Reddit reviews God Without Being: Hors-Texte, Second Edition (Religion and Postmodernism)

Doors of the Sea by David Bentley Hart
God without Being by Jean-Luc Marion

They don't necessarily have to do with your topics, however you can get some of the answers based on inference. The first one goes over the problem of evil and the second one goes over what one means by the term "God". David Bentley Hart is an Eastern Orthodox theologian and Jean-Luc Marion is a French Catholic Philosopher.

I wouldn't worry about college; you'll be studying things more attuned to your interests, and you'll be surrounded by similar sorts of people. College is actually great for figuring yourself out for this very reason, since you'll be exposed not just to all sorts of different types of content and perspectives, but you'll also get some chances to go more in-depth on particular topics of interest, especially once you start taking upper-level courses that expect specialization. My favorite college memories are actually of afternoons in the library reading, taking notes and putting papers together. I loved this so much I've even started writing my own stuff post-college.

As for getting to know yourself, I'd recommend reading. Since this is the INTJ-sub, I know everyone here prefers things to be a bit more direct, and while I certainly read more nonfiction, I've found things like art, music, poetry, film and fiction are great ways to understand yourself better than any nonfiction work could tap into. I got into fiction via Joseph Campbell, a literary critic who himself was heavily influenced by Jung, and from there it was writers like Hermann Hesse, James Joyce, George Saunders and Olga Grushin that taught me things about myself that I doubt any nonfiction work could. This isn't to downplay the importance of nonfiction (Heidegger, Marion and Kierkegaard have all been huge for me as well), but since fiction and the arts in general don't seem as valued throughout reddit, I thought I'd throw that out there. Read.

There's a lot of possible answers depending on what sorts of philosophers you're into, so I'll offer one possible interpretation.

Heidegger sees the history of western thought as slowly but surely aiming for more precision, since modern technology and modern science are highly efficient ways of doing things. Precision and efficiency are great, but the problem is we often think that precision is the way to approach things. While it's great for things like engineering, we often want to force the data-driven model onto fields where it doesn't really make sense, such as religion or the arts, when these fields aren't trying to be precise. This is what he means when he talks about ontotheology, which is defining God and pinning down exactly what he is, but in the process eradicating the possibility of experiencing any awe or wonder during worship.

Jean-Luc Marion follows this into similar territory, saying that Nietzsche's statement "God is dead" really refers to the demands of metaphysics that turn God into a cog in some metaphysical system, joining a tradition of thinkers such as Pascal and Kierkegaard who find it impossible to worship the 'God of the philosophers.'

Sorry I took this in an more religious direction than your question asked, but I think that there's a significant overlap between the lack or respect for religion and the lack or religious reverence; we've demanded of reality that it be measurable and quantifiable, and in the process have lost our ability to experience it through other means, such as literature, art, religion and philosophy, since such fields don't always offer the same level of precision as the sciences (yes, I know some philosophers are very technical and precise, but I have thinkers like Kierkegaard and Heidegger in mind when I say that, largely because I'm a filthy continental).

Good sources if interested:

Heidegger - The Question Concerning Technology

Jean-Luc Marion - God Without Being

I see different understandings of postmodernism/deconstruction show up all over depending on context. Iain Thomson seems to offer OP's understanding of deconstruction in his analysis of Watchmen. I've seen a slightly different understanding offered by John Caputo. Apparently Jean-Luc Marion might also have something "deconstructive" going on in his work. I haven't read Derrida firsthand yet, so I can't really say how close all these approaches are to their source of inspiration, although I've noticed some overlapping themes in all of them, as well as in the contemporary art history course I took, so while I'm not sure there's a single definition, there's at least some consistent thematic content going on in 'deconstruction', whatever it may be. Part of the confusion probably comes from the fact that Derrida's earliest readers in English were literary critics and theorists rather than philosophers, which meant that parts of Derrida weren't properly understood right away, which probably has contributed to some of the confusion.