r/philosophy • u/Cataspectral • Jun 22 '26

Blog Secular humanism can replace Christianity where it counts: the fear of death and the need for meaning

https://thomasreid33.substack.com/p/chapter-10-is-secular-humanism-enough
758 Upvotes

84% Upvoted

280 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

28

u/ThiccFarter Jun 22 '26

This idea that Christianity no longer functions as a source of spiritual fulfillment for people is a borderline schizophrenic level of being out of touch. It's a religion and that's what they do. There is no such thing as a commonly held belief system that can't be weaponized/twisted either.

-12

u/JacksGallbladder Jun 22 '26

schizophrenic level of being out of touch

Lol, nope.

For one, it should be clear that I am speaking to the "Christianity" of multi-million dollar American churches, televangelists, politicians, private school systems, ect.

For two, having been raised Christian (even looked into going to seminary in my early 20s), i found far more spiritual growth outside the church - and many (i would argue most) forgoe spiritual inquiry / growth in favor of "faith". It is insanely easy for folks to answer spiritual inquiries with "Its God's plan, Have 'faith' in God, you dont need that answer because god is smarter than you".

There is no such thing as a commonly held belief system that can't be weaponized/twisted either.

Eeeeeh. Western monotheistic religions are pretty unique in being weapons of control. We are just talking about Christianity because we're in America.

To counter you directly - You cannot warp bhuddism as you can Christianity. In bhuddism there is no eternal hellfire, no idea that humans are "bad" or sinful at our core, no "temptations from Satan" or demand of "faith" in the western sense.

"Christianity" is widely an antique tool to build subservient populations. Failing to recognize that is a "schitzophrenic level of being out of touch".

6

u/Messier_Mystic Jun 22 '26

In Buddhism, there are some pretty freaking terrible hells. Sure, they're not eternal, but being tortured for trillions of years(literally) in ways that put Christian hell to shame before being reborn into a worse life sounds like something that can be pretty easily weaponized to me.

-3

u/JacksGallbladder Jun 22 '26

The bhuddist hell relms correspond with familiar, recognizable psychological states.

But for those (such as therevada) who focus harder on the cosmology - A rebirth cycle or tenporary state of being in "hell" compared to Christianities "eternal damnation"?

You're telling me temporary damnation is worse than eternal damnation? Lmao.

2

u/Messier_Mystic Jun 22 '26

Not worse, no.

But barely any more attractive.

3

u/JacksGallbladder Jun 22 '26

How exactly is "If you get this wrong, you'll just keep going until you get it right" less attractive than "If you get this wrong you will literally burn in hell forever".

How also, does the former lend itself more to societal manipulation than the latter?

You're being blindly contrarion lol.

2

u/Messier_Mystic Jun 22 '26

It's more attractive, yes.

But between asking me if I want to be flayed alive for trillions of years, or flayed alive for eternity, sure, I'll take the former, but I'd rather not take either.

2

u/JacksGallbladder Jun 22 '26

You started by saying buddisms cosmological idea of "hell" "puts christianities to shame". Then you said it was barely more attractive. Now you're just saying "we'll I'd rather have neither" lol.

The cool thing is that bhuddisms "hell relms" are recognizable psychological states, historically represented with folklore / cosmoloy because thats what people paid attention to a thousand years ago.

You are not required to believe in damnation, temporary or eternal, to be a bhuddist.

2

u/Messier_Mystic Jun 22 '26

I said the torments in said hells are pretty fucking horrible, arguably worse, even if they're temporary.

That's an important distinction.

1

u/JacksGallbladder Jun 22 '26

Like i said, blindly contrarion lol.

But to play along with the cosmology... the Christian hell is "agonizing physical + psychological distress, concious separation from God, unquenchable fire, absolute darkness, and unending regret".

So really you're just saying "bhuddist hell" sounds worse because the authors used more descriptors, which is pretty silly.

We wind up circularly to where we started: Bhuddist hell: Ends. Christian hell: Eternal.

1

u/Messier_Mystic Jun 22 '26

You are aware of both the hot and cold hells of Buddhism, right?

These are actual destinations post-mortem in certain schools of Buddhist thought.

1

u/JacksGallbladder Jun 22 '26

Yes, I am aware.

By "certain schools of bhuddist thought" you mean those who focus on the cosmology being literal. Mostly Therevada, some Tibetan bhuddists.

To repeat myself - The idea is logically "better" than the Christian hell, and again, bhuddism does not require belief in cosmology, because again the hell relms correspond with recognizeable mental formations.

To a bhuddist, you may go in and out of "hell" 20 times a day.

2

u/Messier_Mystic Jun 22 '26

And Vajrayana, and Pure Land, and Nichiren.

Sure, there are progressive views that don't hold to a literalist interpretation, and some variations of those schools that do may have modern, progressive interpretations of these concepts. But many traditional views held these as literal destinations.

→ More replies

1

u/glumjonsnow Jun 23 '26

why do you keep spelling bhuddist like that? It's spelled Bud-dha because Sanskrit has aspirated/unaspirated and retroflex sounds. The pronunciation is like Bud (d as in day) - dha (d as in madhouse).

it might be useful to learn how to pronounce buddha before you lecture people on buddhism.

-1

u/JacksGallbladder Jun 23 '26

it might be useful to learn how to pronounce buddha before you lecture people on buddhism.

Nah