Naturalism and Jediism

So, I've been doing a lot of research into two forms of Naturalism that are quite different from one another and I find that I love both of them: ground-of-being theism as well as process-relational theology. If people are familiar with these, does anyone here have a preference in terms of their relationship to Jediism? And if you don't think Naturalism of any kind is the right fit, why?

Would you happen to have some resources handy on those things? One can find a citation free treatise about Process-Relational Theology by Bruce Epperly easily enough for what it's worth.Ground-of-Being Theism seems a bit more obscure than that. I could find a source about Ground-of-Being Theologies.
I'm not sure what either of them have to do with various forms of Naturalism, much less how they qualify as any.
As for how I think they relate to Jediism... I don't think either of them directly conflict with the Code. If I must muster a purist critique I'd ask something along the lines of "why" rather than "why not". Since Jediism doesn't in all its forms have to deal with the nature of any gods, I don't see the necessity to construct - or deconstruct - any sort of theology like those at least insofar as they discuss possible natures of God.

The OP needs to be more specific in their descriptions. What is being referred to is not Naturalism but Religious Naturalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_naturalism

And specifically under that umbrella two schools of thought.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_theology

https://religiousnaturalism.org/god-as-ground-of-being-paul-tillich/

I'm not sure if I could have been more specific. Naturalism, as far as I understand it, is simply a return to detail to accurately portray reality. Be it in art, metaphysics, or theology. I specified the type of Naturalism with process-relational and ground-of-being to distinguish the type of naturalism that I was discussing. I feel that this is quite specific, perhaps overly so. I must admit that I am usually quiet and do not usually post, how is it that I could be clearer in my queries for the future?

They qualify as naturalism because they strip away the supernatural and supranatural aspects of certain lines of theology. Ground-of-being theology posits that God is not a supernatural agent but is that from which all being and non-being comes. It seems to fit nicely with the concept of the Force, but it also strips away all supernaturalism of any kind making God, and the Force, impersonal.

Process-Relational makes God part and parcel of the universe rather than sovereign lord over it. So while there is an agential being "god" this agential being is part of the natural world and shaped/changed by it. However, this also means that this being has thoughts/feelings, which means that there is a possibly of response from said God (or as I think, the Force). Part of me is drawn to the responsiveness but is weary of it at the same time...

The "why" would be the same as the other special interest groups here. As a philosophy and as a theology, Jediism seems ripe to be compared to other traditions and philosophical constructs. So the question is more of a person query if others have struggled or succeeded in pairing these two lines of thought that are attractive to me for explaining the nature of the world.

I don't know if that makes sense. I am still figuring it all out as I go and am struggling to make sense of everything. Thank you for your feedback and help!

There is a difference between the two terms. Naturalism is the "idea" or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world. Religious naturalism (RN) combines a naturalist worldview with perceptions and values commonly associated with religions. So both of the concepts you mentioned fall into the latter because the concept of GOD is inherently a religious one.

You are fine in your definitions, I was just clarifying because Gist was asking and usually just naturalism is not associated with religious ideas in philosophy. You did ask if naturalism was a good fit and so I guess you would say I disagree that it is. As for their relationship to Jediism I would assume you mean in relation to the concept of The Force, Correct? If so I would need for you to actually describe what you mean by The Force if I were to comment further.

For me it is not quite enough to recognize that Jediism encourages ponderings on or even specific thoughts about matters of philosophy in general or metaphysics in particular in order to conclude that therefore it touches upon matters of theology. On the face of it, as far as I see and as I stated before, the Code seems not to be making any comments on the nature of God. Thus, it is compatible with the forms of Naturalism - or Religious Naturalism, as the case may be - you proposed, in the sense that it does not conflict with them explicitly.
It has not been my experience that the Force is widely interpreted as in some sense anthropomorphic, be it in form or in spirit. Even when something like a "will" is alleged for it, it seldom is framed as anything comparable to the kind of will a mortal might have. I would for this reason say that, at least in a significant portion of, possibly even in most interpretations, the Force is not itself understood to be a deity and I am unaware of interpretations that pose any other deities beside it. Process theology seems to me to assert properties of God. I don't understand why this is helpful or necessary from a Jedi perspective shy of the specific interpretation involving the Force as a kind of being in its own right - which of course is as welcome as any of them...
Ground-of-Being Theism is a bit more sympathetic, I find, simply because it renders God as something properly abstract and impersonal. Again, I think that one can possibly interpret the Force in this way, the only question is "to what end?". Where without it the Force might be seen as an aspect of reality, or a purely conceptual reminder (a useful fiction, perhaps) of its coherency and omnipresence, GoB forces it to be something properly foundational. As before, this is not in principle in conflict. I couldn't claim that this is not what the Force means to you, nor could I argue why it shouldn't be. I just don't understand why it would be in the first place.

Assuming the "UU" at the beginning of your nickname is related to Unitarian Universalist, I would then assume that there is an underlying need for an overarching view of religion that both includes theological language that enables the inclusion of the "gist" of all world religions, while simultaneously attempting to embrace a scientific method to what is usually dubbed as metaphysical knowledge.

I took a shot in the dark there. I might be wildly wrong, but it seems we are in search for an umbrella label that meshes well with Jediism... and everything else.

These ideas of God becoming the universe or some component of the universe has taken on many forms over the centuries and these ideas seem to be similar to that. It is the concept that God is not the creator of the universe but actually is just transformed into the universe, thus ceasing to exist as a conscious entity. Its a from of Pan-deism that espouses the idea that nature (or a portion thereof) and God are actually one in the same.

The first problem comes in this being how you can show that this was actually the case. Namely, how do you show that a God was necessary or even probable in this creation? Secondly even if God did exist at one time and became the universe that would mean god no longer exists and we already have a name for what we experience as just "The Universe" making the concept of needing yet another name beneath that redundant. Further more if this were an ongoing act of evolution instead of a static event then there would be no means to ever ground anything in our reality as truth. reality would be subject to constant modification and interruption of continuity. I see no means by which either of these ideas really hold much water.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: ... if this [creation?] were an ongoing act of evolution instead of a static event then there would be no means to ever ground anything in our reality as truth.

Why not? And if indeed so, how is that different for a "static event"?
It is a common trope I hear usually from presuppositionalists, who insist that if there be no rigid, static reference point there might as well be no standard at all. I don't understand that. Whether reality is ever changing or not, we are still stuck with it and we have better chances of coping with it the more of it we can bring ourselves to understand. The fundamental incompleteness of that understanding is a part of our condition and that is neither alleviated nor exaggerated in either model of the universe's coming into being or subsequent being. One may argue that we do as a matter of fact have some unchanging laws we can rely on, be they rules of inference or physical relations. But then with only having one universe to look at, who is to say that our amount of "statics" is a necessary or a sufficient one? Algebraically it is not much of a deal to project a variable space down to a subspace of less dimensions, a slice of the total space at some otherwise variable thing's value being some arbitrary function of others or constant. It becomes more philosophical when considering what can be learned of a variable space that has no laws or constants in it at all. Can one meaningfully speak of something like a toplogy of that space, of any kind relation when we deliberately exclude it having any... I think so. At any rate, surely there is plenty of dependencies we can introduce, plenty of constants we can relax into being variables long before that extreme limit case becomes a concern.