This post from All Things Shining ends on a fascinating note:
The book is predicated in part on the idea that the death of God is the death of this sense of the unity of all wonders. Not that certain individuals can’t feel it, but that it is no longer a background assumption of the culture. As Heidegger says in “The Question Concerning Technology,” this is the most extreme danger. For it initiates the possibility that we will no longer experience ourselves as receptive beings at all. (Long story about why.) But if we get in the right relation to this danger, experience it as a danger, then it becomes a saving possibility as well. For it reveals a genuine plurality of wonders that is even better than the plurality Homer’s Greeks experienced; a “new beginning” that is not the same as their “first beginning”. For the Greeks the plurality of wonders came with a felt temptation to unity, a temptation they were eventually unable to resist. But that temptation is now closed off with the death of God, so our saving possibility, if we take it up, will put us in a genuinely different place than the Greeks. Anyhow, that’s the idea. But the worry is that it’s based on a distinction that is too clever by half. That’s as far as I’ve gotten so far…
I haven’t read “The Question Concerning Technology,” but I believe Dylan Matthews has. He can probably evaluated what’s going on in this passage better than I can.
In the meantime, I’m intrigued by Professor Kelly’s use of the “death of God” concept here. The contours of my argument were different, but I have previously argued that modern society has a very real “God is dead” problem.