Exploring Agnosticism

I've heard the term Agnostic a few times lately and I'll admit, I didn't know much about what people meant when they claim this viewpoint on religion, so I did a little reading. The basic gist of Agnostic is that deity is unknowable, therefore there is no belief of or against deity. Currently I'm in the process of exploring my own personal beliefs so I took some time to contemplate if I fit into this category of beliefs. Quickly I determined I do not. I have great respect for this viewpoint as it makes a lot of sense to me. Especially since I hold a lot of weight on academics and logic. However, I also have a strong spiritual and emotional side. While I do believe deity is unknowable in a scientific measuring system, I don't want to remove personal measuring. One view I picked up from Universal Eclectic Wicca, is the idea of UPG, unverified personal gnosis. This is the idea that we can all have our own personal experiences with the divine which make them true to us, but not anyone else. If I receive a message through meditation or in nature, and it really speaks to me, giving me inspiration or altering the beliefs I currently hold, this is UPG. It doesn't affect anyone but me, however it is extremely meaningful and true for myself. Because I believe in UPG and the ability for the divine to speak to me through the emotional and spiritual self, I know there is deity, it may not be in any form describable by human means, but the divine is there and the divine speaks to me. I am inspired by the messages I receive, both big and small. Therefore, I am not agnostic.

On a side note. For all you philosophers out there, I know this post opens up a lot of questions. There are always a lot of questions when religious views and proof of deity come up. However, one question I might do a bit of thinking and philosophical research on is where I bring up the physical, spiritual and emotional self. Some people might even say there is an intellectual self. Can there really be more than one "self." Isn't this all one big make up of one person? Should a person be separated into more than one self? Does that take away a person's identity? Is it nonsense to talk in this way? Dang philosophy, so many questions and so many answers. This should be a fun area to explore sometime. I really hope I have time to come back to it!