Philosophical View: Expanding The Television Analogy for Religion and Non Religion; Gnosticism and Agnosticism: #atheism #philosophy #criticism #television #analogy #Gnosticism #Agnosticism ------------------------------------------------------- Before I say anything on the matter, I hold no authority as to what is, and isn’t, the ways of the world. Also I am not, nor ever, implying that “Off is a channel”. It certainly isn’t, in the grand scheme of things. If you are religious, I assure you, this isn’t mean spirited toward you either. What this is, is my view, merely a philosophical stance, noted by my observation towards the views asserted by some of my fellow atheists. The two primary views being, “We are born atheists”, and “Atheism is the neutral stance”. The most recent incident of this came from a fellow Brit, who is also agnostic atheist as myself, yet asserts this based upon his own experiences. What followed was a positive philosophical discussion about the concepts, and he used the oft cited television analogy. It’s a long read, but I hope it proves fruitful. For those who don’t know, the television analogy goes like this: Suppose the television is the device that presents the question, ‘Is there a God?’ Now suppose that each channel, all full with content, is a positive position; all these channels are telling you “Yes there is! This content is the true path to Enlightenment”. Now if one were to positively accept the positive claims made by these channels (usually one particular channel) the position would be “ON”. That means the user believes that a God does exist, and that the channel they subscribe to is the true answer to the question asserted by the television. But what if someone didn’t like any of these channels? What if someone disbelieved? Well, the reaction would be, after watching one, some, or all the channels, to turn the television to the “OFF” position. It is then that a disbeliever, such as myself, states, “No” there isn’t. Now given this analogy, there is a misconception that the off position can still be considered a channel because the claim of that misconception is that it still requires someone to believe that the OFF position is the only truth to the question asserted by the television, and that the ‘content’ being espoused by that position is nothing. The flaw in this misconception should come apparent in two forms. One, if no content is being displayed, how is nothing being espoused? Another question would be if OFF is a reaction to what was being espoused, how is the lack of content, content? However, I think a new misconception has arisen, particularly from those that assert this strange atheistic point of view, that off has always been the default channel. Personally, and rather lately, I have come to question this and not be dogmatic as I have been in the past. Dare I say, I am also becoming more sceptical as I go along. Why am I questioning this? For one, I always perceived Atheism to be a negative reaction to positive assertions (claims) made by religion (which it is). So this made me think: “How is it possible to claim that disbelief in something is the natural state, when one probably wasn’t even aware of the concept asserted beforehand? On top of that, how is it the default, neutral position, when it is a reaction to another, positive position asserted?” It is my view, that we are born ignorant, unaware of the existence of concepts asserted. Meaning that until it is told to us, or we prescribe it to ourselves, such concepts were not warranted to the notion of belief or lack thereof. Therefore, I found it impossible to assume that disbelief was the starting, neutral, and possibly natural state of all human life. My friend, however, made a good point against my view on the possibility we are born Agnostic: No one is born unsure whether a God exists or not. (He did however, agree to the possibility of the first view I made). This lead to the discussion of how does Gnosticism and Agnosticism come in to play, regarding the concept of “Is there a God?”. I took the television analogy he mentioned and built upon it: From a three dimensional, philosophical point of view, we were born without knowing the existence of the concepts asserted by the channels on the television. We also, are certainly born not knowing what a television is either. So until then, all concepts are ignorant to us. Then we are introduced to the television, the selective gateway (of many gateways) to views that attempt to define the content of our world. Each channel, represents the content that asserts a positive position to the concepts espoused. Off, the negative reaction to these channels, comes after exposure to it. I would argue then, that ignorance is the start of all life. But what of Gnosticism and Agnosticism? Well let’s take the tele argument again because here is my point. There are material things around the television which make up the living room and beyond. Things we come to know through knowledge (from other gateways), and things we have yet to learn that are unknown to us. Agnostic Atheism, which is my position, Is that focus should be the study of the world outside; the world that surrounds the television, and beyond. We can acknowledge the television, and the contents espoused within the television, but until the television has a channel that produces content that makes logical sense (without objective fallacy), off is the position it will be to me. Until then the concept (Is there a God) is unknown and unlikely to me. From this understanding, I think the neutral position of all life is ignorance. From ignorance, comes the desire to know things about our world. For it is our human nature, as it helps us adapt and survive in the long run. This is where gateways, the television, become introduced for us to see and learn what it is about, how we react, creates the short-term, immediate, boundary of belief or lack thereof. After that: Gnosticism and Agnosticism is determined after one’s own objective (or subjective) exposure. This is because this concept articulates over time as we observe the world around us, in comparison to the immediate concepts we hold dear or true. The final thing to ponder, which my friend brought up by explaining to me his side of things, is how he felt like he “figuratively” (he used literally) disbelieved in the existence of God or Gods until it became exposed to him, as he was ignorant of it and was wanting to learn more about the world in a more scientific approach. To this point of view I must ask, “Does ignorance beget a passive notion of disbelief; something that is subliminally inactive until the concept is asserted?” That, is a discussion worth having.
Posted on: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 10:52:34 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015