Pan- and Panen-Nontheism?

[beenherebeforeagain]

Okay, another thread prompted my consideration of the following:

Now then, about my quandary: I seem to today be a non-theist because, while I recognize the possibility of a universal or sub-universal deity or deities, I do not have a position on whether or not they actually exist. At the same time, I believe that everything is spirit, that spirit is immanent in what we conceive of the "universe," and quite possibly "beyond" or "outside" of that--although that for me is an abstraction of a reality I just can't comprehend. This position is comparable to pantheism, and panentheism--although I don't recognize spirit as necessarily being deity, thus the "theism" part doesn't apply--I don't think. Thoughts or suggestions?

I turn to the resident pan- and panentheists for their help! Thank you in advance for your considered responses!

 

[George-ananda]

Pantheism is non-dual (God and creation are not-two). The term theism doesn't apply well as the term comes from western dualistic thinking. I am a pantheist but when discussing with someone thinking in terms of atheism/agnosticism/theism I identify as 'theism' knowing the term is not ideal.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Pantheism is non-dual (God and creation are not-two). The term theism doesn't apply well as the term comes from western dualistic thinking. I am a pantheist but when discussing with someone thinking in terms of atheism/agnosticism/theism I identify as 'theism' knowing the term is not ideal.

Thanks for the feedback, @George-ananda . I also find concepts of theism to be of quite limited use, but they seem to dominate the discussion, ala theism vs atheism, mono versus poly, immanent vs transcendent, etc.

As an animist, I tend more toward pluralism, and I'm trying to get out of the western dualistic thinking habit, too. So, for me, spirits and existence/creation are not-two, but are actually (potentially at least) many. If the universe is many, how do my beliefs fit into the traditional theistic concepts, if they do at all? If not, what terms might be appropriate?

 

[Baladas]

Okay, another thread prompted my consideration of the following:

I turn to the resident pan- and panentheists for their help! Thank you in advance for your considered responses!

Yes, it can definitely feel odd to call yourself a form of "theist" when you feel that you are not (or at least not in the commonly understood sense). From what you are saying here, we seem to share similar thoughts and beliefs regarding "spirit".

It can be frustrating for me at times because hardcore materialists will call me a theist, and theists will often take me for a materialist.

There are people who consider themselves both non-theist and pantheist.
As for myself, I'm still not sure which I technically am...I have given up on most labels, honestly.
The ones I use here are mostly for the benefit of other users...

Sorry that I don't have many suggestions at the moment.
Good luck sorting this out to your liking, and I hope my post provided some sort of help.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Yes, it can definitely feel odd to call yourself a form of "theist" when you feel that you are not (or at least not in the commonly understood sense). From what you are saying here, we seem to share similar thoughts and beliefs regarding "spirit".

It can be frustrating for me at times because hardcore materialists will call me a theist, and theists will often take me for a materialist.

There are people who consider themselves both non-theist and pantheist.
As for myself, I'm still not sure which I technically am...I have given up on most labels, honestly.
The ones I use here are mostly for the benefit of other users...

Sorry that I don't have many suggestions at the moment.
Good luck sorting this out to your liking, and I hope my post provided some sort of help.

thank you, @Baladas for your thoughtful response. Yeah, on a personal level, I really don't use most of the labels, either, but when I try to talk to other people about what I do and believe....

 

[Terryj]

Yes, the non-dualist part of me has a very difficult time in addressing your question due to having to use labels. I understand that this is the only means of conveying thoughts however, it is very limiting and semantics can often confuse the issues.
Just using the term "god", "deities" or "spirit" denotes something as being separate, so to use these terms I would say that, in my view, all things are "spirit" meaning the essence of all things, seeing how this is all there is, it is as it is.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Yes, the non-dualist part of me has a very difficult time in addressing your question due to having to use labels. I understand that this is the only means of conveying thoughts however, it is very limiting and semantics can often confuse the issues.
Just using the term "god", "deities" or "spirit" denotes something as being separate, so to use these terms I would say that, in my view, all things are "spirit" meaning the essence of all things, seeing how this is all there is, it is as it is.

thank you very much @Terryj for your response. Still wrestling with this question!

Oh, and welcome to the boards!