But Judaism and Christianity overcome that despondency with the kind of thinking you admire. Part of the richness of the religious tradition, though, is that it's not all just the system of triumphal ideas that you proclaim, but that it understands life's darker side. Having seen the worst makes the positive vision more substantial, than if it were just a system one was expected to follow to achieve a goal or a set of inspiring truths that had no contact with the less inspirational aspects of existence.
I'm no expert on Buddhism (or any other religion) -- I keep forgetting which is the "Greater Vehicle" and which the "Lesser Vehicle." But there are different schools in Buddhism. They don't all rest content with nothingness and chaos. The whole religion isn't what beats and hipsters took from it in the 1950s and 1960s. Bottom line: there is a moral law, there is right and wrong in Buddhism, so "nihilism" isn't the right term to describe the religion.
There's a case to be made that one religion goes further and answers more questions, is more satisfying and truer in some way, and also a case that many make for Western rational-empirical thinking over Eastern mysticism, but most people who are really interested in religion wouldn't be as dismissive of another tradition as you and Kimball appear to be.
Anyway, here is what's been said about Buddhism's concept of "emptiness":
This teaching does not connote nihilism. In the English language the word "emptiness" suggests the absence of spiritual meaning or a personal feeling of alienation, but in Buddhism the emptiness of phenomena, at a basic level, enables one to realize that the things which ultimately have no independent substance cannot be subject to any irreconcilable conflicts or antagonisms. Ultimately, true realisation of the doctrine can bring liberation from the limitations of the cycle of uncontrollably recurring rebirth.
I don't claim to fully understand that, but as I said above, Buddhism doesn't repudiate ethics, moral law, or ideas of right and wrong, so "nihilism" doesn't fit as a description.
x: There’s a case to be made that one religion goes further and answers more questions, is more satisfying and truer in some way, and also a case that many make for Western rational-empirical thinking over Eastern mysticism, but most people who are really interested in religion wouldn’t be as dismissive of another tradition as you and Kimball appear to be.”
Spirited: Though many men have turned Christianity into a religion it is in fact a personal relationship with the Holy Trinity, God the Spirit, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ, the living Word become Flesh came to heal the weary souls of men and to declare the Good News: the Way to Paradise is now open.
In that through this relationship with the Spirit of God mortal man can attain life eternal (paradise) then Christianity is “more satisfying and truer,” to use your own words. And this being the case all true Christians have a duty to point all of the unsaved to the Word of God.
Since your current interest lies with Buddhism, which you admit you do not understand, then what better guide for you than Vishal Mangalwadi, India’s foremost Christian scholar?
Called by leading Christian scholars a contemporary St. Augustine, Mangalwadi’s knowledge of Western and Eastern philosophy, Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity is intimate, penetrating, and vast.
Here is an introduction to his writing:
http://cdn.learnsocially.com/33a99540-2b00-012d-0b70-7efd4acfe485.pdf
Mangalwadi’s website:
http://www.revelationmovement.com/