When gods are nature...

[Quintessence]

This the part I don’t get.
If all is sacred, does this make nothing profane?
If all is divine, does this render nothing earthly?

No. See: If God is something real for you, how do you imagine who/what that is?

Particularly when for the vast majority of people the concept of something being “divine” implies a “supernaturalness” to it, which is the part that deems it “worthy of worship”.

It'd be more accurate to say this is how the modern, English-speaking world sees it because of the cultural hegemony classical monotheism and Abrahamic religions enjoy. I also really could not care less what the alleged "vast majority" of modern humans think, especially when indigenous and Pagan religion of the sort I practice was more or less deliberately wiped out or suppressed by some rather grotesque acts in history.

Perhaps you could help me understand this mindset.

I cannot, most likely. It is like saying one can help someone understand why they like classical music, or why purple is the nicest color, or why their best friend is their best friend. These things are products of who one is and one's life experiences, and cannot really be taught. It is either a path you find yourself on, or it isn't.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

I also really could not care less what the alleged "vast majority" of modern humans think,

You use the word “alleged” and put “vast majority” in parentheses.
Do you contest the assertion that for the very substantial plurality of people, the concept of something being “devine” implies a “supernaturalness” to it which is the part that deems it “worthy of worship”?
And, why would you limit it to the English-speaking world?

especially when indigenous and Pagan religion of the sort I practice was more or less deliberately wiped out or suppressed by some rather grotesque acts in history.

Do you hold “modern humans” responsible for wiping out and suppressing historical indigenous and Pagan religions?


Your OP questions whether your advocating for science and the study of nature might be construed as proselytizing for your religion.
In my opinion doing so, in and of itself, would not unless you were including that it was devine in anything other than a metaphorical sense.

However if you were, then acknowledging how those modern humans you would be proselytizing to would likely be conceiving the words you use, might well facilitate their getting a more accurate understanding of the religion.
Unless of course you do see the gods of which you speak to have some supernatural essence.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I suppose it would depend on how you frame the encouragement to appreciate and study.

If you were to present it is such a fashion that "this is nature; these are gods and should be revered/worshipped as such," then I could see how this might be considered proselytizing.

However, if you were to express your reverence through simply teaching others to appreciate, study, and preserve nature, it would not.

 

[1213]

...all sacred and worthy of worship (aka, all is divine). ..

Thanks for your answer.

If all is divine, does it mean you also are god? Do you worship yourself?

Why do you think nature is worth to be worshiped, and what does worshiping mean to you?

 

[Quintessence]

Do you contest the assertion that for the very substantial plurality of people, the concept of something being “devine” implies a “supernaturalness” to it which is the part that deems it “worthy of worship”?

I do not care about appeals to numbers and object to bring it up. Proselytizing is proselytizing regardless of numbers. I do not see any relevance in numbers with respect to what the OP is asking folks to considerer.

And, why would you limit it to the English-speaking world?

Because I'm aware that those who speak primarily English are not the be-all and end-all of humanity, but it is the only language world that I personally know. Do you not acknowledge your own limits of knowledge as such?

Do you hold “modern humans” responsible for wiping out and suppressing historical indigenous and Pagan religions?

How would I hold anyone responsible for this? What a strange thing to ask and I'm not sure what you think me holding others responsible for this would even look like. Are you going to connect this with proselytizing somehow? Do you see proselytizing as a way of holding others responsible? In what way?

Your OP questions whether your advocating for science and the study of nature might be construed as proselytizing for your religion.
In my opinion doing so, in and of itself, would not unless you were including that it was devine in anything other than a metaphorical sense.

However if you were, then acknowledging how those modern humans you would be proselytizing to would likely be conceiving the words you use, might well facilitate their getting a more accurate understanding of the religion.
Unless of course you do see the gods of which you speak to have some supernatural essence.

I'm not sure I follow, but that's probably on me.

 

[Quintessence]

I suppose it would depend on how you frame the encouragement to appreciate and study.

If you were to present it is such a fashion that "this is nature; these are gods and should be revered/worshipped as such," then I could see how this might be considered proselytizing.

However, if you were to express your reverence through simply teaching others to appreciate, study, and preserve nature, it would not.

