Panendeism

[LoneTarus]

I'm kinda glad this happened to bring some things out in the open because I have felt uncomfortable not being an atheist on this site at times. It appears others here have too. It's like if you're not a Christian, then you must be an atheist. I think Christians see it that way and that is a stigma I am not comfortable with 'cause I do believe there is a God, just not biblegod.

 

I have no problems at all with atheists. for all practical purposes I might as well be an atheist since I don't really put a whole lot of weight on my philosophy. and plan to live my life based on reality and facts. I just don't like the label atheist since that doesn't really describe my world view accurately. (unless you count something confusing like agnostic atheist which is a lot easier than explaining the stuff i put in my previous post in casual conversation, usually I just say I'm agnostic so I don't have to go into detail)

[sjessen]

It's difficult extracting "god" out of the "god-shaped hole" and not having something to stick back in. That's why many ex-C's go through other forms of worship, try other religions, etc before arriving at atheism. It's a big change. When you've had an object to focus your worship on for so long, simply discarding it with nothing to replace it with feels "empty".

 

I will have to wait to see if whether one day I think I am fooling myself to believe in a god. But I have always believed there is something more, even before I became a serious (adult) Christian, so I would be very surprised if things turned out that way.

[mcdaddy]

It's difficult extracting "god" out of the "god-shaped hole" and not having something to stick back in. That's why many ex-C's go through other forms of worship, try other religions, etc before arriving at atheism. It's a big change. When you've had an object to focus your worship on for so long, simply discarding it with nothing to replace it with feels "empty".

 

I will have to wait to see if whether one day I think I am fooling myself to believe in a god. But I have always believed there is something more, even before I became a serious (adult) Christian, so I would be very surprised if things turned out that way.

 

Is there a god?

 

All depends on your definition.

[lunaticheathen]

It's difficult extracting "god" out of the "god-shaped hole" and not having something to stick back in. That's why many ex-C's go through other forms of worship, try other religions, etc before arriving at atheism.

 

The problem many here have accepting is that this progression is not the rule. I find it belittling to have someone believe I just haven't "grown up" enough to be an atheist.

 

I've been an open pagan for over 10 years. Y'all can stop holding your breath now.

[mcdaddy]

It's difficult extracting "god" out of the "god-shaped hole" and not having something to stick back in. That's why many ex-C's go through other forms of worship, try other religions, etc before arriving at atheism.

 

The problem many here have accepting is that this progression is not the rule. I find it belittling to have someone believe I just haven't "grown up" enough to be an atheist.

 

I've been an open pagan for over 10 years. Y'all can stop holding your breath now.

 

I just said many go through that process, Luna. Which is true. Didn't make any claims about the validity or truth of any position, just gave my opinion.

 

There very well could exist ancient Egyptian gods.

 

 

[lunaticheathen]

I know what you said.

 

I may seem prickly about this, but that's only because this is tiring. When I submitted my deconversion story to the main blog here, back in 2009, it was flooded with comments all about "don't trade one delusion for another" and "give it time, you'll give up gods eventually." I have dealt with this attitude, and many others like it, for the entire time I've participated in this forum. I'm not giving up my gods, I haven't for a decade, and I'm not stupid, or deluded just because I left christianity and didn't end up at atheism.

 

Not everyone, and I'm not accusing you. Just stating what I have gone through, being the double minority of ex-christian and Polytheist. When I hear someone suggest in some way that I'm wrong/stupid for believing the way I do, whether it's a christian or an atheist or a muslim or anyone else, I just hear condescension and arrogance. And I tend to treat them all the same way, with a huge "fuck you."

[Rev R]

Hey there,

 

I wanted to ask a couple of questions regarding your personal take on this, but I'll save that for the end. First I wanted to offer a couple of observations.

 

Panendeism combines deism with panentheism, the belief that the universe is part of God, but not all of God.A component of panendeism is "experiential metaphysics" – the idea that a mystical component exists within the framework of panendeism, allowing the seeker to experience a relationship to Deity through meditation, prayer or some other type of communion.[67]This is a major departure from classical deism.

~ emphasis added

 

I'm not sure why new terms are needed. “Experiential metaphysics” seems to be another way to say “mystical theology”. I also do not see any need for the addition of the term “deism”. One can follow a mystic path with little association to any particular model of God. I don't see any use for the word deism, especially with the major departure of mysticism, with the exception of its association with the concept of Reason. What do you find to be the shortcoming of panentheism?

