Not Religious and Not Atheist
Understanding The New "Nranas"
I’m not great at creating new words. I created one for my Substack publication - “Deconstructionology”. In my presentation at the ORTCON 24 (Open and Relational Theology Conference) I created a new group of terms to be included in the landscape of theological discourse, including:
Atheology - the study of the meaning of God in the absence of God.
Atheizing - the renunciation of any objectified existence of God.
Absenthestic Spirituality - a life approach without God as a meeter of needs or solver of problems.
Though it’s not the subject of this article, if you’ve been reading my Substack newsletter, you know that my current efforts in the field of theology would be classified as “radical theology” or “death of God theology”. I realize these terms may sound bleak, but in my view they represent some of the most hopeful and liberating work in theology today.
I’ve written about this extensively. Here are a few articles to read if you have interest:
Back to new words. I created a new one for this article - “nrana”. As far as words go, it has some serious downsides. Go ahead, Google words that start with nr. There aren’t many, and the ones we have are niche words like “nritta”, which is a type of Indian classical dance that involves abstract, decorative movements of the hands and body, and foot stamping.
Another downside to the word “nrana” is that it sort sounds a little like “piranha”, the extremely predatory and flesh-eating fish. And that’s not a good association for my new word.
The only real upside to my new word (depending upon your view) is that it also sounds a little like the American rock band “Nirvana”. In my philosophy series I wrote a special edition article on Kurt Cobain on the 30th anniversary of his death.
Unbelief in God May Not Make You an Atheist
The word I created for this article, “nrana” is essentially an acronym for “not religious and not atheist.” It turns out that this might be the fastest growing “religious group” in America.
The number of individuals in the United States who do not identify as being part of any religion has grown dramatically in recent years, and “the nones” are now larger than any single religious group. According to the General Social Survey, religiously unaffiliated people represented only about 5% of the U.S. population in the 1970s. This percentage began to increase in the 1990s and is around 30% today.
At first glance, some might assume this means nearly 1 in 3 Americans are atheists, but that’s far from true. Indeed, only about 4% of U.S. adults identify as an atheist. In other words, rejecting a belief in God is by no means a sufficient condition for identifying as an atheist. Only about 17% of religiously unaffiliated people explicitly identify as “atheist” on surveys. So why do some individuals who do not believe in God identify as an atheist while others do not?
For the most part, atheists more actively reject religion and religious concepts than other religiously unaffiliated individuals. Recent research examines two questions related to atheism. First, what makes an individual more or less likely to identify as an atheist? We know that the social stigma often attached to the designation of “atheist” is a significantly influencing factor. One’s social location - a person’s position in society (race, gender, social class, sexuality, age, ability, religious background, and geographic location) - can make an atheistic worldview more or less costly, thereby serving as supports or barriers to adopting it.
A second question is, what makes someone more or less likely to adopt an atheistic worldview over time? Research shows that people who had doubt about belief in God in adolescence are more likely to adopt an atheistic worldview and identify as atheist.
Research on the effects of education on religion have been mixed. Both social theory and popular narratives have often seen education as an agent of secularization. Education, particularly higher education, is assumed to erode individual’s religious beliefs and commitment. This is in part because individuals are exposed to a scientific worldview that undercuts religious claims about the world or are exposed to a pluralistic peer group that undercuts their religious certainty.
The Failure of Atheism for “Nones”
In a recent article I detailed how atheism has failed religion-leavers. In my opinion, atheism has done this in four ways:
Not offering religious deconstruction resources
Not equipping people for existential health
Denouncing all religion as worthless
Abandoning the field of theology
Some pushback I received in a comment on that previous article is that atheism is a position of unbelief in God, and it’s not the responsibility of atheists to assist in the struggles of those who leave religion. On the one hand, they’re right. Being an atheist doesn’t obligate one to actively support the deconstruction process of fledgling unbelievers.
On the other hand, it seems a bit uncaringly indifferent to turn a blind eye to those who find themselves in an existential crisis after leaving religion and unable to continue believing in God. After all, even some of the great atheists such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell, Albert Camus and Baruch Spinoza saw this as a problem to address. Heck, even Richard Dawkins may have found a soft spot in his heart for this struggle. (By the way, each name is linked to a previous article I wrote about each person.)
In some respects, the philosophy or lifestance of humanism has stepped in the gap to offer a meaningful path forward for unbelievers. I previously published a series of articles titled, “unChristian: Deconstruction For the Rest of Us”. In Part Four of that series in the article, Deconstruction without God and the supernatural I discuss at length the topic of humanism as a post-religion path forward.
Who Are the Nranas
As stated, “nrana” stands for “not religious and not atheist”. This term represents the nuances of how people are cultivating a post-religion spirituality. A few characteristics of nrana spirituality include:
A rejection of “God” as conceived by traditional religion, but an openness to non-religious ultimate reality.
An unwillingness to identify one’s beliefs or approach to life with any single label, religious or non-religious.
Disinterest in connecting spirituality to organized or institutional church structures, but active engagement in the world through socially conscious values.
Less interested in a spirituality that dwells upon existential and philosophical questions, and more fueled by interest in science and technology, innovative ideas, and pragmatic approach to life.
Less likely to form core beliefs based on religion-specific or theological knowledge, but from a diverse and pluralistic milieu of views.
More likely to reframe or reinvent the artifacts of traditional religion in new ways, such as ascribing significance to Jesus apart from Christianity and belief in God.
More likely to see science and technology as fuel for a more expansive and consequential spirituality, than a threat to it.
