4 ms·
> This is a poor method of actual discussion. In essence, you become the opinionated one. Exactly. And this becomes very clear in the video. The interviewer ha
by cJ0th 9y ago
> This is a poor method of actual discussion. In essence, you become the opinionated one.
Exactly. And this becomes very clear in the video. The interviewer harps on about the "reliability of faith" without really listening to what Antony is saying. Different people who are having different faiths but still believe in the same thing is only illogical if you wish to see it like that. All programs in your computer, for instance, can safely assume that memory does exist. There is no point for a program to find out whether something like memory is real. I am not talking about finding out whether space is left etc. I am merely saying that a piece of software does not need a science library to investigate the existence of memory. Sure, sometimes you don't receive something from memory when you need it, sometimes bad things happen when you work with the bits it gives you and so on. But questioning the existence of memory is besides the point.
Now lets imagine another program which also "believes" in the existance of memory The user uses this program to remove the other program. In other words, two programs who have the same "faith" kill each other. This is not a contradiction.
Someone should do the Socrates on him to elicit why "reliability" is something one has to discuss when it comes to faith. I am pretty sure his answers would also be contradictory within a short amount of time.
- m_mueller 9y agoI think you're concentrating on the wrong word - reliability. That doesn't seem the central assumption of Anthony here, it's just an attribute to arrive at the central assumption: That there is a universal truth, i.e we all live in the same world, only our models of that world are different (i.e. subjective).
- cJ0th 9y ago> That doesn't seem the central assumption of Anthony here, Yes, that's my point. It's the interviewer who has this idea that faith should be reliable and that's what I was questioning. Or did you mean the interviewer (Anthony with an h) ? I am a bit confused right now..
- m_mueller 9y agoYes I mean the interviewer. Your critique of is argument is based on his use of reliability - I find that tangential. His main assumption is that of a universal truth - faith being unreliable is just what follows. So are you saying that there is no universal truth or that faith is somehow exempt from the search for truth?
- Panoramix 9y agoYou say: 1) Person A: I hold a belief for which there is no proof or rational support. I just have faith in it. 2) Person B: I too hold such a set of beliefs. Mine are different than yours and they even compel me to kill you. What interviewer meant is that this method of thinking arrives at vastly different, even conflicting views, hence it is inconsistent and unreliable.