CrossBow, Here is an excerpt from the "Spirituality" link on Natualism.org page about Tolle and his "system" of discovering "certainty".
"From a naturalistic standpoint that takes human experience as a necessarily fallible guide to reality, Tolle’s claim of certainty is extraordinary and implausible. There’s no doubt that mystical or meditative states can involve the experience of overwhelming certainty, but whether or not they accurately reflect the world outside the head is another question altogether. This question can only be answered by checking to see whether there’s something in the world that corresponds to our strongly held conviction about it. This involves exactly what Tolle says isn’t necessary for certainty: external evidence or proof. Tolle of course interprets his experience in the light of the Perennial Philosophy handed down by generations of mystics and sages, but this philosophy is just that which claims that properly trained subjective experience is a reliable guide to reality. Each successive generation of mystics, the latest of which Tolle is a member, reiterates the claim, but that doesn’t help to make it plausible. " www.naturalism.org/tolle.htm I think Robert Price was making the same case in his book TOP SECRET. stemcell On Nov 5, 12:49 pm, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > CB, Yes, I saw that when I looked in to the "Spirituality" link on > the front page. The book by Price that we just finished in the book > club called TOP SECRET talked about that type of mysticism. I did not > read all of it, Price, but I do recall in skimming that he mentioned > Ekhart Tolle. Anyway, I will look at that article and see if I can > come up with some info. from Naturalism.org about that topic and > Tolle. > > Taylor said >>> However, naturalism does call into question the basis > for > retributive attitudes, namely the idea > that individuals could have done otherwise in the situation in which > their behavior arose and so deeply deserve punishment. >> > > No, it doesn't. <<< > > Yes it does..."call into question the basis" > > "*Responsibility and morality:* From a naturalistic perspective, > behavior > arises out of the interaction between individuals and their > environment, not > from a freely willing self that produces behavior independently of > causal > connections (see above). Therefore individuals don't bear ultimate > originative > responsibility for their actions, in the sense of being their first > cause. > Given the circumstances both inside and outside the body, they > couldn't have > done other than what they did. Nevertheless, we must still hold > individuals > responsible, in the sense of applying rewards and sanctions, so that > their > behavior stays more or less within the range of what we deem > acceptable. > This is, partially, how people learn to act ethically. Naturalism > doesn't > undermine the need or possibility of responsibility and morality, but > it > places them within the world as understood by science. However, > naturalism > does call into question the basis for retributive attitudes, namely > the idea > that individuals could have done otherwise in the situation in which > their > behavior arose and so deeply deserve punishment. " > > stemcell > > On Nov 5, 11:56 am, CrossBow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Printed the whole spiel out on the home page, but on further investigation, > > found a name that makes me uneasy...Ekhart Tolle. So, I am dancing around > > it with a suspicious eye. > > >http://www.naturalism.org/spiritua.htm > > > On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > <<However, naturalism does call into question the basis for > > > retributive attitudes, namely the idea > > > that individuals could have done otherwise in the situation in which > > > their behavior arose and so deeply deserve punishment. >> > > > > No, it doesn't. The idea of punishment doesn't require any moral > > > agent. If you are a punisher, you are part of the natural world that > > > the organism deals with and it will adjust its behavior to avoid the > > > punishment. If the punishment is swift, assured and unpleasant, the > > > organism cannot do otherwise. > > > > The idea of punishment being "deserved" is irrelevant. The only thing > > > that's important is that it exists..- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
