Secular Buddhism & Secular Humanism

Secular humanism is a naturalistic life stance oriented towards this life, as is secular Buddhism. How are these allied life stances similar and different?

The Council for Secular Humanism can be found at:

-----------------------------
Please visit the Secular Buddhist Association!

[tranquil]

Excellent analysis and presentation. I am so glad to see an interest in secular buddhism growing. Stephen Batchelor was breakthrough for me. I had a long term interest in buddhism, but was put off by the religious aspect. I knew that buddhism could have a philosophical stance and not just the religious, but until I read "Buddhism without Belief” that stance was not set out concretely for me. Doug, you are building on Batchelor’s breakthrough in a very coherent manner, and I will be following you videos closely!

[JesseStarks]

This comparison is fantastic. Thank you.

[chapachuu]

Thank you for this video. I identified as a secular humanist before I came to secular Buddhism and always wondered where they differed. Both are very similar. You helped clear some things up for me. :)

[smilebot]

Also the doctrine of no self is more consistent with naturalism. I would say that the big difference is that Buddhism has as its fundamental aim the alleviation or suffering. Humanism has no such fundamental aim from what I can tell. Good discussion.

[stevenkok]

Dhamma is freedom.
Buddhism is great heart compassion.
Divine or worldly is mind made.

[mikemillerstate]

I have only recently started studying philosophy in any great depth and don't have any formal studies in the matter, but I'd like to take a stab at how these two systems (Secular Humanism and Secular Buddhism) could be entangled. From what I can tell, Secular Humanism can be thought of as a unifying philosophical theory that incorporates Metaphysical Naturalism as its metaphysical position, Methodological Naturalism as its epistemology, and an ethical stance "committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility" (American Humanist Association). In my novice view, it seems Secular Buddhism could serve as the ethical methodology to that overarching theory. That marriage would seem to strengthen not only Secular Humanism by providing a defined ethical methodology but also strengthen Secular Buddhism since the Buddha's teaching don't seem to go into detail on epistemology (outside of saying we should learn through experience) nor on metaphysics (although there is an argument over whether the three marks of existence are a metaphysical stance, they don't seem to be inconsistent with the broader implications of Metaphysical Naturalism).

[JesseStarks]

My recent reading of SH suggests that it is not inherently consequentialist (though consequentialism is one compatible framework with the broader values)

[yorkinwanya]

This concept of non-permanent self is often mentioned. Our likes and dislikes, habits and personal traits changing. Does this somehow tackle into moral relativism? Do you perhaps have a video on that as well?

Beside that, I enjoyed this playlist so far, it is very educational for someone like me, who's been immersed into Western Christianity culture for very long. :)

[nettinetti]

A lot of change has occured upon the misinterpretation of the Tathagarbha teaching of Yogacara. Then, Tathagatagarbha understanding was in line with the Buddha's teachings and Nagarjuna's exposition on sunyata/emptiness. However, later generations in Chinese Buddhism started gearing away from the true understanding of Tathagatagarbha that each of us have the "capacity" (adjective) to be enlightened. It suddenly shifted to the notion of "Buddha nature" (noun) inside of us. A capacity is a flux (no inherent self) since it is just a potential, but a "nature" is a fixed entity (posits a fixed self) that can be awakened just by polishing the alaya consciousness from dirt.
The original teaching of Yogacara was the "elimination" of the alaya consciousness (not polishing it) where karmic seeds are stored causing endless rebirth.
You can study deeply the Yogacara texts, Madhyamika doctrine, Ven. Dhammadipa, and Ven. Yin-shun, and Buddhist history in China and Japan to discover the shift of understanding that occured in Buddhism.

[gagestandingready]

You can throw Stoicism into the mix as well.

[jamessmith-hirr]

Thank you for your effort to clarify Secular Buddhism which at its best accepts not knowing as a supreme virtue as an antidote to fixed views. I wonder if you discuss anywhere reincarnation? It is a subject that always comes up when people talk about Buddhism. My understanding is that we are in a constant state of change and so, on the one hand, suffer the downside of the ever-changing and on the other, we are offered the possibility to direct this change, as far as we can, to be reborn in the next moment as a more content human being. Or something like that. Please receive this kindly and thanks again.

