Sounds like in his interest in set theory, B is close to the mainstream, in some ways. And he has an interesting post-foundational philosophy, or Ethics. Which tries to found a new ground for Truth outside of religion; in elements of human life and culture which deeply incorporate ethical concepts; like Love, and Art, and so forth.

Probably his “subject” in “nature” ROUGHLY corresponds to human beings, in the natural world? But without any totalizing, all-encompassing Grand or “Master Narrative,” or master plan or metaphysics: just individual people trying to figure things out. But with the help of a few tentative, traditional cultural institutions, like Art and Love and so forth.

All this DOES have ties to, historical roots in, religion as well. Especially “John’s” theology of “love,” even for the “world,” in the gospel and letters of John. (Assuming a common author, or at least a common rubric? The famous John 3.16, etc..).

For B science is a category of truth along with love, art, and politics, and truth is regarded as indiscernible and not necessarily found in what is generally accepted as knowledge. As a political leftist he is invested in explaining how revolution and novelty can enter (ontic) situations. It is through subjects as localized truth seeking procedures that novelty is possible. This resembles a theological model for transformational living–existence itself is revolutionized through a relation of subjects to truth–except that B does not connect truth to God.

I should point out that I oversimplified for the sake of brevity by referring to “nature.” More precisely natural stuff is at the core of B’s ontology, but I don’t know that “natural” is necessarily identical to “physical.” He rejects the One of Platonism, so Nature, as a whole, is said not to exist. As such, a challenge with applying B’s thought theologically is that he considers his rejection of the One as a statement of atheism, yet it seems to me a Christian conception of God as not a being (at least not like natural things are) but revealed in history through Jesus remains immune to his critiques.

Also, I’m not really in a position to write a scholarly article. The pinnacle of my formal education is an undergraduate math degree, and while graduate school remains a possibility it is not likely in my near future because of other responsibilities I’m currently tied to. I just read philosphy and theology for fun in my spare time. What drew me to Badiou’s thought in the first place is his appropriation of mathematical set theory (which is at the foundation of all mathematics) as ontology itself. From the bits and pieces I’ve seen online his ideas have ruffled some feathers, but as an outsider to academia I’m not sure if his ontology is generally viewed as anything more than a silly mathematical or politically leftist ideology.

Not having read Badiou, I shouldn’t speculate too much on how to apply him. Or how I’d like to extend or modify him. But wouldn’t an ontology that rightly decenters us into “nature” – as the Greeks did, or certainly the Hebrews, with their spirit of oxygen, air, above – eventually interface with placing us all, in a useful way, in and among material substances; in material nature, as living, breathing creatures? This would help describe physical churches, and …

A nature-centered theological ontology would interface more effectively with science and practical works. It would begin to explain more of the Bible, and religious activity here on earth too, I would think. As for example, seeing the “spirit” as “air” might begin to, above.

Assuming that we could somehow, adjust B’s “nature” to correspond to this physical existence (and the good things that “Gentiles know by nature”?).

Nice stuff. And totally appropriate, for an often rather philosophically-minded theology blog, I would say. (As well as a possible topic, for an original scholarly article?).

Not having read Badiou yet, I shouldn’t speculate much on how to apply him. Though I’d hazard a question: wouldn’t an ontology that decenters us rightly – as in the Greeks, or certainly the Hebrews’ “spirit” above – in “nature,” be easily converted to, or compatible with, an ontology that finds us all, situated more than anything, in the material substances of nature? Rather as the Hebrew spirit, above, situates us in oxygen, air, breathing and physically living? This compatibility at least, with material substances, would have the advantage of allowing us to talk about say, physical churches and so forth. While interfacing more with modern science as well.