Would it be correct to say that the key distinguishing factor here is whether or not words like "gods" and "worship" are used then? Just wanting to make sure I'm following correctly.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Would it be correct to say that the key distinguishing factor here is whether or not words like "gods" and "worship" are used then? Just wanting to make sure I'm following correctly.

Not exactly.

It's about suggesting they believe these are gods to be worshipped. It's about the action and intent behind the action, not the words used.

 

[Quintessence]

If all is divine, does it mean you also are god? Do you worship yourself?

More or less. Ancestor worship and self-worship isn't that uncommon in Paganism. I know it wounds a bit weird to folks, mostly because of the weight attached to the word "worship." But to dissect out that word, worship is worth. In the context of my practice, the holy day where I honor my human ancestors is acknowledging their worth and their importance. So too, the holy day where I honor who and what I am is acknowledging my own worth and importance. This contrasts a bit to some other traditions where humans are seen as evil or fallen, where the self is chastised as imperfect or in need of fixing. For me, self-worship is more or less self-acceptance and self-love with a dash of acknowledging one's own power and force of will.

Why do you think nature is worth to be worshiped, and what does worshiping mean to you?

The above probably gives you some idea - worship designates worth, or value. Worship is a practice of expressing that feeling of worth and value. Exactly what worship looks like varies tremendously and may not be relevant to get into so I'll put a pin in that. I came to understand that everything has intrinsic worth or value through my life experiences and background, to keep it simple. It's just how I was raised and how the course of my life went.

 

[Quintessence]

Not exactly.

It's about suggesting they believe these are gods to be worshipped. It's about the action and intent behind the action, not the words used.

Okay, interesting.

I've been making the mistake of listening to some philosophy lectures again recently, and one of the many ideas philosophy grapples with is whether actions are assessed based on intention or outcome. So it sounds like this is a case where the outcome isn't what matters?

There's a logic to that. I mean, I really doubt the science teachers and professors I had throughout my upbringing were intending to convert me to Paganism by doing what they were doing. I doubt any of them even knew what Paganism was. But their behaviors led me down that path anyway, as a consequence of their actions.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I've been making the mistake of listening to some philosophy lectures again recently, and one of the many ideas philosophy grapples with is whether actions are assessed based on intention or outcome. So it sounds like this is a case where the outcome isn't what matters?

Correct.

Proselytizing really has nothing to do with whether or not the conversion process is successful. It's about the action of suggesting conversion itself.

For example, if a Baha'i sets out to convert a Hindu by telling them that Baha'is accept their religion as it is, it's considered proselytizing whether the Hindu chooses to convert to the Baha'i Faith or not.

There's a logic to that. I mean, I really doubt the science teachers and professors I had throughout my upbringing were intending to convert me to Paganism by doing what they were doing. I doubt any of them even knew what Paganism was. But their behaviors led me down that path anyway, as a consequence of their actions.

I'm not sure how conflating proselytizing and teaching is helpful to the discussion.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm not sure how conflating proselytizing and teaching is helpful to the discussion.

It... was an illustrative example to hone the point I thought you were making (that teaching ISN'T proselytizing because of intent). Clearly, it didn't do the job. Please provide one that you feel is better.

 

[Link]

... is it proselytizing to encourage others to study and appreciate nature/gods through the sciences, the arts, and life experience?

On occasion, I ask myself this question. I'm a Pagan Druid. For me and others on similar paths, that which is worthy of worship - the gods - is the world and the universe and everything in it. In my professional life, it is part of my job to serve as a science advocate, specifically for the earth and life sciences which are a major source of knowledge and inspiration in my religion (aka, science is the study of the gods). Is this, in effect, proselytizing? Why or why not?

I believe studying animals and even plants, per parable/likeness way humans unite all creation someone how potentially, is good. I believe original druids were about this, about taking aspects of animals and nature, as a way of guidance, and taking lesson.

Sufis wrote about this, but it's a lost knowledge these days.

Quran mentions the crow as an example for humanity when Cain killed Abel. We can similarly learn from bees to work and bring benefit to mankind in whatever role we take (any honest job is a good job).

