Non-traditional Theism

[harvey1]

Let me provide definitions of various forms of non-traditional theisms that exist (not comprehensive by any means):

• Naturalistic pantheism: Very close to atheism. This is identified as Spinoza pantheism (modal pantheism) and Taoism pantheism (permeational pantheism), so we can make the following distinctions:
  • Modal Pantheism(Spinoza):
    • Natura naturans (Nature nurturing or God): A necessitated, infinite mode of nature (or modals) that "[f]rom God’s supreme power, or infinite nature, infinitely many things in infinitely many modes, that is, all things, have necessarily flowed, or always follow, by the same necessity and in the same way as from the nature of a triangle it follows, from eternity and to eternity, that its three angles are equal to two right angles"
    • Natura naturata (Nature nurtured): That which is necessitated from God.
    • Teleological stance: No teleological motion of nature becoming anything other than what it is. Nature (God) just acts out its many infinite modes of being. It's metaphysical stance is that there is a divine nature to the world, and this divine nature is incomprehensible to the human mind. The laws of nature are embedded in this divine nature. As part of the infinite modes of expression, God extends out in space and time and God has thoughts through the modes of expression (e.g., human beings).
    The main difference in Spinoza's modal pantheism and atheism is that Spinoza might say that evolution is just another mode of God where different attributes are expressed. In that sense, natural pantheism is teleological and different from atheism which holds that there is only a random start to the universe and there is no direction to evolution in terms of nature exhibiting qualities that it must necessarily express.
  • Permeational Pantheism (Taoism): Like Spinoza's natural pantheism, the taoists believe that God (or Way) is an expression of modes of nature. The difference in thought is that Taoist philosophy is based on a myriad coming from simple principles (e.g., yin and yang), and therefore it is even more teleological than Spinoza by emphasizing the initial state and how that state should evolve given the principles of the Way. These principles are universal in every situation or state. This physical principle type taoism must be distinguished from an manifestational Taoist pantheism which holds that spirits manifest themselves in the world (i.e., a heavenly pantheon of spirits). Zen Buddhists also have commitments to a permeational pantheism
  Classical Pantheism:
  • Absolute Pantheism: Nothing is real but God (which is akin to absolute idealism with more affiliation to Brandley than Hegel).
  • Emanational Pantheism (neoplatonism pantheism): The divine emanates the divine presence in things in a necessitated kind of way, but God is not fully distinct from the universe. It differs from modal pantheism in that the things of nature are not "modes of being" they are "modes of becoming." Hence, emanational pantheism is more teleological by stressing the active aspect of nature to become more and more in conformance to God's intent for the world.
  • Developmental Pantheism (Hegelian pantheism): A combination of absolute pantheism and emanational pantheism. Things are becoming, but ultimately everything is entirely God. The absolute nature of God is just unfolding step by step in nature.
  • Multilevel Pantheism: (some forms of Hinduism) where nature exhibits certain levels of God and the highest level being the Absolute and the lowest levels being a plurality of objects. This is distinct from developmental pantheism in that development is over time nature takes on more and more attributes of the Absolute, whereas in multilevel some aspects of nature already have more of the Absolute attributes and some do not. It's not necessarily a developmental theology.
  • Manifestational Pantheism: This is an animism type of pantheism where God or gods are immanent in the physical. There is no dividing line between spirit and matter. They are one and they are also distinct. It differs from emanational pantheism in that necessity may have nothing to do with this emanations of the divine nature. It could be that a spirit chooses to reveal itself in a particular animal or inanimate object or human being, etc.
  The theology of pantheism is much better developed than panentheism. However, panentheism can also duplicate the above definitions and state them in terms of panentheistic thought:
  
  We can make the following distinctions:
  • Modal panentheism: The primary mode that is a necessitated, and infinite modes of nature (or modals) that have infinitely many modes. These modals are only poor reflectors of God's existence, and hence God is above and outside of nature while being incorporated "in the universe" as a shadow composed of these infinite modals.
    
