I have to admit, beautiful writing catches my eye and helps move the message through my mind. David Brooks at the NYT did that this afternoon.
Brooks ponders the impact of neuroscience on the spiritualism debate. He asserts that antagonisms between science and traditional religion will manifest in some heretofore unexpected ways. Here are what Brooks considers the basic tenets of science's developing argument:First, the self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships. Second, underneath the patina of different religions, people around the world have common moral intuitions. Third, people are equipped to experience the sacred, to have moments of elevated experience when they transcend boundaries and overflow with love. Fourth, God can best be conceived as the nature one experiences at those moments, the unknowable total of all there is.It's important to start from the top of this write and catch up on his reasoning here; good reading for next Sunday, if you like.
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.
The Neural Buddhists - New York Times
