pantheist beliefs on a spectrum?

[peggyelizabeth]

I found this on a website (http://home.utm.net/pan/whatis.html)


The following diagram generalizes contemporary pantheistically inclined viewpoints. Adherents spread across the spectrum, some in the center of a category, others at some point in between. From modern reference book-defined Pantheism, to the strict materialism of Scientific Pantheism, and the broad transcendence of Panentheism, all outlooks consider the Universe divine, and all contain a religious sensibility rich in poetry, mystery, and imagination, kindled by the enthralling wonder of Nature.


http://home.utm.net/pan/diagram.gif

I'm wondering how others feel about it. To me it makes a lot of sense, that a person's beleifs are somewhere on a spectrum. Any thoughts?

(first post after introductions!)

[Eleisawolf]

I'm not going to speak for everyone, but from what I've understood here, the majority of folks around this pantheist board not only accept the idea of the spectrum, but encourage it. Personal belief is... well... personal.

Pantheists range from those who have a more mystical, spiritual belief to those who have a more scientific, logic-based belief. Most of us here are somewhere in between, I think. I, personallly, lean more toward the mystical side, but my faith very strongly conforms to what science is able to discover. Where my mysticism comes in is in areas where I have had personal experience (visitations, as you will...) that science has not or cannot explore...

If you read more of the posts on this subforum, you'll see how varied the spectrum is...

Peace

[Tanya]

I like it.

I think personally I'm heading to the right side of the spectrum.

[peggyelizabeth]

If you mean "right" as in opposite of left, that's where I am too.

I'm kinda wishy-washy on whether I believe that there's more than the universe, but I'd like to think that whatever is out there has some type of consciousness.

[peggyelizabeth]

If you read more of the posts on this subforum, you'll see how varied the spectrum is...


Yes, I read almost every post b4 joining. I just hadn't seen anyone draw it out like this b4. Somehow the visual learner in me was just amazed to see all those words in picture form.

[ravenscape]

Interesting diagram, and one I mostly agree with, though I would phrase it "The universe is suffused with Divinity".

But that's just me :D

[cheddarsox]

I'm happy with the spectrum, but lose the "God" term, because it is so culturally loaded (at least the Capital G version) as a "being".

I believe the Divine is Nature, but it is not a god, being, traditional diety, and not "God".

I know I am overboard a stickler about this, but I have found I need to be. If I start allowing myself to use the "g" term...then, when I am discussing faith, people who have a "being/deity" god start challenging me as if my understanding of the universe is the same as their god. They can't seem to hear that term and not assume "being". And then the discussion gets bogged down...because we end up speaking past each other.

So I am anal about avoiding the "g" word when discussing my faith, lest anyone grab onto the notion that my pantheist understanding of the Divine is just another version of their deity. People constantly tell me what a cold, heartless "god" I have...simply because they can't conceive that I don't have a god, that the Divine can be something other than a superhero in the sky.

OK, shutting up now...I promise.

cheddar

[peggyelizabeth]

please, don't shut up cheddar-it was some of your posts that made me want to get to know some people here.

I agree, the use of the "g" word is an issue that is sometimes insurmountable, and by not using it at all, there seems to be more of a conversation where more can be learned than in an antagonistic situation.

BUT, for many this is the only way that they can concive of a divine, so then by not using it, a different kind of road block is created...

[peggyelizabeth]

"The universe is suffused with Divinity".


What a beautiful way to phrase it. That's so succinct and focused, yet awe inspiring.

[cheddarsox]

I agree, the use of the "g" word is an issue that is sometimes insurmountable, and by not using it at all, there seems to be more of a conversation where more can be learned than in an antagonistic situation.

BUT, for many this is the only way that they can concive of a divine, so then by not using it, a different kind of road block is created...

I see what you are saying. I am willing to be very patient and work/talk with people till we can reach some understanding...IF they are willing to work as well.