There is also the way things are for our benefit. For example from trees we made fire. From animal skins tents in the past. Dogs were necessary to get past the ice age. Horses, donkeys, and other like them are mentioned.

Thinking of computer age, without God making abundant Silicon on earth, would we have computers in our houses? And other features in nature making it possible to make a PC.

Electricity and conduits for it. Other things. The fixed star in the north and that cross thing in the south, without those angles making it fixed, ships would not be able to navigate in the past.

Also, spiritually, everything has a role. The pig for example is a noble creature that can hold unclean spirits that sought to possess humans. It is not to be eaten, but it's still a noble creature.

Everything has both a physical and spiritual role. We can learn from both.

This is not to say we take all aspects of nature. Just the parable ones that we can see is beneficial to take aspects of. Given that Adam (a) is God's greatest Name and Sign and united all glory and beauty in creation in oneness, and became the biggest representation of God in that sense, we humans are to try to take on every high aspect in creation while forsaking what is lower.

Also talking to trees and nature in general, was normal of mystics in the past, but this has become lost too. We've become overwhelming materialistic.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

I'm not sure I follow, but that's probably on me.

I’ll try to clarify:
Allow me to start from the bottom working up.

In answer to your OP as to whether advocating for science and learning about nature is proselytizing for your religion……

My answer is similar to what @SalixIncendium said;
If you are limiting your advocating to encouraging people to learn about nature via science without attempting to add a dimension of divinity to it, it shouldn’t be considered proselytizing since you would merely be advocating that they learn science. (a useful endeavor in my opinion)

This is because science is not a religion, but rather a organized system of gaining non-biased demonstrable knowledge about a subject.
Science does no perceive a divinity* within it’s base of knowledge since it is not objectively demonstrable to exist….it merely deals with facts as best we know them.
* Divinity here meaning the standard definition;
in relation to a supernatural being or force who is worshipped as the controller of some part of the universe or some aspect of life in the world.

If, on the other hand, you do attempt to inject a dimension of divinity* to it, then you may well start to cross the line into proselytizing.
Especially if you are simultaneously offering up your religion as a means of “better understanding”.
* Divinity here meaning either, or both, the standard definition as above, or one you or your religion self define.

How would I hold anyone responsible for this? What a strange thing to ask and I'm not sure what you think me holding others responsible for this would even look like. Are you going to connect this with proselytizing somehow? Do you see proselytizing as a way of holding others responsible? In what way?

I thought it strange to bring up also when you raised it in your comment in post #21.
I explained my lack of understanding why someone would have a need/desire to add a layer of “divine” to nature especially when it implies a “supernaturalness” to it for most people.
You responded with…

I also really could not care less what the alleged "vast majority" of modern humans think, especially when indigenous and Pagan religion of the sort I practice was more or less deliberately wiped out or suppressed by some rather grotesque acts in history.

Which I couldn’t see any connection with the information a was inquiring about.
It appeared to be a non sequitur to me.
This is why I questioned it, in an attempt to discern if there was something I was missing.

Because I'm aware that those who speak primarily English are not the be-all and end-all of humanity, but it is the only language world that I personally know. Do you not acknowledge your own limits of knowledge as such?

I noted that for most people the concept of “divine” holds a connotation of “supernatural”.
This you answered with the assumption that…
“It'd be more accurate to say this is how the modern, English-speaking world sees it because of the cultural hegemony classical monotheism and Abrahamic religions enjoy.”
I thought it odd to limit it to the
“English-speaking world”, so I questioned if there was a reason why, again to discern if there was something I was missing.
Your sticking to your wheelhouse, so to speak, is adequate, thank you.

As for acknowledging my limits of knowledge;
I readily concede to it often, as I have within this thread.
That is why I ask questions, so that I might have a better understanding.

I do not care about appeals to numbers and object to bring it up. Proselytizing is proselytizing regardless of numbers. I do not see any relevance in numbers with respect to what the OP is asking folks to considerer.

And now to the numbers:
I did not bring up the vast majority of peoples concept of “divine” implying “supernatural” as an
argumentum ad populum in support of, or opposition of, any religion; just simply as a demonstrable data point (even more so, when limited to the English speaking world).