    There's no teleological motion of nature becoming anything other than what it is. Nature just (poorly) reflects God's many infinite modes of being. It's teleological stance is that there is a divine nature existing apart from the world, and this divine nature is incomprehensible to the human mind. The laws of nature are embedded in this divine nature. As part of the infinite modes of expression, nature (naturally) extends out in space and time and God also has thoughts that are poorly reflected in nature (e.g., through human beings).
  • Permeational panentheism: God (or Way) is a set of principles that exist outside the universe, and nature poorly reflects those principles in tangible form by a myriad coming from simple principles (e.g., yin and yang), and therefore it is even more teleological than modal panentheism which has no specific divine principle that directs nature to some kind of organization (other than what God's divine nature requires it must do). With regard to permeational panentheism, these permeational principles are universal in every situation or state.
  • Absolute Panentheism: Nothing is real but God, however the universe draws its existence from God and has a kind of artificial reality (e.g., virtual reality). It is passing and fleeting and the only real existence in the universe is God. But, if nature disappeared, nothing would change--God would still exist since that's all that does really exist.
  • Emanational Panentheism (neoplatonism panentheism or cosmotheism): The divine emanates the divine presence in things in a necessitated kind of way, but God is still distinct from the universe. It differs from modal pantheism in that the things of nature are not "modes of being" they are "modes of becoming." Hence, emanational panentheism is more teleological by stressing the active aspect of nature to become more and more in conformance to God's intent for the world. By the world becoming to poorly reflect God's nature, it is also adding to "God." In other words, not only is the world "becoming," so also is God "becoming."
    
    [Incidentally, this is my form of theism! 8) ]
  • Developmental Panentheism: A combination of absolute panentheism and emanational panentheism. Things are becoming, but ultimately only God exists. The becoming on nature's part is sort of an illusion since it never really existed on its own in the first place. The unfolding aspect of the world is simply a matter of necessity since the universe draws its existence from God, but since God is all there is, our reality is like a step child whom you call your child, but isn't really your child. Here, we are becoming one with the Absolute, but we never are a child of the Absolute--just a step child. The Absolute is not aided in anyway from our meager existence, we get a free ride to the top in a artificial sense.
  • Multilevel Panentheism: Nature poorly reflects certain levels of God and the highest level being the Absolute and the lowest levels being a plurality of objects, however it is never the case that this reflection seen in nature is God. Nature evolves in God's image, and that's it. This is distinct from developmental panentheism in that development is over time nature takes on more and more mirroring attributes of the Absolute, whereas in multilevel panentheism some aspects of nature appear to have more of the Absolute attributes and some are poorer reflectors. It's not necessarily a developmental theology.
  • Manifestational Panentheism: This is an animism type of panentheism where God or gods are immanent in the physical in a poorly reflecting kind of way. God is never "in" the objects in that God becomes "one" with the objects, rather the object becomes one with God in a poorly reflecting kind of way. It differs from emanational panentheism in that necessity may have nothing to do with this mirroring emanations of the divine nature. It could be that a God chooses to roughly reveal itself in a particular animal or inanimate object or human being, etc.
  And, finally, I can use the same definitions to expand upon deism:
  • Modal deism: The universe was originally started and left to run on its own as a mode generation mechanism (or modals) to poorly reflect God's infinite nature. God has no other ties to the universe since the laws of the universe were set-up to follow along these boundary conditions, and that's what the universe is now doing.
    
