I have read this essay carefully, and I find it a sophisticated, well-written piece that reframes the old “Is God Dead?” question from Nietzsche and the 1966 Time magazine cover. It turns the discussion into a developmental, existential, and post-theistic exploration of meaning in our modern world. Drawing from philosophy, theology, psychology, and cultural analysis, the author argues that the real crisis we face is not simply the decline of belief in a supernatural God, but our struggle as human beings to develop the inner capacities needed to carry freedom, uncertainty, suffering, and meaning once the old “God containers” begin to weaken.
The core thesis strikes me as clear and compelling. Nietzsche saw a civilizational shift when Christianity’s orienting framework lost its hold, leaving a vacuum behind. The author calls this modernity’s “Great Decoupling,” where human freedom and capability have expanded far faster than our ability to handle them well. Traditional religion and atheism both fall short in addressing this gap, so the writer proposes “existential health”—things like reality contact, self-authorship, mortality awareness, discernment, and meaning-making—together with a “theology beyond theism” that focuses more on human development than on defending old doctrinal certainties. The central spiritual question for the twenty-first century, in this view, is whether we can become capable of “carrying more reality” without collapsing into illusion or despair.
The writing itself is elegant and accessible. I appreciate the strong metaphors—the “God container” and the “Great Decoupling”—which make complex ideas easier to hold. The essay integrates insights from many disciplines without falling into simplistic religion-versus-atheism fights. It gives atheism credit for challenging idolatry and rigid systems, while also pointing out its limits when it comes to deeper existential questions like meaning and mortality. The tone feels hopeful and constructive, turning the crisis into an invitation to greater maturity rather than nihilism. That resonates with my own long journey of faith, especially the miraculous healings I have known—the 2007 pulmonary embolism and the 2020 awakening in Estela’s presence—where I encountered the living reality of God beyond easy categories.
At the same time, I see limitations in the essay. It sometimes paints traditional and contemporary theology too broadly as rigid doctrinal preservation disconnected from lived experience. This underplays the rich streams of contemplative mysticism, existential theology, and ongoing conversations between faith and science that have always been part of the tradition. A “theology beyond theism” risks becoming so broad and symbolic that it may feel thin to those of us who have known God as personal, relational, and actively intervening—as I have in my own life. While the piece rightly names religion’s historical failures and pathologies, I wish it gave more weight to grace, divine initiative, and the sustaining power of Christian community, which have carried me through weakness, pain, and the challenges of aging with Alzheimer’s.
The diagnosis of modernity’s existential fragility makes sense to me from what I observe, but it would be stronger with more concrete data on loneliness, anxiety, and polarization. It also assumes a fairly steady secularization story that does not hold true everywhere, especially in many parts of the world where faith remains vibrant. The repetition of key ideas works for emphasis in a long essay, yet at times it makes sections feel more like philosophical reflection than tightly argued analysis. Nietzsche’s sharper edges against Christianity are softened here into a mainly psychological and cultural reading.
Overall, I consider this a strong, thought-provoking contribution—roughly an eight out of ten. It shines as cultural diagnosis and an invitation to deeper human flourishing. It aligns well with my own interests in theology, deconstruction, poetry, and personal reflection on faith amid the real struggles of later life. The emphasis on capacity and development gives me useful language for my writing and for navigating this stage of existence with Estela at my side. If this were a draft of mine, I would want to refine it by weaving in more of the living, relational presence of Jesus Christ and the concrete hope that comes from personal encounter with God. The essay moves the conversation in a productive direction, and I am grateful for the chance to engage it.
I find this lens of developmental capacity to be very helpful. These views align nicely with those taught by the Integral Life Community, Ken Wilbur, Robb Smith and others. Check out "The New Story of Wholeness" at Integral Life.
Everybody wants freedom. Very few people want the responsibility that comes with it. We spent centuries fighting to get out of cages and now half of us are wandering around asking someone to build a new one.
