thinking about it, they were and are just doing their duty. The subjective stance of the members of such groups was as far as possible from Politically Correct concerns and suspicions, they were totally foreign to the collective spirit that motivated the January 6 Trumpian mob which attacked the Congress building (a mob just performing a media spectacle), they left behind any traces of liberal individualism. They were in hell, with no God to protect them, and Christ was there." (p.266).

[Brian Hanson · Rating 3 out of 5]

"All chapters are interventions in an ongoing debate". In fact the 6 chapters address 6 ongoing debates, and if - like me - you haven't been a party to these debates, you may well - like me - feel a little lost. I was mostly drawn to the book by the promise of the third chapter - in which Zizek confronts quantum theory. That theory has led many to see in it a rejection of crass materialism, and an opening to a spiritual dimension. In Zizek's reading, on the contrary, it speaks of "deep atheism". The "big Other" - call it God or some higher determinant - is constantly in the author's sights, and he finds it in Derrida as much as in the church. For him quantum phenomena " bear witness to the fact that god itself ... is deceived". The mathematician/cosmologist Laplace reportedly told Napoleon that he had no need of the hypothesis of a Creator. But had he and his ilk rejected theology, or just learnt to do without it? Zizek believes the latter was the case, and that we need now not only to "prove that we don't need God to explain reality, but to prove that God cannot exist." To attempt to do this he calls in aid Bell's Theorem, the implications of which - as I understand it - have not even been agreed upon within the scientific community. The "Christian" aspect of the "Atheism" herein described is evanescent. It seems to rest on a misreading of Christ's sacrifice, wherein God Himself died on the cross, and was replaced by the Holy Spirit, which is a spirit of cooperation and fellowship opposed to the idea of a "big Other". In this way Christianity has paved the way to atheism, just as Robespierre sought to cement the atheism of the French Revolution with appeals to the Supreme Being. It's an entertaining read, sure enough, but perplexingly hard (for me) to grasp in its entirely.

[Nicholas Crawford · Rating 5 out of 5]

Christian Atheism brings Zizek's thought to bear on 2023. It's an easy read. The book doesn't regurgitate old writing (short of the usual lodestones), it drills deeper into where Zizek has been to better demonstrate his ongoing points (That Buddhism's void/subjective destitution doesn't reach the radicality of psychoanalysis's. That materialism based in quantum physics supports an ontology that is non-all. The detail we get on both these topics are standout sections of the book.)

The first chapter on religion, Afro-pessimism, and materialism was also strong with some nice, meaty examples. Zizek's Christian Atheism is an application of Hegel's insights on Christianity--how there's no guarantee of a big other. I found it to be a bit of fresh air with more real-life applicability, but it's still useful to be able to connect the dots back to Hegel (for which I'd recommend Todd McGowan's chapter in Emancipation After Hegel).

The chapter on undeadedness (one of Zizek's great, eternal topics) is mostly contemporary application with some keen insight that sharpens the blade on what was developed in Hegel in a Wired Brain.

The sections on politics and a defense for psychoanalysis I think are solid. There's a bit more focus on universality, and there's a very material attention to what's needed in the world that carries forward his perspective on our times of constant crisis.

The insight here isn't stunning compared to his academic works like Sex and the Failed Absolute or Incontinence of the Void. Christian Atheism more to the scale of Hegel in a Wired Brain. And it's well worth the effort.

Yes, there's a good dozen typos in the printing too, but nothing disruptive.

[Ross Jensen · Rating 2 out of 5]

Throughout Christian Atheism, Žižek describes his philosophical approach as “Lacano-Hegelian,” and anyone familiar with his work will know not only how true that description is but also the extent to which the Lacanian or the Hegelian elements might be more or less emphasized by Žižek in different works and during different periods of his career. This book (which is, I believe, his latest, at the time of this writing) is solidly Lacanian and much less so Hegelian, and wading through all of the Lacanian evasions and bullshit is too high a price to pay for the scattered insights into Christian theology. This is a disappointing conclusion to arrive at, since the insights are often important, and Žižek is not only right but also lonely in his taking political theology seriously. It would be nice if Žižek could get a good editor with sufficient concern (and balls) to pare down the reams of gobbledygook; it seems to me no accident that this book is riddled with typographical errors, to boot.

