Poll: Syncretism in Pantheism

[Exaltist Ethan]

Pantheism seems to be a pretty easy concept to understand, yet, I would argue that most people who self-identify as pantheist, panentheist, pandeist, or panendeist also subscribe to some amount of other theology or religion.

In the strictest sense possible I consider myself panendeist, as in, I believe that 50% of all divinity is held within divine nature, or The Omniverse. The Omniverse possesses all the Universes, multiverses, etc, and is not a syntheos, or a created being, that is alive like humans beings are.

Do I think The Omniverse is alive? I consider everything to possess some living properties, as there is nothing in this Universe that is absolute zero on the Kelvin scale.

So, 50% of my theology is panendeism, believing that everything comes from ultimate nature, The Omniverse. I also believe that because of entropy and extropy, this thing I call the primary source isn't as primary as it used to be.

The other half of my theology is syntheism. The belief that God is being created by humans. Those involved in the Syntheism religion calls their created God, Syntheos, but I use that term to describe pretty much anything that is both alive and intelligent, and refer to humans as the Syntheos of Earth.

So I am 50% panendeist and 50% syntheist. The God I shape is various synverses throughout the Internet and on Earth, including myself. In fact, the God I believe in is both The Omniverse and The Synverse that we will shape from it one day.

Breaking down its etymology, "syn-" literally means "to create" and "-verse" literally means spacetime, so a synverse means a created spacetime. This pretty much can indicate all nouns, as a created spacetime can be a person, a place or a thing. I must stress though, that all synverses are able to change in various ways. Change allows things to alter how much divinity those things possess.

The closest religions that follows my beliefs is Earthseed, Terasem, Solseed, Evolutionism, Turing Church, Astronism - the transhumanist religions. These religions are minor, miniscule, unorganized religions with very little followers. Earthseed created a type of theology I coin as spiritual transhumanism. My creation of Exaltism was to not create something distinct, instead creating a type of denomination in Earthseed.

There are three tenets of Earthseed. (1) God is change. (2) Shape God. (3) It is Earthseed's destiny to take root among the stars. I essentially believe the same thing, with slightly different vernacular. (1) Changes have the ability to develop or diminish the divinity of things. (2) Humans use self-awareness and utilities to create God. (3) It is our destiny to develop the Syntheos of The Omniverse, effectively creating a monotheistic God that will usher an infinite omnitheistic and post-morality society.

Earthseed is simple, it's easy to understand, yet, in its simplicity it lacks depth, as does the religion of Syntheism, which is just a bit more than it's purposed theology.

I define God in ten attributes to things.
Totality, Essentiality, Eternity, Ubiquity, Potency. - This is held by Ultimate Nature.
Utility, Generosity, Sagacity, Sovereignty, Unity. - This is held by Ultimate Humanity.

We are currently experiencing the edge of sovereignty and beginning to transition to global unity.

When unity is achieved, we will start full progress on the Kardashev Scale, becoming planetary, then stellar, and so on, until we find ways to anthropomorphize The Omniverse itself, creating its Syntheos, and thus, entering in an age of maximum complexity, the supposed Omega Point theorized by Teilhard.

This is essentially gnosticism within the Earthseed movement. Earthseed briefly explains what God is, and I elaborate on exactly what changes are needed to be present to develop synverses, and The Synverse. Exaltism is Earthseed gnosticism. I do not claim to believe in God anymore, I have enough sense and self-awareness to claim very much so that I know what God is, and that I am a very small part of its continued creation, and that just by living I am in essence creating parts of it too.

In a very real sense, I took the concept of pantheism, and I took the concept of syntheism, I merged the two, and I called the being of this creation The Synverse. Hence my title and my signature text.

When it comes to religious theology, or organized religion, the only religions that I can really get behind are either Unitarian Universalism or Liberal Quakerism, both offering liberal covenants amongst their members to try to essentially achieve The Synverse that we've been looking forward to. UUs tend to be religious rather than spiritual, and liberal Quakers tend to be spiritual rather than religious. Combining both, religiously I mirror the UUs and spiritually I mirror the Quakers. And every time, without fail, when I take the Select Smart "what religion are you quiz", I get either 100% UU, 100% liberal Quaker, and sometimes, both.

I don't like the unprogrammed worship of liberal Quakers. It does not appeal to me in any way. But the fact is, UUs tend to be humanist, atheist, and freethinkers, and very politically progressive - something I cannot get myself to be associated with. In 2014 I joined my UU congregation in Milwaukee, and I've attended one Quaker meeting. Because of their liberal creedal systems, it attracts people like me, who cannot agree with any one particular organized religion, but because of this, I find that most UUs and many Quakers do not wish to talk about spirituality or theology.

With both religions, there is a certain amount of syncretism. And pantheism can be a theology that is incorporated in various theological ways, such as advaita vedanta in Hinduism, certain Daoism sects, among other contraptions that incorporate these beliefs. According to an audiobook I was listening to lately, even Norse mythology claims to have pantheism incorporated into its polytheism.

I've just unraveled myself here - explaining where my beliefs come from, why I decided that I should follow Earthseed as my religion, and how we will fulfill its promise to create, and become, God one day, noting my gnosticism within that religion. I just want to teach other people that, even if they come to different conclusions than me. Exaltism is synonymous with Earthseed Gnosticism.

So there is multiple syncretic ideas that incorporate my belief structure. I'm equal parts pantheist and syntheist, equal parts Earthseed and Gnostic, and there will always be a part of me that values and respect both the UU and Quaker communities, even if I find both to be lacking the spirituality that I crave.