[joseantoniovergara]

thanks again, Doug, for these videos. I'm glad that you decided to develop the idea firstly announced in the first video of this series, that secular Buddhism could actually be seen as a branch of secular Humanism. May I kindly ask you why did you choose to mention the Council for Secular Humanism instead of the bigger and historically earlier American Humanist Association?

[DipayanPyne]

Doug, here's something interesting for you. BUDDHA was probably the First Secular Humanist from India. However, Secular Humanism didn't really stop there. A few centuries, another Giant graced India. Any guesses ? Well, I'll say it anyway. TIRUVALLUVAR.

Tiruvalluvar was the Secular Humanist from the South of India. He seems to have been influenced by Some Combination of Vedic, Buddhist and/or Jain culture. The reason I say 'Some Combination' is that I don't really know exactly how much he was influenced by Each. That doesn't really matter. The important thing is that he was a Legend, just like Buddha. I like to call Tiruvalluvar 'Buddha 2.0' ...

[KJAlways]

I can see you are a very kind and very compassionate person to accept me as a Secular Buddhist when I professed to be one from lack of knowledge. I may be a little hard to understand since I do not fit into the Black and White way of thinking like most people when it comes to God or anything else because that has not been the truth of my experiences nor my observations in life. Believe in God (Religious). Don't believe in God (Secular/ Atheist).That is too black and white or rigid for my comprehension.


I was taught at the University that Buddhists are Non-Theists in my Buddhist Philosophy classes. And Buddha did not speak one way or another about God when he was asked questions concerning the Metaphysics. He did not teach to believe or not to believe in God. He was neutral from what I understood. He was more focused on the practical aspects of living life, which is more how I am also. I know Buddha was not an Atheist nor a Theist. I see the word God in Buddhist chants and books. I don't participate because I don't do religiosity. I just accept God is a part of life just like breathing. Do I worship breathing? No! :-) Taoists understood the unexplainable cannot be explained, thankfully. I want to find people who are like the Buddha who don't make it an either or issue about God. Who are they?


Religious verses Secular sounds too divisive for my way of thinking. Do you have a video on that? In ought to understand me, you would be forced to think outside of the tiny boxes or see the boxes collectively as a point of reference. Who is the third group in Buddhism? 1. Religious (Theists), 2. Secular (Atheists) and 3. who else? I think Buddha was more the 3rd way and who are they now? What are they called? Does anybody know?

[KJAlways]

I have noticed that people are not interacting with each other in this post, like I have observed in many YouTube posts. Is there a reason for this because I am clueless? Is this a cultural thing that is relative to the Buddhist culture? Being a "Free Thinker" in the past has caused me to question things more, so I hope nobody takes it personally to be more than seeking an understanding.

[ronaldchiodi]

Thanks for the well organized & logical video presentations. I agree with your conclusion that there are many similarities between S. H. and S. B.. I am particularly in agreement with the need for both to be in harmony with current scientific understanding, which has been verified and validated through experimental findings to be factual within human limits of technological capabilities of perception and detection, but not necessarily accurate as to human interpretation, such as the position in the field of cosmological physics we find ourselves in with regard to expanding / accelerating space-time, and the recent discoveries as to the creation of elements by stars in various stages of existence. Even more fascinating is the relationship between super-massive black holes and the creation & destruction of galaxies.

[gmarthews]

I don't agree that the ethics of Buddhism requires virtue ethics as that pushes the individual towards an idealised third person. Deontology and consequentialism seem to have a permanent interaction which is adequate as an ethical system, with the former providing the principles tempered by the decision to apply consequentialism depending on the case in question. Still interesting video.

[DipayanPyne]

I think the Most Unique Thing about Buddhism, that Secular Humanism does not have, is Psychology. Buddhist Psychology is the Most Original Type of Psychology that the World has Ever Seen. I used to be a Sceptic until quite Recently. Despite being an Indian, I never learnt Meditation. So, when I became an Atheist, I started believing that Meditation is basically Fraud. Fortunately, I have always been an Open Minded Person. So, after going through a Lot of Sources, I Realised that I was Wrong ! Ever since my Realisation, I have been Extremely Open Minded. I don't have that 'Instantaneous Rejection Mentality' anymore 😂

[SS-wzpo]

It is what you think it is. It is until it isn't.

[nitrsmash]

Count how many cuts there are. I'll wait.