But most of the time...I get.."If you can't explain your god in terms I am already familiar and comfortable with...then your just an atheist is disguise." They don't want to even try to understand that there can be an entirely different concept of Divine. As long as the concept of distinct, anthropomorphic deity is the only one they are willing to work with...I can never share my faith with them, because....everything that follows, in terms of "theology" depends on being able to let go of that initial concept.

People keep telling me I'm confused...because they don't understand that the word "God" can mean something other than a being that makes demands on us. They assume that because they don't understand it, I don't know what I'm talking about either.

So...after years of trying to use their own language in hopes that it will help them "get" the concept, I have now chosen to abandon their language and use that which is unique.

This is my own issue, based on my own experience. I really have found it better to not try to compare/contrast "my god" with "their god", because they are not parallel.

There really is no simple way to compare a dualistic faith to a non dualistic faith on a point by point basis, sort of like there is no Chinese alphabet. Can't line up chinese characters next to the English alphabet and say this = that. That is what they want me to do for them, explain how my pantheist "god" is like their "God". They are based on entirely different concepts, and a person must be willing to accept them on their own terms.

cheddar

[equinox2]

Chedar wrote:

There really is no simple way to compare a dualistic faith to a non dualistic faith on a point by point basis, sort of like there is no Chinese alphabet. Can't line up chinese characters next to the English alphabet and say this = that. That is what they want me to do for them, explain how my pantheist "god" is like their "God". They are based on entirely different concepts, and a person must be willing to accept them on their own terms.


I must agree. I don't think the continuum in the OP works.

Spectra often work well, especially for spiritual concepts. Hell, I use them so often that it's a running joke among my friends that whatever we'll discuss, I'll put it on a continuum/spectrum. Or, I often use two concepts, and put them on intersecting spectra, thus dividing the "thought space" into four quadrants.

In spite of all that, this time I think it just doesn't work. I have to agree with Cheddar. My two cents.

Enjoy life-

[Windsmith]

I don't think the continuum in the OP works.Just out of curiosity, why do you think it doesn't work?

[Birdy]

I think the continuum would work better if they replaced "within" with "suffused with" as the former could define a significant number or monotheists. Also, I don't see panentheism as a form of pantheism but more it's own thing with it's own spectrum.

A good spectrum should probably include acosmic pantheism as well.

(For those as don't know, acosmic pantheists hold that the only thing that really exists is a singular divine energy, all separateness and distinctness from this is said to be illusory.)

It might also have included the more theistic version of this which holds that this energy/being is conscious, ei. All is God.

[equinox2]

Windsmith wrote:


Just out of curiosity, why do you think it doesn't work?


Because I don't see a smooth change from to the other, instead the two (Pantheism and Panentheism) seem qualitatively, not just quantitatively,
different.

For instance, I think many political views CAN go on a spectrum, like dove/hawk. People on the dove end may not fight if the US attacks unprovoked, but would if their hometown were bombed - some in the middle would approve a war if we were attacked, but not otherwise, while hawks might be happy to attack unprovoked. The shades of gray involved with "what exactly qualifies as being 'provoked'" supplies a smooth scale. Another example is a spectrum from rich to poor. What about someone with an annual income of $8,000? $23,000? $47,000? $94,000, $3,651,000? I see those as quantitatively different, and hence can be put on a smooth spectrum.

Qualitative differences, like comparing a car to a tornado to an opera, don't work. Sure you can put them in some order, but the order seems arbitrary, and it's hard to image the fine steps leading from one to the other extreme.

It seems to me that if you see the universe as likely to be naturalistic, then Panentheism doesn't fit. Panthesist believe in just the universe, while Panentheists believe in the universe + 1 God. So partway inbetween is that someone who believes in the universe + one fifth of a God? Wha?

So it just doesn't seem like the best application of a spectrum to me.

-my $0.02 (of a god? :lol: )

[ravenscape]

Hmmm...You've made me think, equinox2!

The reason I treat myself as somewhere on the spectrum between pantheism and panentheism has to do with the nature of the Divine. I get all bollixed up with the concept of transcendance.

