Today I’m grateful for secular Buddhism.
I wasn’t sure how to capitalize that title, but decided that since “secular” is a descriptor, and “Buddhism” is (whether I like it or not) a religion, I probably got it right.
Actually, a “secular application of Buddhist thought”, as it is often described in The Secular Buddhist Podcast, is probably the best description. Secular Buddhism is just a convenient shortening of that.
The main reason I could never accept Buddhism fully is the same reason that I’m an atheist who can’t accept Christianity, or Islam, or Hinduism. They all have seeds of goodness in them, but also have stories and ideas that one must believe… which I cannot believe.
So I suppose I (and others) are doing with Buddhism is somewhat similar to what Thomas Jefferson did with the Bible – cherry picking the parts that I think are true and useful, and discarding those that don’t work for me. (Of course, everyone does that with religion, I suppose I’m just being more open about it.) I’m trying to do it with wisdom, though. Just because something doesn’t agree with me doesn’t mean that it’s not true or helpful. If it stands the test of rationality, it stays. If not, it goes.
[This is entry 2/365 of Operation Gratitude II: The Grateful Strike Back]
9 Responses to “Gratitude for Secular Buddhism”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
The neat thing is, you can be an atheist and practice what secular Buddhism has to offer. I do, many of us are active in the atheist and skeptic community. It is *not* what we think of as religion from our atheist perspective.
Flip through some of the other interviews, like the ones with Matt Lowry, Sue Blackmore, Tom Clark — they may convey that idea better than I’m doing now!
Thanks Ted. I’m about halfway done with the most recent episode (Stephen Batchelor). I’ll be sure to go back through the archives to those you specifically mentioned.
I like to use initial caps on titles, so I think yours looks lovely. And I agree.
However, a difference for me is that Buddhist teachings differ from other religions in that it has an actual practice. Buddha didn’t just say be good to others. Instead, he left very good instructions on how we can explore our own minds, the nature of being good, how we and others benefit, etc. Buddhism delves into the nature of mind and life, in my humble opinion, more than any other religion. And it asks us to be skeptical not only of others but ourselves. That fits very nicely with that atheist/scientific approach to life.
In doing that, we inevitably end up ignoring, dismissing, or choosing not to believe in deities, reincarnation, etc. because there is no evidence of those things and no way to practice to know them. I suspect they were die hard beliefs at the time of the Buddha.
As for cherry picking . . . again in my opinion it’s a must concerning these types of topics, but a HUGE no, no when dealing with scientific data. If you’re interested I wrote a blog called Is Secular Buddhism Cherry Picking? http://secularbuddhistassociation.com/2011/06/30/is-secular-buddhism-cherry-picking/
Thank you for posting this blog. It does my heart good to see other atheists finding secular Buddhism, which gives them useful tools for exploring how their minds and bodies work, for examining the world, which coincides with a scientific viewpoint.
Thank you so much, Dana. I read and really enjoyed your cherry picking article – it gave some solid reasons why we do it. I think I’m going to have to get active on the SBA site now!
Everyone cherry-picks. By picking the parts of anything that work for us and discarding those that don’t, everyone creates their own personal truth. Where you and I always butt heads, Lyman, is when you presume that your art of cherry picking and it’s subsequent path to truth is somehow more valid that anyone else’s. At the end of the day, everyone’s truth is still just their own.
Oh, my love… must we bring our private disagreements out in the open for all to see???
Actually, this kind of comment is so much better than the “You’re the best, woo hoo!” type. LOL
I still maintain that we have a different definition of the word “truth.” My definition is one of 2+2=4 – that’s the truth. If someone tells me that 2+2=5, and subsequently tries to tell me that it’s their “truth”, I can’t agree with that. It may be their perception, it may be their understanding, but truth? No.
And that’s not to say I know “The Truth” (if that even means anything). I do know my perceptions, my understandings, my beliefs, and if those bump up against reality, I will do my best to adjust them to reality. I think you would agree that since I’ve adopted this idea, I’ve been a generally happier, healthier person.
Goddamn I love you.
You’re the best! Woo hoo!
(That was a good knock-down, drag out we had “off camera” about this, eh?) lololololol
I didn’t know that you had to call it “secular” buddhism. I’m Taoist myself and the way I see it making categories for your beliefs like “agnostic”, “atheist” etc… Is just not necessary – just go with the way and everything is a-okay!
Talking of “truth” in relationships, I finally got a needed insight into the different truths on this side or that. Not sure if this is a male/female thing, but I’ll toss it out there for your consideration.
Many times I express what I feel, and explain how I came to feel that way because I perceived the situation as being X. But my mate perceived the situation as being Y and so he determines that I was wrong to feel what I felt. I have difficulty, then, expressing that I was not wrong to feel what I felt — I simply felt what I felt based on my perception of events. What we feel is never wrong — what we perceive may be (or may not be).
As for cherry-picking, I am not finding it necessary to cherry pick through the Buddha’s teachings, but I sure am finding it necessary to cherry pick through what people tell me he taught.