Thanks for the clarification, Stem. I was distracted and did not look deep enough and it is a review instead of support. A relief;)
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 1:07 PM, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
