A challenge to Statler Waldorf

[Angrboda]

apophenia, about your comment on Buddhism in the start - they do not believe in a higher power like a god, I know that. But from what I know there is some higher force that governs that world (Karma). And the cycle of rebirth certainly is no naturalistic thing.

The law of Karma is neither a power -- a capability to influence or cause to be -- nor is it "higher", except perhaps in the Thomistic sense in which man and existence is causally dependent on God, and therefore man is subservient to the law of Karma in a hierarchical ranking of causal dependencies. But that still would be stretching it, particularly given the difficulty in even making sense of Aquinas' metaphysics. Do you consider gravity to be a "higher power" ? That is a closer analogy to Karma, as Karma is neither superior to, nor metaphysically prior to man's existence, and isn't properly a power.

[ETA: This is incorrect; see below] Regarding your note that reincarnation isn't a part of western naturalistic metaphysics, I don't know what your point is. Your original post was to claim that Buddhists and Taoists share the concept of a higher power with Theists, which you've failed to demonstrate. It's an additional fact that Buddhist do not share the naturalist's metaphysics, nor do the Shinto, nor do those who believe in past lives, nor those who believe in parapsychology or the laying on of hands; none of these groups share the traditional western, scientific, naturalist's metaphysics (although some would be willing to extend the metaphysics given sufficient evidence). What exactly is your point? That Buddhism is a religion? I don't think that was ever in dispute. I can only conclude that you are adding this property -- which I don't believe you claimed originally -- to bolster a failing argument that, "all religious folk are the same under the skin." To which I can only say, rubbish.


ETA: I was mistaken, your original post (quoted below) did make reference to non-naturalistic forces. However you did try to equate such with belief in a "higher power", which I still feel is incorrect, and misleading. Those who believe in energy bracelets believe in powers that transcend the natural (I mean beyond, "there's a sucker born every minute"), yet to describe that as a belief in a higher power is just plain wrong.

From your previous post:

What I find lacking in atheism that I find in all other religions is the belief in 'the higher power'. By that I mean something that can not be described, observed, and completely understood by mortals. The power is explicitly something above and beyond the naturalistic world, and defies laws of nature. I avoided saying god here, because some religions believe in some higher power, but not a god (Buddhism)....

Anyway, I apologize for the false accusation.

ETA: (In lieu of another post) I just noticed that you referred to atheism as a religion; do you hold that atheism is a religion? I must say I find that a peculiar idea for an atheist to hold, though not impossible.