Batchelor probably deserves an essay-length treatment, so forgive me if I come across as giving him short shrift. These are my thoughts after reading 4-5 of his books, including
Buddhism without Beliefs and
Confession of a Buddhist Atheist (the others aren't germane). Because of my "sciency" atheist, philosophical and materialist background, Batchelor appealed to me and was my introduction to Buddhism. Before I had read much of the Pali suttas, I took Batchelor at his word in
Confession about rebirth and karma - that these were pre-existing notions in Indian thought at the time and so part of Buddha's[0] inherited world view. However, this isn't accurate. Shortly thereafter, I read a few books on the history and development of Buddhism, such as:
Rahula:
What the Buddha Taught,
Gombrich:
What the Buddha Thought and
How Buddhism Began,
Bronkhorst:
Two Traditions of Meditation in Ancient India,
Wynne:
The Origin of Buddhist Meditation,
Sue Hamilton:
The I of the BeholderWithout going into much detail, Buddha articulated his own very different ideas about karma and rebirth. The most radical aspect of this is his ethicization of karma which makes for a kind of cosmic theodicy. Radical because karma literally means "action", and in the Vedic milieu of the time, ritual action (e.g., properly executed brahmin sacrifices), yet Buddha contradicted this with, "by karma I mean intent". Likewise Buddha's teachings on rebirth (which is different from reincarnation), and his rejection of Vedic
atman with anatman, the negation of atman, which we translate as no-self. Gombrich and Sue Hamilton are particularly good on the brahmin Vedic thought that Buddha was often reacting against.
Batchelor's approach is to take the difference between what he regards as pre-existing Indian ideas and claiming only this delta as Buddha's unique contribution. Batchelor meanwhile flattens Buddha's contributions on rebirth, karma - things he doesn't like - into pre-existing Indian thought so he can ignore them. It's shabby scholarship. If he doesn't like what the Buddha taught, sack up and say so and don't pretend Buddha is some sort of closeted New Atheist.
I also read a large chunk of the Pali sutta discourses (Majjhima, Digha, and Samyutta Nikayas). I can't recommend them enough. In fact, don't waste your time with much else. I was quite amazed while reading these discourses - they are very little like Batchelor claims. Batchelor's Buddha is much like Batchelor, an
"ironic atheist", as he puts it, a kind of scientist of the mind. But Buddha was a pre-scientific Iron Age wanderer, not a scientist. The only way Batchelor can get at what he thinks are Buddha's "original" teachings is with very carefully selected readings and interpretations from the Pali canon. I found reading the suttas a reliable antidote.
I haven't read any of the other books you mention. While I'm hard on Batchelor here, I have
Living with the Devil and
Alone with Others to read, and think that I will get something out of those works.
Buddhism is changing in its contact with the West and that is OK. There are things in Buddhism that I don't like and or seek to understand. However, I don't think we need to create new myths of an "authentic" but heretofore obscured secular Buddhism wrenched from the Pali suttas in order to make these changes more palatable.
~m
[0] By "Buddha" this, Buddha that, Buddha said, Buddha taught, &c, I mean something along the lines of Early Buddhist suttas present Buddha saying this, that, and so on. Clearly not everything in the Pali canon is genuine

EDIT: spelling, grammar, clarity