The Stillborn God by Mark Lilla was just reviewed in this week's New York Times Book Review. It's the 2nd piece I've read this week questioning whether the Enlightenment actually sent us on the right track, but from completely different perspectives.
The first was an essay in Pro Ecclesia by John Betz, Hamann before Kierkegaard: A Systematic Theological Oversight . It's really an amazing essay, very convincing. Basically, the argument runs that Hamann is a better road to take than Hegel, but Hamann has largely been the road not taken. Kierkegaard systematized and popularized the direction Hamann wanted to take us, but with too existential and docetic emphasis.
Lilla's book, on the other hand, argues that the Enlightenment dividing of church and state is not like the copernican revolution. It need not have happened, because the political universe isn't necessarily as clearly non-religious as some would like to make it.
I commend both articles for their clarity, and I'm going to try and read Lilla's book.
Now, if somebody would just publish a good book on Hamann (or translate more of him into English...)