Panentheism

[endlessvoid2018]

So I recently learned that I may potentially be a Panentheist.

Basically, however, I am mostly an Agnostic and don't really like labels much. I am sure about some things, and unsure of others.
If I did have any kind of belief in god, my belief would sort of be as follows;
The universe and everything in it is god, and in my belief, god is also beyond that. God would transcend beyond the observable universe/reality as well.

"God is a synonym for everything that is and ever will be."

Sounds pretty close to Panentheism, doesn't it?

I am just speculating here though, as I do enjoy different religious type of philosophies. I think Pantheism/Panentheism for me would be the ones that make the most sense personally, if one believed in any kind of "God."

 

[Quintessence]

Both pantheism and panentheism are baked in to the theologies of many religious traditions.

The entire concept of gods arose from the human relationships with greater-than-human powers around them (aka, nature and the universe). As such it's unsurprising that for most of human history nature and the gods were one and the same. Then this strange theology developed in a small part of the world that proposed nature couldn't be gods, and that all gods were false gods except for the one true god. Through a lot of accidents of history, that theological perspective of classical monotheism came to dominate in Western culture such that most living here got a sort of collective amnesia regarding what the gods were for most of history around the world. Words like "pantheism" and "panentheism" emerged (around the 18th century IIRC) as some started recognizing what was lost and suddenly needing some new fancy word to describe what our ancestors just... kind of took for granted. It's a very Western thing in some regards.

Whether or not this story makes sense or resonates is for the beholder to determine for themselves, though.

 

[vulcanlogician]

So I recently learned that I may potentially be a Panentheist.

Basically, however, I am mostly an Agnostic and don't really like labels much. I am sure about some things, and unsure of others.
If I did have any kind of belief in god, my belief would sort of be as follows;
The universe and everything in it is god, and in my belief, god is also beyond that. God would transcend beyond the observable universe/reality as well.

By this definition, you are indeed a panentheist. Agreed. (Noting, as you said before, you are ultimately agnostic about such matters.) If I understand you correctly, you are the textbook definition of a panentheist.

"God is a synonym for everything that is and ever will be."

Sounds pretty close to Panentheism, doesn't it?

I think the statement could be professed by a panentheist, sure. But it could also be uttered in earnest by a pantheist. A pantheist also thinks that
"God is a synonym for everything that is and ever will be." A pantheist just doesn't necessarily posit anything beyond reality (ie. matter, nature, and the laws of the universe).

That being said, I'm more sympathetic to being generally agnostic about the distinction between pantheism and panentheism. The two ideas are similar enough as far as demarcation goes, and the only difference between the two ways of thinking concern things that are (and will always be) well beyond human comprehension.

 

[endlessvoid2018]

Yeah, for me, the difference is in the word mostly lol And then you have Pandeism and Panendeism. Oh boy. I don't really subscribe to those as much as I do Pantheism though.

I have also heard that in actuality, Panentheism is a bit closer to classical Theism?

 

[ChieftheCef]

So I recently learned that I may potentially be a Panentheist.

Basically, however, I am mostly an Agnostic and don't really like labels much. I am sure about some things, and unsure of others.
If I did have any kind of belief in god, my belief would sort of be as follows;
The universe and everything in it is god, and in my belief, god is also beyond that. God would transcend beyond the observable universe/reality as well.

"God is a synonym for everything that is and ever will be."

Sounds pretty close to Panentheism, doesn't it?

I am just speculating here though, as I do enjoy different religious type of philosophies. I think Pantheism/Panentheism for me would be the ones that make the most sense personally, if one believed in any kind of "God."

You may be interested in my potentially not allegory that the universe is alive, and we are it's cells.

I also want to make known my proof of polytheism which relies on panentheism.

The reality is just spirit, composing seemingly individual souls, including gods like the sun and you and me, and the entirety of it is the supreme god. You aren't just made of star stuff, you are the sun.

 

[ChieftheCef]

Then this strange theology developed in a small part of the world that proposed nature couldn't be gods, and that all gods were false gods except for the one true god.