 

Personally, I would recommend checking out the first lecture in Soyen Shaku's “Zen for Americans”. Soyen was the teacher of D.T. Suzuki and Nyogen Senzaki (both instrumental in bringing Japanese Zen to the West). His take was that to the Western mind Zen teachings could be equated to a kind of panentheism, but since God doesn't exist in Buddhism as Westerners conceive of it, panentheism has to be a bit more broadly defined. It is an interesting lecture and may help you as you come to terms with exactly what you believe.

 

I suppose my main question for you would be:

Why any “ism”? What I mean by that is, why do you feel it is necessary to have a label that describes your beliefs?

 

 

For me “Buddhism” is a term of convenience. It is a fairly accurate depiction of the morality which I have chosen to follow even though I also adhere to interpretations of Chivalry and Bushido. Neither one could be considered to be very Buddhist philosophies. Over the years, I've become less and less inclined to identify myself as a Buddhist or even a Zennist. The labels are too tied up with stereotypes, misconceptions, rituals and dogmas. In practice, it's a system corrupted by harmful ideas and unrealistic idealism. Despite all the garbage, I do find use in the sutras and the teachings of the “Masters”. I also find usefulness in the teachings of the Tao and Confucius. What I'm suggesting is to find your truth and abide (heh!) in it and not worry so much about it fitting in with some label or another.

[MrsRoper]

This actually reminds me a little bit of the "Openness of God" theology that Clarke Pinnock advocates.

[sjessen]

What do you find to be the shortcoming of panentheism?

 

I suppose my main question for you would be:

Why any “ism”? What I mean by that is, why do you feel it is necessary to have a label that describes your beliefs?

 

With regard to your first question, I purchased a book on Deism entitled, "Deist So That's What I Am" put out by the Contemporary Deism Project and in the description of panentheism vs. panendeism, it said that panentheism sees god in personal terms and relies on scripture and tradition for belief, while panendeism sees god in transpersonal terms and relies on reason and experience as a basis for belief. I liked that panendeism is a more reason-based and experience-based approach to belief.

 

You know, I am beginning to wonder why I have embarked on this mission of trying to find where I belong in the scheme of things myself. With regard to your main question, I think my searching has been a way for me to discover what I believe. Until a few days ago I didn't even know these classifications existed (panentheism and panendeism) and I am so excited to see that others think the same way I do.

 

I think this fascination of mine was probably prompted by this website and the requirement that we post whether we still have any Gods and if so, who or what. I really didn't know what I believed in any more since I left Christianity, I just knew I still thought there was a God, but that was about all. So it has been a journey of self-discovery. However, once I find a category I can relate to, I think I will feel free to follow my own heart and use wise teachings wherever I find them. I have learned a great deal from Buddhist teachings and I learned some good things from Christianity. I'm interested in the Tao Te Ching as well. I will not limit myself again.

[Antlerman]

Panentheism is based more on scriptures whereas Panendeism is deist which relies on reason and nature.

That's their take on it, which I wouldn't necessarily agree with. In fact, Pantenthiesm is really more the Postmodernist view of choice (in a spiritual context). What Panendism sounds like it is trying to do is still take the Modernity approach of reason to penetrate truth and apply it in a way that accommodates a rationalist approach with a non-rational intuition. Not that this is bad by any means, but just interesting to me.

[Antlerman]

It's difficult extracting "god" out of the "god-shaped hole" and not having something to stick back in. That's why many ex-C's go through other forms of worship, try other religions, etc before arriving at atheism.

 

The problem many here have accepting is that this progression is not the rule. I find it belittling to have someone believe I just haven't "grown up" enough to be an atheist.

 

I've been an open pagan for over 10 years. Y'all can stop holding your breath now.

Truth be told... atheism is the first step from the mother's womb.... it's the first breath of a world their own to begin to explore... IMHO. What that means is it is more spiritual than mythic belief in an absolute, dogmatic authority telling them how to think and believe. But its not the end of the road by any means. There is no arriving, and if so, then that's just another damned replacement for the same external Authority, a stifled liberty of spirit.

[Antlerman]

One can follow a mystic path with little association to any particular model of God.

