Neural Buddhists?

In "The Neural Buddhists," New York Times columnist David Brooks discusses developments in neural science and how these developments might impact religion. "In unexpected ways, science and mysticism are joining hands and reinforcing each other," he writes.

Brooks believes scientific understanding of the brain and body could lead to a new interest in mystical experience over doctrinal orthodoxy. Going forward, Brooks continues, the challenge to religion will not come from militant atheists but from "scientists whose beliefs overlap a bit with Buddhism." For example, neurological research suggests "the self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships," which is not a bad definition of shunyata.

(And note that I've begun a forum thread on Brooks's column if you want to discuss this.)

Certainly there are intriguing connections between neuroscience and Buddhism. I advise caution about expecting science to somehow validate Buddhism, however. First, Buddhism doesn't need to be validated by science. And second, expectations get in the way of seeing reality and set off new waves of delusions. For example, a great many pro-Buddhist quotes attributed to Albert Einstein that are floating around the Web are most likely bogus.

I believe Einstein really did say this, however:

The fact that man produces a concept "I" besides the totality of his mental and emotional experiences or perceptions does not prove that there must be any specific existence behind such a concept. We are succumbing to illusions produced by our self-created language, without reaching a better understanding of anything. Most of so-called philosophy is due to this kind of fallacy.

Update: A letter written by Einstein is being touted as proof the physicist was hostile to religion.

Albert Einstein described belief in God as "childish superstition" and said Jews were not the chosen people, in a letter to be sold in London this week, an auctioneer said Tuesday. ... ...Previously the great scientist's comments on religion -- such as "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" -- have been the subject of much debate, used notably to back up arguments in favour of faith. Powell said the letter being sold this week gave a clear reflection of Einstein's real thoughts on the subject. "He's fairly unequivocal as to what he's saying. There's no beating about the bush," he told AFP.

That does not contradict what Einstein said in his published writings, however. He was clear he had no use for beliefs in God. However, who says you need to believe in God to be religious?

See also commentary on the David Brooks column by Andrew Sullivan and Promethus 6.

Art Credit: © Roy Mattappallil Thomas | Dreamstime.com