That’s the subtext to The New York Times columnist David Brooks‘ recent piece on religion and science, “The Neural Buddhists.” He’s taking up recent developments in neuroscience, and coming to the conclusion that present and future debates between religion and science will not be over the existence of God, but over whether or not organized religion contributes to or harms the brain’s intuitions toward transcendence and spirituality.

Thus, the title: science leading to a “neural Buddhism.”

Or, as he says: “The real challenge is going to come from people who feel the existence of the sacred, but who think that particular religions are just cultural artifacts built on top of universal human traits.”

In other words, it’s the standard line: “I’m spiritual but not religious.” Whatever that means.

But, consider Brooks’ summary of recent literature in neuroscience:

First, the self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships. Second, underneath the patina of different…