In 2007 or so, Continental philosophy caught up with the knee-jerk-realist-mood of Analytical metaphysics (recall here), when the four horsemen (Meillasoux, Harman, Brassier, and Hamilton Grant) of Speculative Realism were united in order to reject the Kantian heritage (or correlationism) which had constrained and informed the tradition through phenomenology and its critics. (I learned about this movement from Cogburn here and here.) If we telescope away from the inner logic of technical arguments and rhetorical gestures that led to such rejection, we can still ask the question what might such rejection signify given that it occurs on both sides of the analytical/continental divide?
Kant and Kantianizing tendencies made the intellectual world safe for science while respecting our human craving for the existence of normativity, human freedom, and a mindful God worth having. At bottom Kant's project respects cognitive limits by pleasing our ego's vanity; Kantianism reconciles the individual to being law-governed. Its demise marks the assertion of two opposing tendencies: a self-confident theism -- one that does not hide itself in fideism -- and a self-confident scientism. Obviously, these two tendencies need not be opposed which is why they can act so much in concert.
The theists take heart from the fact that secularization is not inevitable. It exposes the inner contradiction at heart of narratives of modernity, which purport to reject providence and final causes while embracing a myth of progress. Religion is, in fact, not dying off with the aged brought up in fading traditions. In fact, in a world in which capitalism and modern technologies make old linkages and boundaries seem obsolete, transnational, theistic religions, which offer the promise of transcendent justice and order are manifestly attractive to many young. That is to say, while most Christian Metaphysicians are happy to focus on Christianizing metaphysics, they benefit from the renewed vitality of a sincere, political Islam in the face of centuries of colonialism and political defeats.
The scientistic or technocratic double down on accelerating technological change fueled by both an open-ended scientific process as well as the massive stream of data and the availability of cheap computing power that can handle it.* They are exhilarated by the universal acids lurking in the sciences which respect no imposed limits. The scientistic embrace meritocracy and are at home with the selection procedures and the implicit cultural superiority or genetic hierarchies that accompanies it. Massive economic and educational inequality is, then, both the material and ideological source of their confidence as well as a feature that demands technocratic amelioration.
That is to say, both streams are at bottom not liberal (but not necessarily illiberal), which is about the individual's submission to impartial law which, in turn, recognizes the individual, even though they are the consequence of the victory of liberalism marked by 1989. Each stream can be reconciled with liberalism, but their tendencies ultimately strive toward the absolute (not just understood as God or the PSR, but also absolute contingency, etc.). This is undoubtedly apt for an age of unfolding man-made environmental catastrophes.