Secular Buddhist debunkers

In Western culture, although it doesn’t seem like it, there is a significant difference between classical skepticism (the skepticism of Sextus Empiricus, for example) and debunking.  Put simply, the skeptic says, “I do not know whether x or –x, but I will try to find out."  On the other hand, a debunker says, “I know what is right.  These things cannot possibly be true.”

These days, what is believed to be classical skepticism is not.  It is only concerned with debunking.  At a gut level, the debunker believes he knows what is correct and incorrect.  He is the cultural gatekeeper.  Sanctioned and accepted cultural beliefs are his sure ground.  Those who live on the outskirts of the accepted cultural beliefs will be his victims.

When we turn to Buddhism, especially to the subject of secular Buddhism, two things stand out which need debunking.  They are karma and rebirth.  Buddhism, we can say, has been put on trial by the secular Buddhist debunker.  Thus, Buddhism is presumed to be guilty.  It is guilty of believing that the correctness of the cognition of karma and rebirth can be personally (first-person) substantiated.  At this point, the classical skeptic stops because he has no certainty.  

The real skeptic, can even say, “There is not enough evidence for me to believe in karma and rebirth.”  But by the same token, the skeptic also understands that absence of evidence is not indubitable proof that karma and rebirth are bunk.  For the debunker, however, that some Buddhists seem to lack any real scientific evidence when it comes to karma and rebirth, is enough for them to dismiss karma and rebirth, completely.  

On this note, the difference between the skeptical Buddhist and the secular Buddhist debunker needs to be made more clear.  For one thing, Buddhism has no place for the debunker who might even be someone who doubts the Buddha was enlightened; who saw the immortal element.

 

Comments

[thezennist]

Jure:

Batchelor and his gang appear to have hijacked the term from various early sources, along with agnosticism. If you go to YouTube and plug in "secular Buddhism" it's pretty much Batchelor's dog and pony show.

In this recent blog I have found these same Buddhist to be serious debunkers who go after rebirth, especially, and flatly ignore nirvana. This is not skepticism or agnosticism (=classical skepticism was repackaged by Huxley).

[Jure]

Why do the Batchelor-Buddhists use "secular" to mean "atheist"?

From Wikipedia:

"Secularism is the principle of separation of government institutions, and the persons mandated to represent the State, from religious institutions and religious dignitaries."

In that case, I'm a Secular Buddhist, too.

I don't want to live in a religious state, Buddhist, Catholic or else.

I don't idealize Buddhist countries because they're worse than what we have here in Europe.

I just read how in Bhutan they have to spread condoms because the monks keep fucking each other:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/29/bhutas-makes-condoms-available-to-monks-to-stop-spread-of-stds_n_2976401.html?utm_hp_ref=tw