I don't think Divine and transcendant necessarily go hand in hand. For me, the middle ground is just that -- divinity in the here-and-now, within the bounds of this universe. No creator. I like Starhawk's term: Immanence. I'm not sure I use the term to mean the same thing she describes. Words are tricky, slippery little tools.

If I ever do see my way clear to embracing/understanding the concept of necessarily transcendant Divinity, then I guess I'll call myself a panentheist.

Waiting is.

[faery songs]

The spectrum idea really makes sense, to have it diagrammed like that. I think it's more multi-dimensional, though, like a point in space rather than a point on a line. It's hard to arrange such different concepts linearily.

I think I'm teetering towards the left side of the spectrum, myself. If it works that way. x3

[ravenscape]

The spectrum idea really makes sense, to have it diagrammed like that. I think it's more multi-dimensional, though, like a point in space rather than a point on a line. It's hard to arrange such different concepts linearily.

I think I'm teetering towards the left side of the spectrum, myself. If it works that way. x3

What do you see as the other axes? Three dimensional space is described in three orientations. Height, width and length. If pantheism/panentheism is one of those orientations -- say width, what are height and length?

For myself, I think one of the axes would be degree of knowing and certainty. - from agnostic (certain we can't know) to gnostic (certain we can know).

[peggyelizabeth]

wow.
That hadn't crossed my mind.


For myself, I think one of the axes would be degree of knowing and certainty. - from agnostic (certain we can't know) to gnostic (certain we can know).

This seems like pretty reasonable. But now I'm thinking about parabolas & that's way too much math for a Saturday morning.

[faery songs]

I don't think I'm sure what I'm talking about, but the image in my mind is of intersecting clouds of dust i.e., not specific axes.

[ravenscape]

I don't think I'm sure what I'm talking about, but the image in my mind is of intersecting clouds of dust i.e., not specific axes.
I love math, especially multivariate stuff, and visualization/graphical representations.

When I think of intersecting clouds of dust, I think of what they have in common (shared space) and what they don't have in common. And it helps me to see the nature of the intersection and differences if I can relate it to three or more axes.

Odd huh? I drive colleagues crazy. They come to me with a computer programming problem, and I can't verbalize the solution unless I draw Venn diagrams for them.

[faery songs]

I love math, especially multivariate stuff, and visualization/graphical representations.

When I think of intersecting clouds of dust, I think of what they have in common (shared space) and what they don't have in common. And it helps me to see the nature of the intersection and differences if I can relate it to three or more axes.

Odd huh? I drive colleagues crazy. They come to me with a computer programming problem, and I can't verbalize the solution unless I draw Venn diagrams for them.

Yeah. Odd. 8O

[Windsmith]

What do you see as the other axes? Three dimensional space is described in three orientations. Height, width and length. If pantheism/panentheism is one of those orientations -- say width, what are height and length?

For myself, I think one of the axes would be degree of knowing and certainty. - from agnostic (certain we can't know) to gnostic (certain we can know).Oh, this is great. I love the idea of pantheistic beliefs in 3D!

I like a third axis of application/practice - from experiential (which some call "mystic," but y'all know how I feel about the way that word is used in pantheist circles) to observational (or "scientific").

[ravenscape]

I'm not ready to cede the word "mystic" and say it can't apply to me. Maybe I'll get there, but I find the word useful in describing what I have in common with theists of many sorts, not just Pagans -- an awe of the cosmos and its history that is informed by both experience and conceptualization.

[Windsmith]

I'm not ready to cede the word "mystic" and say it can't apply to me. Maybe I'll get there, but I find the word useful in describing what I have in common with theists of many sorts, not just Pagans -- an awe of the cosmos and its history that is informed by both experience and conceptualization.Awesome. If "mystic" is a good fit for you, by all means, use it. Go crazy. I didn't intend to dismiss the word itself; I was referring to a tendency I have noticed in some pantheistic circles (not this one, thank goodness) for people to use the term "mystic pantheist" with near-perjorative connotations, usually to describe people they don't think are hard-core sciencey enough. Since I'm not yet comfortable reclaiming the word from that connotation, I choose "experiental" or "creative" for myself, or simply stick with "Pagan."