The underlying answers addressed by a connection and relationship with God have always been about identity, certainty, mortality, meaning, purpose, responsibility, etc.. The idea that one can divorce theology (the systematic and rational study of the divine, religious beliefs, and the nature of God) from theism is quite the magic trick. Although Mr. Palmer's uncovering of the nature of religion's original mandate (provide for a way to manage existence), and the tendency religious pursuits have of forgetting that mandate is an important message, the idea of stepping away from the notion of God is as bad as the problem he was trying to solve. Without belief in the substantive, objective, transcendent nature of God, there is provably no certainty that can be managed, no meaning to "discover", no purpose to manufacture, and no fundamental reason to develop responsibility. The notion of God is foundational for sustaining the pillars that allow for existential health (to use Mr. Palmer's useful term). While Mr. Palmer is right that religion tends toward a hyperfocus on the foundation (God's existence) while forgetting the pillars, he seems to want to keep the pillars while forgetting the foundation. I am both inspired and deflated.
One of the questions I’ve been asking lately is the role of atheists/atheism in the theological sphere. Many folk deconstruct and abandon their faith in seminary. And there are many pulpits occupied by agnostic or atheistic pastors. How does that affect the truth of their theologizing — if there is no THEOS involved?
I feel like there is a lot of work to be done by post-Christians in addressing the -isms that brought many of us to de/construction in the first place. This is where life is lived responsibly. And where the work of our -OLGIES (with or without THEOS) belong.
Excellent essay! Thank you, Jim! Reading this has been like a journey through my own personal spiritual development. I was raised to be devoutly religious, but over the past couple of decades have abandoned the church in favor of my own exploration. Here is what I find so interesting about your piece: I have long said that the only difference between me and an atheist is that I believe in God (but as you point out, the definition of G-o-d is radically different in my mind today). What your essay uncovers is a more accurate depiction of my journey. Exploring atheism was just my way of expanding my capacity. Living outside the rigid structure of the church has absolutely resulted in more freedom, less anxiety over uncertainty, and a much broader meaning of spirituality that sometimes does not even involve spirituality at all! You have written an amazing piece here, and it will take me a great amount of effort to truly digest it - wow, such a significant and brilliant overview. One piece to the puzzle that you left out was the whole redemption/salvation narrative of traditional religion. If we have truly uncoupled our earth from the sun, this may well be the loose chain that is left flapping in the wind that will prohibit most traditionalists from opening a crack in their brains wide enough to even begin to consider the gravity of what you have presented here.
I have read this essay carefully, and I find it a sophisticated, well-written piece that reframes the old “Is God Dead?” question from Nietzsche and the 1966 Time magazine cover. It turns the discussion into a developmental, existential, and post-theistic exploration of meaning in our modern world. Drawing from philosophy, theology, psychology, and cultural analysis, the author argues that the real crisis we face is not simply the decline of belief in a supernatural God, but our struggle as human beings to develop the inner capacities needed to carry freedom, uncertainty, suffering, and meaning once the old “God containers” begin to weaken.
The core thesis strikes me as clear and compelling. Nietzsche saw a civilizational shift when Christianity’s orienting framework lost its hold, leaving a vacuum behind. The author calls this modernity’s “Great Decoupling,” where human freedom and capability have expanded far faster than our ability to handle them well. Traditional religion and atheism both fall short in addressing this gap, so the writer proposes “existential health”—things like reality contact, self-authorship, mortality awareness, discernment, and meaning-making—together with a “theology beyond theism” that focuses more on human development than on defending old doctrinal certainties. The central spiritual question for the twenty-first century, in this view, is whether we can become capable of “carrying more reality” without collapsing into illusion or despair.
The writing itself is elegant and accessible. I appreciate the strong metaphors—the “God container” and the “Great Decoupling”—which make complex ideas easier to hold. The essay integrates insights from many disciplines without falling into simplistic religion-versus-atheism fights. It gives atheism credit for challenging idolatry and rigid systems, while also pointing out its limits when it comes to deeper existential questions like meaning and mortality. The tone feels hopeful and constructive, turning the crisis into an invitation to greater maturity rather than nihilism. That resonates with my own long journey of faith, especially the miraculous healings I have known—the 2007 pulmonary embolism and the 2020 awakening in Estela’s presence—where I encountered the living reality of God beyond easy categories.
At the same time, I see limitations in the essay. It sometimes paints traditional and contemporary theology too broadly as rigid doctrinal preservation disconnected from lived experience. This underplays the rich streams of contemplative mysticism, existential theology, and ongoing conversations between faith and science that have always been part of the tradition. A “theology beyond theism” risks becoming so broad and symbolic that it may feel thin to those of us who have known God as personal, relational, and actively intervening—as I have in my own life. While the piece rightly names religion’s historical failures and pathologies, I wish it gave more weight to grace, divine initiative, and the sustaining power of Christian community, which have carried me through weakness, pain, and the challenges of aging with Alzheimer’s.
