> How about a post-secular philosopher (have you read _Post-Secular Philosophy:
Between Philosophy and Theology_, ed. Phillip Blond)?
Yes, I have. And this is *exactly* what Zizek is fighting against. Blond, who I happened to have argued with from a Zizekian position when he was in Toronto a few weeks ago, is a Thomist, through and threw. He's arguing that form determines being. In other words, you start with God, and then get all these tiny beings that are excreted from his anus (my terms, not his). Zizek is in complete disagreement with this kind of "radical orthodoxy" (the new fad in theology). For Blond, the form does not change - and we can trace this form through the beings that exist (science works like time travel here). In other words, we can "prove" that God exists by reasoning back in time, moving back to the starting point. The Zizekian response, in a nutshell, is that there is a vanishing mediator between being and form which mediates both. This vanishing mediator is Real(ity). In short - you can't meaningfully separate form / being without subordinating one or the other - and this is exactly what Blond does - all in the name of Christ. This comment reveals that you either haven't read the volume yourself, or haven't read Zizek, or both (see the Abyss of Freedom or The Indivisible Remainder).
ken