    There's no teleological motion of nature becoming anything other than what it is. Nature just (poorly) reflects God's many infinite modes as best as its laws allow it to do. It's teleological stance is that there is a divine nature existing apart from the world, and this divine nature is incomprehensible to the human mind. The laws of nature are embedded in nature which are reflectant of the divine nature that set them up. As part of the infinite modes of expression, nature (naturally) extends out in space and time and the universe expresses itself in terms of biochemical and artificially intelligent thoughts because that was how the whole Shebang was "set-up" at the beginning of time.
  • Permeational deism: God (or Way) is a set of principles that exist outside the universe, and the universe was set-up at the beginning of time that poorly reflect those principles in tangible form. Such principles are therefore active in some physical implementation (e.g., yin and yang), and therefore it is even more teleological than modal deism which has no specific embedded function for the universe other than what God's divine nature originally set it up to reach out and do. With regard to permeational deism, these permeational principles are functionally universal in every situation or state, but they are themselves only an aspect of nature--not God.
  • Absolute Deism: Nothing is real but God, however the universe at its origin drew its entire existence from God and has a kind of artificial reality status (e.g., virtual reality). It is passing and fleeting and the only real existence in the universe is God. But, if nature disappeared, nothing would change--God would still exist since that's all that does really exist. This form of deism is different from the other deisms in that the universe is not to be considered real--it's existence is an illusion. Perhaps some quantum interpretations might apply here where the universe is a Shrodinger's cat that God put in a box and left. The cat is not "real" in the sense that it is neither dead or alive.
  • Emanational deism (i.e., neoplatonism deism): The divine emanates the divine presence at the beginning of time in the form of necessitating certain kind of universe, but God is no longer involved with the universe. It differs from modal deism in that the things that started nature is not for the purpose of just acting out "modes of being;" things were started for the purpose of acting out "modes of becoming." Hence, emanational deism is more teleological by stressing the active aspect of nature to become more and more in conformance to God's original intent for the world--but we are entirely on our own in this process. By the world becoming to poorly reflect God's nature, it is also adding to God's accomplishments if it can successfully "become" as God originally intended. Think of Genesis 1 where God tells man to be fruitful and to multiply. The world is set-up with that intention, but then God rests and that's the end of God's involvement in creation.
  • Developmental Deism: A combination of absolute deism and emanational deism. Things are becoming as they are supposed to, but ultimately only God exists. The becoming on nature's part is sort of an illusion since it never really existed on its own in the first place. The unfolding aspect of the world is simply a matter of being programmed by God to do so, but since God is all there is, our universe is like a step child whom you call your child, but isn't really your child. Here, we are becoming like the Absolute that began the whole Shebang, but we never are a child of the Absolute--just a step child. Actually, a deserted step child without alimony. Just a name, "they call me Sue." (I hope you're familiar with Johnny Cash...).
  • Multilevel Deism: Nature poorly reflects certain levels of God and the highest level being an inkling to the Absolute that started the universe, while the lowest levels being a plurality of objects that are poorer representations of this Absolute. All of these functions were programmed in the beginning of time. Nature evolves in God's image as it was originally supposed to do, and that's it. This is distinct from developmental deism in that development deism has change happening over time as nature takes on more and more mirroring attributes of the Absolute. Whereas here in multilevel deism, some aspects of nature appear to have more of the Absolute attributes and some are poorer reflectors. It's not necessarily a developmental theology.
  • Manifestational Deism: This is an animism type of deism where God or gods appear to us that they are immanent in the physical (but they are not since God only set-up the universe to only look as though manifestation of the divine was taking place). God is never "in" the world since God only created the world to look like the divine was present at times, but it is just an illusion.
  • Pandeism: Very similar to modal and developmental deism, except that it is based on the notion that God was no longer existing once this transference took place. It could be combined with all the other deisms mentioned above (for its own separate list--I'm afraid).

In addition to all of these, there is still the issue of which substance ontology is most fundamental to the world. Is it thought (idealism), process (process philosophy), matter (materialism), logic (logicism), etc. For example, process theism can be stated a little differently than above for every definition by emphasizing process over state. So, it's important to keep that in mind when looking at these "primitive theologies." And, by no means is this complete.

[Gaunt]

Hey Harvey,

I do not think it is fair the lump all of those various things under the umbrella of “Theism” anymore than it is fair to lump naturalism and agnosticism under “Atheism”. While all of those things you’ve listed posit a supernatural being of some kind, it was my understanding that in order for a belief system to count as theism, it requires a personal god. Otherwise, it is not theism, but a different form of belief system altogether. Deism and Theism differ in the fact that there is no personal god required. Likewise, Pantheism and Theism differ on certain points. I guess what I’m trying to say is that I do not think it is a simple case of “Theist” vs “Atheist” with everything falling in one of the two categories, but rather a collection of shades of gray, with theism and atheism occupying different extremes (though I’m thinking that perhaps a 2 dimensional representation may be too restrictive, I’m unsure.)

I will admit that I am definitely out of my league here with regards to knowledge about religion and philosophy, and so I'd be happy if you'd point out any errors that I might have made in the course of my reply.