Spiritual self-identification revisted - posted at 00:18

Some time ago, I found myself in a great deal of emotional and spiritual pain that, due to lack of experience, I was having trouble dealing with. This lead to a great deal of introspection and set me down a path of of learning a lot about myself. One of the things that I discovered was that the term agnostic alone was no longer sufficient to describe my thoughts on life, the universe, and divinity.

I sat down and wrote a post describing some of the thought process that had lead up to the labeling I gave myself at the time, and though the intensity of those feelings has faded (given that I am no longer in need of such profound spiritual analgesics), I still find that the title I gave myself is applicable. I found this mildly surprising since I used to feel that the "agnostic" and "pantheist" descriptors conflicted with each other. At the time I justified it by saying that I was still feeling things out for myself and once I had learned more I would modify my self-identification.

I have come to realize several things since then.

First of all, there are not very many agnostic pantheist Unitarian Universalists out there. Most of the time when I tell people that that long string of words is something I believe myself to be, either their jaws drop or they don't understand what three quarters of those words mean.

Secondly, as much as I love the ideas and philosophies behind Unitarian Universalism, they as an entity are still too organized for me. I mean, I haven't attended First UU in well over a year. I continue to strongly identify with them, but regular, or even sporadic, congregation attendence is not going to be something I will be interesting in doing. I am very grateful that the congregation welcomed me when I truly needed the a nudge down my spiritual path, but I am spiritual, not religious. The great thing about the UU's is that they're totally ok with that: there is no such thing as a bad Unitarian.

Thirdly, agnosticism and pantheism don't contradict each other. I believe that we have insufficient grounds to either deny or proclaim a god's existence, but I can say that if such an entity exists, it is everything. In case you were wondering, by everything I mean everything containing and contained in our universe (which is a lot). I personally find communing with stars to be an extremely spiritual and profoundly personal experience and something that reaffirms the smallness yet singleness of my existence.

So I'm going to stick with this handy little nomenclature that I coined for myself a little over a year ago because I find that it is a good path for me to be on at the point in my life. It's probable that at some point I will shift my spiritual identity again and I'll be ok with that. I've done plenty of changing so far (Catholic to extremely apathetic theist to apathetic agnostic to agnostic atheist to agnostic pantheist Unitarian Universalist) and have no reason to believe that I am anywhere near done.

cleolove commented:

"or they don't understand what three quarters of those words mean." lol .. nodding.

I struggle with the ideal that agnosticism is a disbelief in a higher being. I wish more people would read their dictionaries.

So many things in life appear to be contradiction, when it fact, they are very "fine lines" of distinction that most aren't willing to define, much less live.

I thank the 'agnostic pantheist Unitarian Universalist' Deity for the ones that do.

And I think that our spirit, one of the 3 parts of our whole (Mind,Body,Soul) has to grow as we do so it will continue to evolved over time. A lack of that evolution should be a warning sign that something is wrong.

Sorry if I sound like I'm preaching .. honestly not what I meant to do.

:)

Stacey commented:

Nono, agnosticism is not disbelief, it is unbelief. It is a subtle-sounding difference, but it is significant. Atheism is Disbelief, but agnosticism is neither Belief or Disbelief (or, more succinctly, is Unbelief).

The best definition for agnosticsm I have found came from a text for Religion and Science class I took a couple of years ago. It reads:

Agnosticism: The claim that there are insufficient grounds for either belief or disbelief in any ultimate reality. The agnostic does not deny the existence of God, but denies the possibility of knowledge of God.

Love that definition.

But yes, spiritual evolution is important, just as physical and mental evolution are important. My true spiritual evolution began when I became capable of critical thinking and was able to analyze objectively why there were so many things in our religious culture that didn't resonate with me. It's lead me to where I am now, and I've never been one to resist change in this realm.

Ariel commented:

Just a quick comment. While I don't adhere to your worldview, I appreciate the thoughtfulness evident in how you approach the first order questions. A welcome break from the usual BE fare. :)

allen commented:

I think that many atheists exercise this "disbelief" that is mentioned in a previous comment, however I don't believe atheism is inherently a system of disbelief. I think that atheistic is the pre-informed pseudo-natural state we all begin at -- before believing or not believing is relevant. It's a state of neither believing nor dis/un-believing.

From there, I see atheism as uncurious -- whereas agnostic is curious/hopeful.

Most atheists that deviate from the above description (not all, mind you) tend to be "atheistic" out of rebellion -- against someone, something or some idea they'd previously felt was pushed on them in one way or another.

That said, I'm sticking with polysynthetitheist. My belief remains uncertainly rooted in many gods, named and unnamed, all known to be artificial.

Stacey commented:

To Ariel: I hope you understand that I'm not attempting to impose my spiritual structure on anyone else, but I appreciate that you understand where I am coming from. That's really all I can ask for from anyone.

Stacey commented:

To the delightful breakfast flatbread: Might I guess that several of the gods be Alcohol, Nicotine, and Caffeine? It seems as though they would fit with your personality :)

As far as interpretations of atheism and agnosticism go, well, it's up the to person interpreting them. I'm willing to go with the flow with many of them so long as they don't involve equating agnosticism with atheism, which happens all too often.

brianF commented:

I would agree with allen, that there is a time before you are indoctrinated with a theosystem... however I would not call that atheism. I would call that a state of ignorance to a question inherent in our minds as they develop: "Why?". Atheism is ... as you say an uncurious state, but I think it is a state induced by thought.. and thus an Answer to that latent question. I'd say the closest an educated developed mind to that psuedo natural state is this: wonder
And unitarian universalists seem to hold that word's spirit reverently. As for agnostic, I think that definition is simple.. without knowledge. In that, I think most disciples of any religion would ultimately admit to being.

Unless there were some fire at their feet ;-)