I don't consider myself a mystic, anyway. For me, that word implies a host of experiences that I've never really been good at - astral travel, psychic experiences, etc. In fact, if a pantheist spectrum did have a mystic/scientific axis, I'm pretty sure I'd be in the middle, maybe a little more to the scientific end. I enjoy, respect, and have great interest in science but don't believe it to be the be-all and end-all for interacting with and understanding What Is. I do prefer experiential interactions: creating art, nature walks, simple daily interaction with my fellow creatures on this Earth. But I don't think of that as mystical in any way.

[ravenscape]

Ooh...I did it this time. I have a tendency to write fairly short posts for the most part. This dates back to when I was in the middle of a bad repetitive strain injury and typing/mousing was painful enough to force me to use voice recognition software. The good thing about short posts is I am sometimes good at squeezing an idea down to an almost koan-like level of abstraction. The bad thing about short posts is that I OFTEN don't provide enough context for a person to know where I'm coming from.

I don't want to cede the term "mystic" to the folks who dismiss it as superstitious rubbish. "Taking it back" is probably something I'm not ready to tackle, but I do feel that experiential journeys, whether in the external world, inside my head, or elsewhere have a quality to them that resonates with the word mystic.

I'm so sorry that my statement came off as dismissive or adversarial. I like to explore ideas, and launch in new directions, but I don't mean it dismissively. I've been on the other end of that equation too often to relish doing it to someone else.

[ravenscape]

BTW, I forgot to mention that I really like the practice experiential/observational axis. There are other attributes of spirituality, of course, but I think these three are important ones in describing just what sort of Pantheist I am.

Instead of saying" Hi, I'm ENTP" (Meyers Briggs Personality Assessment) I can say "Hi, I'm SAE" (MysticWicks 3D Pantheism Assessment)






I kid! I kid! :D

[Eleisawolf]

BTW, I forgot to mention that I really like the practice experiential/observational axis. There are other attributes of spirituality, of course, but I think these three are important ones in describing just what sort of Pantheist I am.

Instead of saying" Hi, I'm ENTP" (Meyers Briggs Personality Assessment) I can say "Hi, I'm SAE" (MysticWicks 3D Pantheism Assessment)

LOL! Perfect!

Yes, as one who also self-describes as a mystic pantheist, I'm not willing to concede the word, either. I have had enough of those experiences to be able to hold onto the idea. Just not going to dismiss that for which I have no concrete evidence either against or for... :)

:boing:

But I like the spectrum, too. I think these 3D spectra exist for all belief systems in different ways. But most believers probably wouldn't, ummm... believe that.

:yayah:

Peace

[Windsmith]

Ooh...I did it this time. I'm so sorry that my statement came off as dismissive or adversarial.Nuh-uh! You didn't "do" anything besides present an idea. I didn't find your post at all dismissive or adversarial; I just have a different perspective on the situation. I like that we can have and discuss different perspectives here without being at each other's throats (unless someone wants to - no, no, nevermind; we haven't negotiated that kind of relationship...)


Instead of saying" Hi, I'm ENTP" (Meyers Briggs Personality Assessment) I can say "Hi, I'm SAE" (MysticWicks 3D Pantheism Assessment)Yes! Yes! We need someone who's good at designing those sorts of tests to create that assessment for us. And then we can all take it and...and have little nametags made. Heee!

[ravenscape]

Last night, I decided to try and condense some of the key things I've learned from this thread and throw it out on a small board that's dedicated to discussions among Theists and non-Theists, with the Theist end of the field covered mostly by Liberal Christians, and the non-Theist end of the field covered mostly by humanists (to grossly oversimplify).

I was asked "What happens if we add mind as an emergent property of matter and energy?"

I think the question most closely relates to the first axis we discussed. But, for me, it doesn't really cry out for an answer. The questions, "What am *I*?" and "how did *I* come to be?" are not on my top 10 list of things I'd really like to understand, but don't.