As such I suggested that IF you were to proselytize for your religion…..that taking that data point into account and being cognizant of how the vast majority of people would likely connote “supernatural” with “divine”, it would be useful in preventing those being proselytized to from misconstruing their concept of supernatural divinity with your (at least as best I can discern) concept of divinity not being supernatural in order to translate to a more accurate understanding of what you are trying to convey as your religion.

Especially since there are to my understanding many Pagans and Druids that in fact do believe in supernatural divinity of gods.

It’s the equivocation and obfuscation of terms knowingly contrary to common understanding that mystifies me.
This is why I asked my original question of;
if all is sacred, does this make nothing profane?
and if all is divine, does this render nothing earthly?
Concluding that it’s like saying everything is “special” which renders the word “special” to the realm of “normal”.

Did I correctly understand that you do not assert a supernatural understanding of nature?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And as a Pagan, I follow the tradition of understanding that the universe and everything in it is an interconnected, interdependent weave that is all sacred and worthy of worship (aka, all is divine).

If you think that all is divine, why the focus on teaching natural sciences as potentially proselytizing as opposed to everything else you do?

I mean, if the divine is in everything, then there's the divine in a pizza and ordering a pizza is compelling someone to have an experience with the divine. Are you worried that that is proselytizing?

 

[Quintessence]

If you are limiting your advocating to encouraging people to learn about nature via science without attempting to add a dimension of divinity to it, it shouldn’t be considered proselytizing since you would merely be advocating that they learn science. (a useful endeavor in my opinion)

I'm not sure I find that satisfying. It feels like there's gotta be something more to it than that, in no small part because non-theistic religions are also a thing even if they are not the focus of this thread. I mean, there are Pagans who more or less do the exact same stuff I do but don't use the concept of gods or divinity at all. Is it then, somehow, impossible for them to proselytize since they tell the stories of their tradition in non-theistic terms? Nah, there's gotta be something else to hang this on other than whether or not something is theistic or non-theistic. What is that thing or things? Or do we really, really want to construct the word "proselytize" to applying only to theistic religions? Valid enough, I suppose, if so.

This is why I questioned it, in an attempt to discern if there was something I was missing.

Fair enough. To add context, minority groups - religious or otherwise - often have to deal with alleged majorities invoking numbers to hand wave them away, silence them, and demean them. So pardon if I'm inherently suspicious of "but most humans are/do X."

Concluding that it’s like saying everything is “special” which renders the word “special” to the realm of “normal”.

But it isn't and it doesn't - not unless you approach "special" monotheistically, so to speak, like that only means one thing. Everything in this universe has its own distinctive identity with its own distinctive strengths and weaknesses. White Pine is not "special" in the same way as Snow Bird who is not special in the same way as Storm who is not special in the same way as Moon or Tallgrass Prairie or Library.

Did I correctly understand that you do not assert a supernatural understanding of nature?

I don't, because I find that term "supernatural" problematic when applied to indigenous and/or nature-based religions. It presupposes a sort of dualism that wasn't necessarily present in those cultures but gets superimposed by Westerners trying to understand these cultures since they have that word. Honestly, works like Abram's "Spell of the Sensuous" or Armstrong's "Sacred Nature" do a way better job articulating all that than I can.

 

[Quintessence]

If you think that all is divine, why the focus on teaching natural sciences as potentially proselytizing as opposed to everything else you do?

It's not complicated.

Like all humans, I've got limited time. No polytheist actively worships all the gods. Like all humans I've got things I'm more interested in than others. Polytheists will focus on those gods most relevant to the course if their lifeway. This can (and often does) change over time also.

I made the thread about science advocacy because it makes for a far better discussion topic than other choices and it is way more central to my lifeway than your flippant example.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

I'm not sure I find that satisfying. It feels like there's gotta be something more to it than that, in no small part because non-theistic religions are also a thing even if they are not the focus of this thread. I mean, there are Pagans who more or less do the exact same stuff I do but don't use the concept of gods or divinity at all. Is it then, somehow, impossible for them to proselytize since they tell the stories of their tradition in non-theistic terms? Nah, there's gotta be something else to hang this on other than whether or not something is theistic or non-theistic. What is that thing or things? Or do we really, really want to construct the word "proselytize" to applying only to theistic religions? Valid enough, I suppose, if so.

