I doubt if Eagleton would approve of this usage, but just to check out his idea we will use it once in our own context. It it is not what was intended, we can move on, no harm done:
The point is that I have been a possibilian of sorts for years, with this, however, blended often with a kind of agnosticism.
The students of historical samkhya are confronted an atheist legacy that allows multiple reinventions of post-theistic concepts, free from the usual ‘god’ concepts. These are not rigorous proofs, objects of belief, but definite suspicions about what is possible, and the dangers of dogmatic atheism (mirror image to theism). The triads of Samkhya suggest at once a resolution of the ‘god’ muddle in the triadic source of an unknown something.
The problem here is that this is the original monotheism! The ‘god’ talk of Xtianity/Judaism is a decline of the ‘possibilian’ brand of ‘god’ reference, the unspoken names of god, IHVH. The total corruption of this original tradition is a poor argument for experiments here. To make things worse the samkhya approach, ripped off early on, became the hopeless nonsense of the ‘trinity’!!!