"Neural Buddhists"

I just want to point out a column by David Brooks of The New York Times entitled Neural Buddhists.

In it Brooks writes about the changing landscape of science versus the spiritual. A decade ago science would look towards tangible reasons for the actions of human emotion or the psyche. Atoms existed at the base of our being, with chemicals and neurons dictating how we behave. There was no free will and science ultimately (intentionally or not) set out to disprove god.

Apparently, things have changed. Rather than the brain being considered as a computer, it's viewed as an idiosyncratic organ. Things such as love and belief are crucial to brain development. Also, our genes aren't only set up for self-survival but "instincts for fairness, empathy and attachment" as well.

The last two paragraphs sum up as follows:

In their arguments with Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, the faithful have been defending the existence of God. That was the easy debate. 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. It’s going to come from scientists whose beliefs overlap a bit with Buddhism.

In unexpected ways, science and mysticism are joining hands and reinforcing each other. That’s bound to lead to new movements that emphasize self-transcendence but put little stock in divine law or revelation. Orthodox believers are going to have to defend particular doctrines and particular biblical teachings. They’re going to have to defend the idea of a personal God, and explain why specific theologies are true guides for behavior day to day. I’m not qualified to take sides, believe me. I’m just trying to anticipate which way the debate is headed. We’re in the middle of a scientific revolution. It’s going to have big cultural effects.

A realization of the sacred without dogma. I see this as a hopeful theological perspective for the future. Sometimes I think modernism went too far to destroy eternal principles. When religion and political revolution failed, I feel like people have been picking up the pieces for decades. Post-modernism has at times been the movement of historical disappointment. Perhaps we can finally move forward.