I'd like to add this was a lie by Akhenaten, a rogue pharaoh who wanted power to become an absolute ruler. He also killed his siblings. He was the dad of king Tut, and he reinstated the religion and thus balance of power Akhenaten had tried to destroy. Absolute power just makes bad men free of consequence.

 

[Whateverist]

I also identify most strongly with agnostic because I think I get so much more from recognizing just how little there is to be certain of where the depths of human nature are concerned. I find the food fight over which side is obliged to justify their POV (ie, their’claims’) and who is more ignorant entirely unappealing. But in thinking about why there is anything at all instead of nothing I can come up with a rationale for believing in something more within. Fine, call it God. But I will never imagine what is greater as some supernatural person-like engineering God. So panentheism fits me better.

Someone in this thread mentioned the idea that humans are like cells in one organism. Another way to say that might be to suggest that God is like a higher order metazoan whose being depends on the community of metazoans on our level. But I have no problem with people holding more traditional beliefs. Had they hooked me younger I’d be one of them. But I’m happy to have gotten away.

 

[endlessvoid2018]

I also identify most strongly with agnostic because I think I get so much more from recognizing just how little there is to be certain of where the depths of human nature are concerned. I find the food fight over which side is obliged to justify their POV (ie, their’claims’) and who is more ignorant entirely unappealing. But in thinking about why there is anything at all instead of nothing I can come up with a rationale for believing in something more within. Fine, call it God. But I will never imagine what is greater as some supernatural person-like engineering God. So panentheism fits me better.

Someone in this thread mentioned the idea that humans are like cells in one organism. Another way to say that might be to suggest that God is like a higher order metazoan whose being depends on the community of metazoans on our level. But I have no problem with people holding more traditional beliefs. Had they hooked me younger I’d be one of them. But I’m happy to have gotten away.

Yes, exactly. There does seem to be in some cases, evidence from science as a sort of energy that surrounds a lot of things. Perhaps this is "God"? I could be wrong, though.

I have gone a lot back and forth recently, and evidently, most people would categorize me either as a Panentheist, or Panendeist. I prefer Panentheist.

I like the notions of Pantheism, but the thing that gets me, which a lot of people who are Pantheists don't necessarily subscribe to is the fact that if there IS something beyond our known universe (or reality) wouldn't that be part of God, too? I think so. I think God in this sense, would be everything in existence, encompassing both what is known and unknown reality.

I believe in some kind of continuation after death, I'm just not entirely sure what it is. I don't think we just die and that's it. Perhaps it is some kind of afterlife. This is why Panentheism sort of makes a bit more sense for me personally.

 

[Whateverist]

most people would categorize me either as a Panentheist, or Panendeist. I prefer Panentheist.

I suppose it comes down to whether you have a need for an unword to describe whatever it is which makes possible the world we know and ourselves. Neither physics nor theism can give an entirely adequate answer. We don't know everything so if the question "why anything instead of nothing" interests you, you may have use for a placeholder word and I think God has traditionally been that word. Doesn't have to imply an engineering God that designs every detail and starts the motor up, that I reject. Still I don't think my clarity for myself on that issue should prompt me to harangue traditional believers. Psychologically, traditional forms which have evolved organically are probably 'good for us', but that isn't for me.

I think the reason for choosing panen over simple pan is that it allows that everything is in/of God but need not be the full extent of what/who that is. I don't think of God as a who but neither do I think of it as a thing or substance. I think we are just not equipped to take its/His measure.

I don't think much about an afterlife. But I do think that death is the end of what sets us apart as individual. Then to the degree that we really are part of something greater that does go on and you value that part enough perhaps in some sense so do you? No one knows.

 

[endlessvoid2018]

I don't really technically think I do. I think about an afterlife, I believe in one. To what extent, I do not know. Not heaven or hell though, just a continuation in some way of our energy or "soul," if we have one.

 

[Whateverist]

I don't really technically think I do. I think about an afterlife, I believe in one. To what extent, I do not know. Not heaven or hell though, just a continuation in some way of our energy or "soul," if we have one.

Well good luck with that. It is something I can't and wouldn't try to take off the table altogether. I would be surprised if it is so.