But Agnosticism is most definitely a philosophical position
You are right, it most definitively is by all (most?) standards. The absence of a position is indeed a position; I just happen to defend the idea that, in my humble opinion of course, it isn't, or better said, it shouldn't be.
You see a big zero (stance) in regards to Agnosticism
Yes, it seems that i do. But if and only if the scale has 3 unique positions as follows: -1 / 0 / +1 determining respectively a negative (atheism), no result (agnosticism), and a positive (theism). Also, there's a difference between the
position 0 (like in this example) and the
number 0 (explained below). This detail will make more sense at the next point.
but zero gives rise to every other number
Honestly, I don't know, but i guess you are right and i take your word for it, but it is important to notice that here we are not talking of the same scale as described above, here the scale is all the natural numbers starting with zero and ending with "infinity", which means that the position zero in this infinite series of numbers has a different overall meaning than in my example above i.e. here its position implies an infinite amount of positions regarding the existence or non-existence of God. Also maybe that Agnosticism is somehow the weakest of all philosophical positions? The less sophisticated, complex? However one wants to consider 0 compared to the other numbers. Maybe as you did, the position that gives rise to all others (if 0=agnosticism)...? At any rate, I accept agnosticism being described as the
position 0 in my view only if the only other possibilities are -1 et +1. If it's the
number 0 described as the first of an infinite series of natural numbers, then no.
Which means that the analogy between agnosticism and 0 only goes so far and even if i indeed accept the mental/theoretical/mathematical existence of 0, it doesn't necessarily follow from that, that i have to acknowledge agnosticism as a valid position, simply because the existence of the
number zero (nothingness, the absence of 1s) as the first natural number of an infinite series, as an abstract entity "giving rise to every other number" is
not an appropriate equivalence with the philosophical position agnosticism claims to be, because presumably, there is
not an infinite amount of positions regarding the existence of God. Not to mention, surely we agree that 0 can't be
something given that, by definition, it is the absence of
anything? Shouldn't the philosophical equivalent of 0 be the complete absence of any information being transmitted or even formulated/thought?
Thus, in the first scale above with 0 as a
position, the analogy seems to work, in the second one where 0 is taken as a
number, not so much.
The root catalyst. Zeroth.
Believe it or not, but this is the first time i hear about those words. I googled them and didn't come up with anything usable for my brain, so i don't know what to make of it. I have to say that i dabble in hard science and only from a conceptual point of view, i have no mathematical background or specific knowledge on number theory for instance. My area is more oriented towards humanities, philosophy, words and ideas than numbers and formulas. So yeah.
You and I wouldn't say Zero isn't a numerical position, would we?
No, we wouldn't. As explained above, i totally accept the existence of 0 as an abstract entity, a mental construction that doesn't exist in nature, yet which constitutes the bedrock and foundation of that giant epistemic tool towards understanding the universe called mathematics/science.
However, the question itself stems from the confusion between agnosticism, the
number 0 and the
position 0 which are all considered to be interchangeable in the equation you submit to me. I contend that one can believe in the abstract (or actual for that matter) existence of 0 and still propound that agnosticism isn't a position (let's say a valid one), because agnosticism can't be understood as being the natural number 0, first of an infinite series, because agnosticism isn't the "first" one of an unending list of possible positions about the existence of God, and because agnosticism isn't
nothing, while 0 is (funny the paradoxes we encounter along the way: 0 is nothing
and something, nothingness stops to be what it claims to be as soon as it's talked about and becomes
something. But i digress.)
The analogy works only in the 3 "switches" scenario, because this scenario is the one that works best as a comparison of what the different possibilities are in real life. On can obviously make a case for the idea that there are more than 3 possible states of "belief" in reality. I don't know, maybe. Probably. But not an infinite amount.
So, in conclusion, despite my believing in the number 0, i still claim that agnosticism isn't a sustainable position simply because they aren't the same thing and are comparable only under certain circumstances.
But maybe your argument went completely over my head, i don't know, you tell me. Anyway, enough rambling. I_Created_U needs his beauty sleep.
Cheers.
People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefsī²
reply
share
rainofwalrus
7 years ago
I like the 3 Switches / Analogy. And I suppose you're right about it being the ultimate cop-out. As in picking something to believe firmly in. Which is perhaps why Artist / Abstract minds tend to lean agnostic over atheist, less effort that way.
Zeroth in simple terms:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emlcwyvnsg0
Enjoy these words, for one day they'll be gone... All of them.
reply
share