That is reality though, it has no obligation to be satisfying.

Proselytize is generally known to mean:
“to convert (someone) from one religion to another.”
With religion generally known to mean:
“A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”
(You’ll notice the words “especially when”, “usually”, “often”….which are NOT synonymous with “only when”, “always”, and “in every case”…. are a nod to those “minority groups” you allude to, while acknowledging the majority are in fact the majority.
Thus to proselytize generally means to convert (or attempt to convert) someone to a religion…..
most religions are theistic…ergo most proselytizing applies to a theistic religion, but not exclusively so.
It would also apply where one was attempting to convert someone to a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, involving devotional and ritual observances and possibly containing a code of moral conduct without being theistic.

But it isn't and it doesn't - not unless you approach "special" monotheistically, so to speak, like that only means one thing. Everything in this universe has its own distinctive identity with its own distinctive strengths and weaknesses. White Pine is not "special" in the same way as Snow Bird who is not special in the same way as Storm who is not special in the same way as Moon or Tallgrass Prairie or Library.

Language is an imperfect tool.
It’s purpose is to communicate an idea from one person to another.
A word is a label or icon; a simplified representation of an idea in a short concise form that enables a person to convey the idea to another person in an easy, relatively universal shorthanded way, enabling them to impart the idea instantly without having to resort to longwinded explanations.
So rather than saying “a large, tall plant that has a part that comes out of the ground and grows upwards and then has smaller parts that split off of it and grows more outward that then split into still smaller parts that grow off that that have green flattish parts ……”
It’s much faster and concise to say “a tree”
and most people instantly have the same perception as if you had gone through the whole description.
At the mention of a “tree”, people from different areas might have a different tree in their mind’s eye…. Someone from Appalachia might picture an oak tree, while a person from Oregon might picture fir tree, while a person from Florida might picture a palm tree, but they all would instantly understand your general meaning.
A tree is a plant that has specific set of characteristics that sets it aside from other plants that don’t have that same specific set of characteristics, even though it may have some of them.
It could be said to have a “special” set of characteristics that differentiates it from other plants, which is what leads to differentiating it as a tree.
There is no clear cut demarcation line between a shrub and a tree, but generally speaking the “special” characteristics that differentiates a tree from a shrub, is that they are usually larger, taller, have more of a single trunk relatively clear of branches for a distance from the ground.
Some being obvious to anyone who sees them as being a tree and not a shrub. Some not so much.
If you mentioned “shrub” to our persons from Appalachia, Oregon, and Florida, they likely would not be picturing an oak, fir, or palm tree.
Likewise, there is no clear demarcation line between a bush and a shrub, or a plant and a bush, etc.

So when you say things like;
“I use "gods" to point to that which is sacred. For me, everything in this interconnected, interdependent weave of realities is sacred.”
To me it is similar to saying;
“I use “trees” to point to that which is a plant.
For me, everything in this interconnected, interdependent weave of vegetation is plants.
Which has rendered the word “trees” to be indistinguishable from any other type of vegetation and thus making the word meaningless.
This is the part I don’t get.
It seems as though you’ve preloaded the notion of religiosity onto it and are redefining words in order to make them fit that preloaded notion, without acknowledging what those words have always meant and still mean to most people.

 

[Quintessence]

It would also apply where one was attempting to convert someone to a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, involving devotional and ritual observances and possibly containing a code of moral conduct without being theistic.

Well, yeah, that's why I didn't feel satisfied with the perspective you presented earlier that seems to say proselytizing requires theistic religion. So if you didn't mean that before, how are we supposed to interpret this:

If you are limiting your advocating to encouraging people to learn about nature via science without attempting to add a dimension of divinity to it, it shouldn’t be considered proselytizing since you would merely be advocating that they learn science. (a useful endeavor in my opinion)

Why would eschewing divinity make it not proselytizing, per your statement above that attempts to convert to a particular cause need not involve divinity? What's really the distinguishing features?

So when you say things like;
“I use "gods" to point to that which is sacred. For me, everything in this interconnected, interdependent weave of realities is sacred.”
To me it is similar to saying;
“I use “trees” to point to that which is a plant.

