user24171: I would like to know if the secular buddhism could be considered a religion. I have started to study about it a while ago and I think it's make much sense to me, could I consider me a buddhist, even though I don't believe in some of traditional buddhism beliefs?

user11074: “Religion”, in one sense, involves belief in something not available to be empirically determined.
The ability to arise as a Buddha is one of these things. Again, while ‘enlightenment’ can be fit into many definitions, it is hard to determine empirically if the cessation of suffering is available and if the Buddhist path is effective (the third and fourth noble truths).
Therefore any Buddhism which accepts the four noble truths is not strictly secular, while a system that doesn’t accept the four noble truths is not strictly Buddhist.

user289: Secular Buddhism is loosely associated movement of authors and teachers, Stephen Batchelor is one good example. It isn't an institution, so there isn't any well define orthodoxy to appeal to about what it exactly is. Roughly, Secular Buddhism attempts to do Buddhism in a way that is compatible with ideas of the European Enlightenment and modern science.
Religion is one of those difficult to define words. Dictionary definitions often appeal to similarity to Christianity, which isn't a useful definition here. In the case of Secular Buddhism, I'd say it is a religion on account of it being a philosophical project with goals that overlap with Buddhism's, the end of suffering and what not. I'd recommend looking to Religious Studies (e.g. Religion for Breakfasts youtube channel) for a scholar answer to the question. In Buddhist orthodoxies, anything outside of orthodoxy is heterodox (outer paths, etc) and dividing non-Buddhist things into religion and non-religion isn't an important way of viewing the world.
A common methodology of creating secular Buddhisms is to subtract out the parts of Buddhism incompatible with modern rational thought and science. Yes, this is a form of scientism (using science to form opinions about religious stances) and in my opinion, it is a good thing--usually scientism is a used a slur.
Because there is no institution, nor orthodoxy, Secular Buddhism is very heterogeneous and different authors have used different parts of Buddhism as their starting point and have kept or kicked out different parts. As an internet phenomena, the "Secular Buddhist" podcast, forums etc has a quasi religious belief that the earliest Buddhist texts are already secular and the parts that are incompatible with modern science were later additions. Scholars generally don't agree with that--Buddhism had elements of karma, reincarnation, etc from the first days.

24171: <p>I would like to know if the secular buddhism could be considered a religion. I have started to study about it a while ago and I think it's make much sense to me, could I consider me a buddhist, even though I don't believe in some of traditional buddhism beliefs?</p>
 11074: <p>“Religion”, in one sense, involves belief in something not available to be empirically determined.</p>
<p>The ability to arise as a Buddha is one of these things. Again, while ‘enlightenment’ can be fit into many definitions, it is hard to determine empirically if the cessation of suffering is available and if the Buddhist path is effective (the third and fourth noble truths).</p>
<p>Therefore any Buddhism which accepts the four noble truths is not strictly secular, while a system that doesn’t accept the four noble truths is not strictly Buddhist.</p>
 289: <p>Secular Buddhism is loosely associated movement of authors and teachers, Stephen Batchelor is one good example. It isn't an institution, so there isn't any well define orthodoxy to appeal to about what it exactly is. Roughly, Secular Buddhism attempts to do Buddhism in a way that is compatible with ideas of the European Enlightenment and modern science.</p>
<p>Religion is one of those difficult to define words. Dictionary definitions often appeal to similarity to Christianity, which isn't a useful definition here. In the case of Secular Buddhism, I'd say it is a religion on account of it being a philosophical project with goals that overlap with Buddhism's, the end of suffering and what not. I'd recommend looking to Religious Studies (e.g. Religion for Breakfasts youtube channel) for a scholar answer to the question. In Buddhist orthodoxies, anything outside of orthodoxy is heterodox (outer paths, etc) and dividing non-Buddhist things into religion and non-religion isn't an important way of viewing the world.</p>
<p>A common methodology of creating secular Buddhisms is to subtract out the parts of Buddhism incompatible with modern rational thought and science. Yes, this is a form of scientism (using science to form opinions about religious stances) and in my opinion, it is a good thing--usually scientism is a used a slur.</p>
<p>Because there is no institution, nor orthodoxy, Secular Buddhism is very heterogeneous and different authors have used different parts of Buddhism as their starting point and have kept or kicked out different parts. As an internet phenomena, the &quot;Secular Buddhist&quot; podcast, forums etc has a quasi religious belief that the earliest Buddhist texts are already secular and the parts that are incompatible with modern science were later additions. Scholars generally don't agree with that--Buddhism had elements of karma, reincarnation, etc from the first days.</p>