Bingo. In fact, the models are more convenient than anything else.

[lunaticheathen]

I'm really tired of others telling me what I am. Or should be.

[Deva]

Truth be told... atheism is the first step from the mother's womb.... it's the first breath of a world their own to begin to explore... IMHO. What that means is it is more spiritual than mythic belief in an absolute, dogmatic authority telling them how to think and believe. But its not the end of the road by any means. There is no arriving, and if so, then that's just another damned replacement for the same external Authority, a stifled liberty of spirit.

 

I have heard this stated many times on this site - that atheism is what we start with. I don't believe it. I think that babies probably think of their mother as "God" long before they know the word or definition. I think believing in gods is the most natural human thing to do and I would point to almost the whole of human history to prove my point. Of course I don't believe we come into the world with a "clean slate" either, since I believe in reincarnation.

[Deva]

I think this fascination of mine was probably prompted by this website and the requirement that we post whether we still have any Gods and if so, who or what. I really didn't know what I believed in any more since I left Christianity, I just knew I still thought there was a God, but that was about all. So it has been a journey of self-discovery. However, once I find a category I can relate to, I think I will feel free to follow my own heart and use wise teachings wherever I find them. I have learned a great deal from Buddhist teachings and I learned some good things from Christianity. I'm interested in the Tao Te Ching as well. I will not limit myself again.

 

I think its great to find out what you believe and why you believe it. It takes time.

[Adam5]

..I don't believe we come into the world with a "clean slate" either, since I believe in reincarnation.

 

Hi Deva, reincarnation. On what evidence?

[Deva]

It's difficult extracting "god" out of the "god-shaped hole" and not having something to stick back in. That's why many ex-C's go through other forms of worship, try other religions, etc before arriving at atheism. It's a big change. When you've had an object to focus your worship on for so long, simply discarding it with nothing to replace it with feels "empty".

 

I have many problems with this statement. However, I accept that this describes your own journey.

[Antlerman]

Truth be told... atheism is the first step from the mother's womb.... it's the first breath of a world their own to begin to explore... IMHO. What that means is it is more spiritual than mythic belief in an absolute, dogmatic authority telling them how to think and believe. But its not the end of the road by any means. There is no arriving, and if so, then that's just another damned replacement for the same external Authority, a stifled liberty of spirit.

 

I have heard this stated many times on this site - that atheism is what we start with. I don't believe it. I think that babies probably think of their mother as "God" long before they know the word or definition. I think believing in gods is the most natural human thing to do and I would point to almost the whole of human history to prove my point. Of course I don't believe we come into the world with a "clean slate" either, since I believe in reincarnation.

This really isn't what I was referring to. I was talking about leaving Christian faith. That it's a step out of the mother's womb which gave us birth, that mythic-dogmatic womb of the Christian church. What you are referencing is not what I meant, and I do agree with you in that regard very much so. I said this in reference to what LH was saying about how atheists assume they are the end game post-faith. But as I see it, atheism and agnosticism are the first step in finding themselves post-Christianity, not the end goal.

 

I applaud atheism and agnosticism in listening enough to what is inside them to take the brave first steps in differentiated themselves from that 'mother' who told them how to think and believe (which is what I said initially here). But to stop there is really not the goal. Therefore, those who find a way to have a faith without violating the positive gains of reason and rationality, are to me taking the next step beyond atheism. In this sense agnosticism and atheism is more spiritual, more in that direction of finding our true self, than those still asleep in the Christian womb. Does this make sense now?

[Deva]

Does this make sense now?

 

Sorry about that. I completely misunderstood what you were saying.

[mcdaddy]

It's difficult extracting "god" out of the "god-shaped hole" and not having something to stick back in. That's why many ex-C's go through other forms of worship, try other religions, etc before arriving at atheism. It's a big change. When you've had an object to focus your worship on for so long, simply discarding it with nothing to replace it with feels "empty".

 

I have many problems with this statement. However, I accept that this describes your own journey.

 

Never said it was my journey, I don't think. I did dabble with Buddhism very briefly though, and dont completely discard it. I was only saying its a path that many take.