Speaking of science and spirituality, I am currently writing a Substack series titled, “The Case for Unifying Science and Religion”, which I will resume next week. So far in the series, I have published the following articles:
Research shows that Generation Z (born between 1999 and 2015) is the nation’s least religious generation. A General Social Survey (GSS) study revealed that only 31% of Gen Z are confident in the existence of God. It’s not only a lack of religious affiliation that distinguishes Generation Z. They are far more likely to identify as atheist. The percentage of Gen Z that identifies as atheist is double that of the general U.S. population. This seems to support the research that says that those who don’t hold a belief in God early in life are more likely to accept the designation as “atheist”.
We are currently learning more about Generation Alpha (Gen A), people born after 2010. Many Gen A kids are the children of “nones”. Gen A is forging new territory at the intersection of technology, spirituality, and changing social dynamics. They are coming of age in a period of declining religious affiliation and practice worldwide, and show signs of decreased interest and participation in institutional religion. Gen A is considered a post-Christendom generation, with most members having no connection to church. A Gen A’er might see someone like Greta Thunberg as a hero - embodying religious conviction not for belief in God but as an environmental activist.
Is Christianity a Dead Religion?
Is Christianity dead? My answer is, “depends”.
First, it depends on what you mean by “Christianity”. If by “Christianity” you mean traditional Christianity, which is based upon classic Christian theism, than I do think that Christianity is dead. I previously published an article, refuting traditional Christian theism but as a summary, the essential doctrines associated with this belief-system include:
God is a supernatural supreme being who created the universe, and oversees human affairs and is guiding human history toward the fulfillment of a divine plan.
Human beings are separate, separated and estranged from God because the human species has been genetically infected by a sin condition, which originated with the parents of the human race, Adam and Eve, and passed on through human reproduction.
Jesus is God in the flesh, came into the world through a virgin birth, atoned for the sins of humankind through his death on the cross, and bodily raised from the dead and is with God, and will return to complete God’s salvation plan.
Depending upon the acceptance or non-acceptance of Jesus and his death as the only means of eternal salvation, upon death a person may be rewarded eternal life in Heaven, or punished by eternal conscious torment in Hell.
The Bible is the inerrant, infallible and authoritative truth of God as it pertains to faith, salvation and all matters of ultimate significance.
By the way, I refute all of the above beliefs and doctrines, and view them as the least defensible version of what could be referred to as “Christianity”. In other words, there are legitimately alternative views that could be identified as “Christian”, which I believe are more compelling and even more biblical. I make a case for one of those Christian alternatives in my book: Inner Anarchy: Dethroning God and Jesus to Save Ourselves and the World.
But with respect to the traditional Christianity described above, I believe it is dead. What I mean by “dead” is that it no longer holds sway as a sound and trustworthy meaning-making framework or basis for existential health. To say that traditional Christianity is “dead” is to acknowledge that people have lost faith in this system to meet their deepest needs or solve their most pressing problems.
In my view, a residue of traditional Christianity will continue in three primary ways:
A nostalgic Christianity centered upon various Christian traditions and holidays
A cultural Christianity deemed useful as a buttress for Judeo-Christian values
A political Christianity, which promotes Christian nationalism as a political strategy
In a previous article, A New Theology: 10 Failings of Theological Scholarship in the Modern World I discuss a new post-religion path for the field of theology. As mentioned previously, some of the most promising theological work being done currently is exploring the connections between Christianity and Atheism, which I have been writing quite a bit about.
You wouldn’t think Atheism and Christianity would have much in common but I recently came up with ten things that today’s Atheists and the historical Jesus would have in common:
Atheists now and Jesus then, reject the invented God of toxic religion.
Atheists now and Jesus then, confront and oppose the abuses of corrupt religious leaders.
Atheists now and Jesus then, do not accept the central doctrines of institutional Christianity.
Atheists now and Jesus then, do not equate being religious with morality or spirituality.
Atheists now and Jesus then, emphasize human relationships, human responsibility and human action.
Atheists now and Jesus then, focus on a better world for humankind here and now rather than in some speculative future.
Atheists now and Jesus then, affirm that women have an intrinsic value equal to that of men.
Atheists now and Jesus then, fought for justice, championing the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
Atheists now and Jesus then, did not back down from speaking truth to power.
Atheists now and Jesus then, can leave no better legacy than a life of wisdom, compassion, integrity and love.
The radical negation of religion’s God is actually an affirmation of God - of the God beyond the Christian God, beyond the God of the historic Church, beyond the God of traditional theology, beyond all which Christendom has known as God.
A brief reading list if interested in secular Christianity or radical theology (the first two books share the same title):
Christianity Without God by Lloyd Geering
Christianity Without God by Daniel Maquire
Radical Theology and the Death of God by Altizer and Hamilton
The New Gospel of Christian Atheism by Thomas Altizer
The New Apocalypse by Thomas Altizer
Christian Atheism by Slavoj Žižek
The Secular Meaning of the Gospel Based on an Analysis of Its Language by Paul Van Buren
In Summary
I’m not great an inventing new words but at least my new one evoked the memory of Kurt Cobain.
Christianity is dead, but it depends upon what you mean by “Christianity” and “dead”.
Not believing in God doesn’t make you an atheist, and some atheists have their own version of Christianity.
The radical negation of religion’s God is actually an affirmation of a God beyond all religious conceptions.
Gen A is considered a post-Christendom generation, with most members having no connection to church.
Thank you for subscribing to my Substack! I appreciate you :)
“The God who makes us live in this world without using him as a working hypothesis is the God before whom we are ever standing.”
- Dietrich Bonhoeffer
i haz new label :D
How does this differ from Unitarian Universalist Humanists?