I participated last night in facilitated conversation on spirituality (a word I find overused and not very useful, but a useful conversation none the less…). While introducing myself, I said I am agnostic, but the night’s discussion led me to reaffirm for myself later just what an agnostic is. That in itself led to observations about how we (in the west, anyway) even think about the divine (or, more usefully, transcendence.

In labeling myself as agnostic, I am saying (in common understanding, anyway) that I don’t think the existence of a God or gods is knowable. The rub there is the word “god,” whether or not you capitalize or plurilize it. Because, in western cultures, anyway, we use it to connote a specific idea or concept. Usually we personify it, and/or think of it hierarchically (as in “a higher power”).

I realized during last night’s discussion that a label like agnostic is not really adequate. Not only am I incapable of knowing whether or not there is a “god,” I am likewise incapable of knowing, understanding, or even conceiving what form that might take.

I am going to work on expanding my thinking around this. (That word “transcendence” comes to mind again.) More work to do…

.