[Attasit Sittidumrong · Rating 5 out of 5]

It could be said that the book offers the Zizek's vision of political theology that sacralizes the emancipatory politics. By using Hegel's treatment of Christianity, Zizek sheds light on the paradox of God whose self-deceived existence--thanks to the death of Jesus and his crucification --renounces himself from the transcendental status. This causes a transposition of the gap from something separating human and God to the God himself. In this light, God is the one who is decieved making him incapable to be omniscience, and thus opening the space of materiality that has always already been beyond the absolute capture. To be the true Christian is to be the atheist and vice versa. This means that, for Zizek, the real absoluteness is the radical negativity that negates the absolutes itself, which inturn makes possible any emancipatory projects insofar as nothing is transcendent and the transcendent is nothing but itself.

[E H · Rating 3 out of 5]

as with much of zizeks contemporary writing, it’s mostly copied from his own, older work. however i think this book has some value in it. this book feels like a less approchable/more concise sex and the failed absolute. for a reader of philosophy who already knows much of marx, hegel and the likes it’s a fairly good explanation on all things zizek: his incomplete ontology, theology, psychoanalytics, social critique etc. the only book i think that specific genre of reader would enjoy more would be the sublime object of ideology.
overall it’s an easier to read work of zizek which you wont miss out on by not reading.

[Steven · Rating 4 out of 5]

Intriguing as always. I always thought Zizek is more of a social commentator with philosophical bent, and this book is no exception. While the discussion centers on the idea of the modern form of atheism having to go through Christianity first in order to be 'genuine atheism', and the idea of Jesus' death as also God the Father's death so that the Holy Spirit can represent a community of atheist believers, I find the discussion non-systematic and a bit meandering. It is by no means an exposition of a materialist way of life inspired by psychoanalysis. I think this topic is promising and could be explored further.

[Updesh Sharma · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some segments are easy to read , some are impenetrable but overall a new thesis which could be developed further. Even though I am a Fan of Žižek's work I highly disagree with him on TERFism and his critque of "Wokeism" . Yet he is according to me an ally :

Trans ideology is here right: there is no “natural” correlation between psychic sexual desires and the biologically-determined bodily reality. What it misses is the fact that sexuality as such is “trans” – in what precise sense? The most consistent definition of trans-sexuality is that a subject goes beyond its biologically-determined sexual identity: if you are biologically a man, you are “trans” if you do not subjectively assume this identity but search for a different identity. Cis-men are thus in some sense ontologically lazy: they just passively assume what they are biologically. Lacan’s counter-point is that even cis- men or women are also trans: they have to work hard, to go through a process full of traumatic cuts, to arrive at their sexual identity which appears to be just something biologically given

[Miha Ceglar · Rating 4 out of 5]

A bit of a hard nut to crack for me, it is nevertheless a fascinating endeavor for a materialist critique of religion. The editing is a bit off, as there are many ideas that do not seem to flow seamlessly through chapters, but Žižek's style is engaging, as are his insights. A lot of quantum physics—be warned.

[Farvez · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rich in context, Slavoj rejuvenates Christianity's "Love Thy Neighbor" through a dialectical materialist lens. The premise of the book can be summed with a question: "What died on the cross?"

Christianity serves as the tunnel to praxis within this book's framework. It's a very powerful exercise in navigating theology in the journey of liberation and building a world free of class.

[Gabe Wisnewski-Parks · Rating 3 out of 5]

Puppet and the dwarf and Monstrosity of Christ are more interesting.

[César Moreno · Rating 3 out of 5]

Sure

[Alessandro Mura · Rating 4 out of 5]

Zizek è sempre una palestra per il cervello, se non altro perché è veramente difficile non perdere il filo del discorso. Quattro stelle perché mi aspettavo più teologia. Però bello

[Taylan Harman · Rating 5 out of 5]

“in hell, no god, and Christ was there”

[Stephen Fay · Rating 4 out of 5]

Endlessly inventive. I only understood about 30% of it but that 30% was both hilarious and insightful. Slavoj has a tendency to mix and match the sources that feed his narrative, now drawing from the most abstruse nooks of western thought, now drawing from the most vulgar examples from modern pornography. I would like to teleport Slavoj back to reformation Europe and watch him debate Luther, they seem perfectly matched for each other, both classically refined and deeply earthy.

I didn’t love the quantum mechanics chapter, it’s a bit cringy. Although I do like his metaphor of ex post reinterpretation of past events as collapse of the wave function.