The diagnosis of modernity’s existential fragility makes sense to me from what I observe, but it would be stronger with more concrete data on loneliness, anxiety, and polarization. It also assumes a fairly steady secularization story that does not hold true everywhere, especially in many parts of the world where faith remains vibrant. The repetition of key ideas works for emphasis in a long essay, yet at times it makes sections feel more like philosophical reflection than tightly argued analysis. Nietzsche’s sharper edges against Christianity are softened here into a mainly psychological and cultural reading.
Overall, I consider this a strong, thought-provoking contribution—roughly an eight out of ten. It shines as cultural diagnosis and an invitation to deeper human flourishing. It aligns well with my own interests in theology, deconstruction, poetry, and personal reflection on faith amid the real struggles of later life. The emphasis on capacity and development gives me useful language for my writing and for navigating this stage of existence with Estela at my side. If this were a draft of mine, I would want to refine it by weaving in more of the living, relational presence of Jesus Christ and the concrete hope that comes from personal encounter with God. The essay moves the conversation in a productive direction, and I am grateful for the chance to engage it.
I find this lens of developmental capacity to be very helpful. These views align nicely with those taught by the Integral Life Community, Ken Wilbur, Robb Smith and others. Check out "The New Story of Wholeness" at Integral Life.
Everybody wants freedom. Very few people want the responsibility that comes with it. We spent centuries fighting to get out of cages and now half of us are wandering around asking someone to build a new one.
The underlying answers addressed by a connection and relationship with God have always been about identity, certainty, mortality, meaning, purpose, responsibility, etc.. The idea that one can divorce theology (the systematic and rational study of the divine, religious beliefs, and the nature of God) from theism is quite the magic trick. Although Mr. Palmer's uncovering of the nature of religion's original mandate (provide for a way to manage existence), and the tendency religious pursuits have of forgetting that mandate is an important message, the idea of stepping away from the notion of God is as bad as the problem he was trying to solve. Without belief in the substantive, objective, transcendent nature of God, there is provably no certainty that can be managed, no meaning to "discover", no purpose to manufacture, and no fundamental reason to develop responsibility. The notion of God is foundational for sustaining the pillars that allow for existential health (to use Mr. Palmer's useful term). While Mr. Palmer is right that religion tends toward a hyperfocus on the foundation (God's existence) while forgetting the pillars, he seems to want to keep the pillars while forgetting the foundation. I am both inspired and deflated.
Extremely insightful and challenging.
U nailed it...
The framing for this essay is wonderful.
One of the questions I’ve been asking lately is the role of atheists/atheism in the theological sphere. Many folk deconstruct and abandon their faith in seminary. And there are many pulpits occupied by agnostic or atheistic pastors. How does that affect the truth of their theologizing — if there is no THEOS involved?
I feel like there is a lot of work to be done by post-Christians in addressing the -isms that brought many of us to de/construction in the first place. This is where life is lived responsibly. And where the work of our -OLGIES (with or without THEOS) belong.
Excellent essay! Thank you, Jim! Reading this has been like a journey through my own personal spiritual development. I was raised to be devoutly religious, but over the past couple of decades have abandoned the church in favor of my own exploration. Here is what I find so interesting about your piece: I have long said that the only difference between me and an atheist is that I believe in God (but as you point out, the definition of G-o-d is radically different in my mind today). What your essay uncovers is a more accurate depiction of my journey. Exploring atheism was just my way of expanding my capacity. Living outside the rigid structure of the church has absolutely resulted in more freedom, less anxiety over uncertainty, and a much broader meaning of spirituality that sometimes does not even involve spirituality at all! You have written an amazing piece here, and it will take me a great amount of effort to truly digest it - wow, such a significant and brilliant overview. One piece to the puzzle that you left out was the whole redemption/salvation narrative of traditional religion. If we have truly uncoupled our earth from the sun, this may well be the loose chain that is left flapping in the wind that will prohibit most traditionalists from opening a crack in their brains wide enough to even begin to consider the gravity of what you have presented here.