How can we imagine anew the discipline of philosophy of religion, given the feminist critiques that it privileges thinking driven by the needs of male subject formation? I address this question first by arguing with Cavell that a specific masculine aversion of erotic reciprocity produces a particular skeptical epistemology. Overcoming this phallocentric thinking requires therefore a new eros. Secondly, I will argue that the fluidly gendered subjectivities I detect in Cavell's work on film enable such a new erotic and epistemic orientation. I conclude by outlining the consequences of this orientation for the pursuits of philosophy of religion.