 

What I don't understand is "finding out what you believe". With regards to the OP, it's strange to me that you can "not know" what you "believe". That's what I'm having trouble following in this thread. If you don't know what you believe, then how can you believe in something? Now if she meant she only didn't know the right TERM to describe what she already believed that's different. I'm not seeing which one it is. Maybe you could elaborate SJ?

[Antlerman]

Does this make sense now?

 

Sorry about that. I completely misunderstood what you were saying.

That's OK.

 

The more I think about this, I think it's important to underscore this and acknowledge this in those who view themselves as agnostic and atheist. It's a positive thing, and really truly what I can now see as a true act of faith. It is important and necessary for many to do, as it was for me very much so, in order to free themselves from the grips of that early stage of development in their personal lives; that group-think, conformist, mythic-literal mode of understanding reality.

 

The good news is yes, there is genuine spirituality to be had beyond that earlier mode of understanding reality. The challenge is the continued growth on that less traveled road to find it ourselves. We are those explorers who set off from the home-world into the uncharted seas.

 

I love this quote from Sri Aurobindo I'll share here that says it so well for me, and to me very much pertains to what the OP is exploring for herself. It's good for us to recognize it in this light, I believe:

 

It is necessary, therefore, that advancing Knowledge should base herself on a clear, pure and disciplined intellect. It is necessary, too, that she should correct her errors sometimes by a return to the restraint of sensible fact, the concrete realities of the physical world. The touch of Earth is always reinvigorating to the son of Earth, even when he seeks a supraphysical Knowledge. It may even be said that the supraphysical can only be really mastered in its fullness – to its heights we can always search– when we keep our feet firmly on the physical. “Earth is His footing,” says the Upanishad whenever it images the Self that manifests in the universe.

And it is certainly the fact the wider we extend and the surer we make our knowledge of the physical world, the wider and surer becomes our foundation for the higher knowledge

, even for the highest, even for the Brahmavidya.

 

In emerging, therefore, out of the materialistic period of human Knowledge we must be careful that we do not rashly condemn what we are leaving or throw away even one tittle of its gains, before we can summon perceptions and powers that are well grasped and secure, to occupy their place.

Rather we shall observe with respect and wonder the work that Atheism had done for the Divine and admire the services that Agnosticism has rendered in preparing the illimitable increase of knowledge.

In our world error is continually the handmaid and pathfinder of Truth; for error is really a half-truth that stumbles because of its limitations;

often it is Truth that wears a disguise in order to arrive unobserved near to its goal.

Well, if it could always be, as it has been in the great period we are leaving, the faithful handmaid, severe, conscientious, clean-handed, luminous within its limits, a half-truth and not a reckless and presumptuous aberration.

 

Sri Aurobindo, The Life Divine, pg 12,13

 

[emphasis mine]

 

This is important to recognize as we find ourselves getting embroiled in the debate. It's a step forward, not the end.

[Deva]

Never said it was my journey, I don't think. I did dabble with Buddhism very briefly though, and dont completely discard it. I was only saying its a path that many take.

 

 

I know you said "many ex-c's" rather than "all ex c's," but that kind of categorical statement doesn't sit well with me. It also implies that atheism is the only proper view of reality. Its this and the God-shaped hole statement I take exception to. Not anything regarding Buddhism. It may not be your journey but it is your opinion, isn't it?

[mcdaddy]

Never said it was my journey, I don't think. I did dabble with Buddhism very briefly though, and dont completely discard it. I was only saying its a path that many take.

 

 

I know you said "many ex-c's" rather than "all ex c's," but that kind of categorical statement doesn't sit well with me. It also implies that atheism is the only proper view of reality. Its this and the God-shaped hole statement I take exception to. Not anything regarding Buddhism. It may not be your journey but it is your opinion, isn't it?

 

Well, im sorry you took it so personally. No, I view it as fact that "many ex-C's try other religions, before ultimately settling in on agnosticism/atheism". "many" can be a majority, or even a minority, depending on how you want to look at it. I'm only pointing out the obvious. Are you saying that this rarely happens? I guess I don't have raw data to back it up, so in that regards it is an opinion I guess. But I think it's a hunch that's got a pretty high likelihood of being correct. Do you think that statement is completely erroneous?

[mcdaddy]

Oh, and again, I NEVER IMPLIED atheism is "correct". Again, just saying this is a path well traveled.

[mcdaddy]

If I made it appear otherwise, my apologies for being unclear.