So I bring this back to the reader. Since this is the Pantheism DIR, I assume you hold some pantheist viewpoints. But are you straight pantheist, or do you belong to the UUs, Quakers, the Spiritual Naturalist society, World Pantheist Movement, or other liberal religions? And theologically speaking, are you just pantheist, or does your theology mix with others?

I've just explained to pretty much my entire thought process on God, theology and spirituality. I've held these thoughts for a long time and sometimes I need to let them go and share them with other people. You'll find that throughout these forums I repeat these ideas like they are a dogma to me. They are important, and I wish more people could understand where I'm coming from when it comes to both my syntheism, my pantheism, my omnism and my syncretism in choosing the right religions and spiritual organizations.

One thing I like about liberal Quakers is that they advocate looking for the light, or divinity, of every person. And that there is spiritual progression of humanity, similarly to what Baha'is teach.

TL;DR - Are you just a pantheist, or is there a degree of syncretism in your beliefs? I will make a thorough poll asking such related questions to my follow pantheists on this forum. Let's debate and discuss what kind of pantheism you decided to follow and practice.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Existence is the expression of God.

 

[Quintessence]

While I don't self-identify as a syncretist, I recognize that in practice many would appropriately label me as such. Druidry isn't the kind of religion that has closed edges, so to speak, so it is inherently syncretist... sort of. I don't really look at it that way, personally, but a strong case could be made especially for the Order of Bards, Ovates, and Druids.

In any case, theologically I fall into a bucket of polytheistic pantheist with animism. That is, there are many gods, the gods are nature and its various aspects, and other-than-human persons are a thing. Sometimes I eschew mentioning the pantheist thing at all because it is in some ways redundant. Both polytheism and animism already heavily imply nature and the gods are not distinct from one another, or gods and spirits are considered immanent or present within the world rather than transcending it.

Religiously, I fall into a bucket of contemporary Paganism. I've been a member of Unitarian Universalism in the past, but haven't attended a service in some years. I'm presently a member of the Order of Bards, Ovates and Druids, which is basically a UU-style Paganism with mystery tradition elements. The specifics of my tradition are personal and unique to me, though, with some common elements shared amongst other Pagans and Druids of course.

 

[George-ananda]

It seems to me with all those choices we are missing the big one I identify with (Advaita Vedanta).

Spiritual (non-dualist) God and the universe are not-two.

So I voted Panentheism the closest fit. That put us in first place in the poll.

 

[Ella S.]

The Stoics were Hellenists, but they were also materialists. Rather than rejecting the existence of God or the gods, they adopted a more mature theology of pantheism. I would argue that their influence on Spinoza had a significant hand in popularizing pantheism.

They were classical pantheists. They saw Jupiter as equivalent to the deterministic, material universe. To them, the laws of nature emerged from Jupiter's strict adherence to a logic. Thus, their approach to physics and natural philosophy focused on the inherent order of the universe. Interestingly, similar to how physical laws are seen as predicting how physical forces behave, this logic of Jupiter or his "Logos" was likewise described as emerging from Jupiter's activity, almost to the point of being a separate entity at times that was closely bound in the concepts of fate and reason.

The degree to which this is an extended philosophical metaphor or a genuine supernatural religion seemed to vary between Stoics, and even particular Stoics might voice some support for both. For instance, Epictetus mentions that there either is an underworld or there isn't one, being sort of agnostic on the matter, but he embraces the positive aspects of either outcome. He also gives a lengthy prayer to Jupiter, although it reads more like a contemplative prayer whose words are meant to be reflected on rather than a supernatural petition to me.

It could be either. This is partially because Stoic metaphysics and Stoic psychology are bound up together. The Logos is not just something Jupiter has, but that nearly every living human being has by virtue of their capacity for reason. These are the greater and lesser Logos, and our Logos is said to be a reflection of the Logos of the universe. To paraphrase a common Stoic sentiment, the fact that our capacity for reason coexists with an animal form means that we have one foot in divinity and another in the wilderness. It is by turning to logic that we embrace God and everything he has to demonstrate to us.

Again, this easily understood in a naturalistic sense. Our intellect really is a product of natural forces and logic really is the most reliable way to learn about the natural universe around us. Having a reverence for both the universe and our own analytical minds encourages us to accept things as they are and seek to understand them rather than judge or attack them. This is why many have remarked on the similarities between Stoic philosophy and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy.

Personally, I am a metaphysical naturalist. I think the materialism of the Stoics was on the right track, as well as their focus on logic. We have come a long way since Marcus Aurelius murdered the Stoics over a thousand years ago, building on the same ideas they adopted:

Materialism became naturalism. Logic blossomed into formalizations like Boolean, modal, epistemic, subjective, Bayesian, and fuzzy logics, including development on the application of logic by logical positivism which was eventually replaced by the superior critical rationalism in the philosophy of science. Pantheism itself continues to influence scientists from Einstein to Sagan to Hawking.

I do not practice Stoicism in the exact same way that the ancients did. I don't consult oracles for divination or make offerings to Jupiter. In that sense, I am not a pagan. I am a contemporary Stoic, and I am a gnostic atheist and metaphysical naturalist because, to me, that seems to be the most rational way to continue their philosophies in the modern age.

However, I maintain the same spiritual reverence the Stoics had for fate and the natural world. I've wrestled with that reverence and waffle on it sometimes, but it's a part of my experience of the world that I can't deny any longer. So when I saw that many pantheists here also call themselves atheists, I knew it was right for me to come back to this directory. It's probably the only directory on these forums I should be in.