You will see and not see as you must. I did warn you that I probably can't explain it to you. You will either understand or you won't. And you do not.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Well, yeah, that's why I didn't feel satisfied with the perspective you presented earlier that seems to say proselytizing requires theistic religion.

Perhaps if you read what I write a little more closely…..
I specifically wrote:

If you are limiting your advocating to encouraging people to learn about nature via science without attempting to add a dimension of divinity to it, it shouldn’t be considered proselytizing since you would merely be advocating that they learn science.

AND

* Divinity here meaning either, or both, the standard definition as above, or one you or your religion self define.

You defined “divine”….

And as a Pagan, I follow the tradition of understanding that the universe and everything in it is an interconnected, interdependent weave that is all sacred and worthy of worship (aka, all is divine).

Does this make your religion theistic?…..
I don’t know. I’m not the one differentiating the difference between Pagan religions, I’ll leave that up to you. As you said:

I mean, there are Pagans who more or less do the exact same stuff I do but don't use the concept of gods or divinity at all.

However, it doesn’t matter if you consider it theistic or not; you do consider it a religion…..yes?
And as I explained;

This is because science is not a religion, but rather a organized system of gaining non-biased demonstrable knowledge about a subject.
Science does no perceive a divinity* within it’s base of knowledge since it is not objectively demonstrable to exist….it merely deals with facts as best we know them.

So as I said; promoting science itself is not proselytizing….

If you are limiting your advocating to encouraging people to learn about nature via science without attempting to add a dimension of divinity to it, it shouldn’t be considered proselytizing since you would merely be advocating that they learn science. (a useful endeavor in my opinion)

This is because science is not a religion, but rather a organized system of gaining non-biased demonstrable knowledge about a subject.

Paganism is generally considered a religion…yes?
Therefore attempting to inject a dimension of divinity (as per your definition) or a dimension of Pagan religiosity (whether theistic or not) to it, then you may well start to cross the line into proselytizing.
Especially if you are simultaneously offering up that religion as a means of “better understanding”.

So, once again:

Proselytize is generally known to mean:
“to convert (someone) from one religion to another.”
With religion generally known to mean:
“A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”
(You’ll notice the words “especially when”, “usually”, “often”….which are NOT synonymous with “only when”, “always”, and “in every case”…. are a nod to those “minority groups” you allude to, while acknowledging the majority are in fact the majority.
Thus to proselytize generally means to convert (or attempt to convert) someone to a religion…..
most religions are theistic…ergo most proselytizing applies to a theistic religion, but not exclusively so.
It would also apply where one was attempting to convert someone to a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, involving devotional and ritual observances and possibly containing a code of moral conduct without being theistic.

Once again, the answer to your question;

What's really the distinguishing features?

Religion.
Proselytize is generally known to mean:
“to convert (someone) from one religion to another.”

 

[Tamino]

... is it proselytizing to encourage others to study and appreciate nature/gods through the sciences, the arts, and life experience?

On occasion, I ask myself this question. I'm a Pagan Druid. For me and others on similar paths, that which is worthy of worship - the gods - is the world and the universe and everything in it. In my professional life, it is part of my job to serve as a science advocate, specifically for the earth and life sciences which are a major source of knowledge and inspiration in my religion (aka, science is the study of the gods). Is this, in effect, proselytizing? Why or why not?

I would go with: no, it's not proselytizing.
Isn't that exactly the advantage of religions/worldviews that don't focus on faith and believe:
That we can agree on an action without agreeing on the spiritual reason behind it

So, if someone else is doing something that I would consider to be in accordance with Ma'at, that's a good thing. I might praise them for it and may encourage them to keep acting this way. It doesn't matter if they have ever even heard of the concept of Ma'at, if they have some other base for their ethics, or another religion - as long as we are in agreement about the action, our personal spiritual paths don't matter.

So: if you keep encouraging people to study and to respect nature and knowledge, that's perfectly fine. You are encouraging the action, not the spiritual interpretation of said action. It's still up to the students to find and define their own reason why they value their studies, and those reasons can be atheistic, animist, Christian or whatever.

Or am I simplifying this too much...?