Brooks thinks modern neurology will lead to quasi-Buddhism

I think David Brooks makes an interesting case in this article that new findings in neurology will likely not reduce people's religiosity a whole lot, but might begin to change it significantly. He feels that the current wave of atheism really is chipping away at the "old time religion" that views the Bible as a literal account and dogmatically and stridently pontificates on the need to follow an orthodox law of a god. Instead, he thinks that the valuation of mystic experiences will heighten people's esteem for mysticism, and particularly, for western Buddhism. If so, that would be very interesting . . . But I'm not entirely sure I agree. While I believe what he describes could influence as many as the already-less-than-rigorously-traditional part of the American population (about a third, I'd guess), I find it hard to believe that the religious fabric of a culture could possibly change non-violently. I can't think of even one time in history when a major, well-organized religion that was well-ensconced in a society (as Christianity is in the U. S., but to a lesser degree also in Western Europe) actually shriveled away and became permanently smaller. Could I actually live to see this happen for the first time? Is it perhaps already happening in Western Europe. (Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union are a little different; atheistic thinking was enforced by state teachings for almost half a century; China is in similar straights. Japanese religion has become confused and diffuse, but only after we disestablished the state religion of Shinto by force during the U. S. occupation following WWII. Interestingly enough, the Zen Buddhism of Japan (the Buddhism that is most directly antecedent to the forms of Buddhism practiced by Westerners today (though the Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hahn, and Vipassana have changed that a bit)) doesn't hold the attention of the majority of that country's population. Buddhism was never a majority religion in China or Japan, so far as I can tell, except perhaps (and maybe not even when) it had heavy state sponsorship. I suspect the same would be true of any places in the West where Buddhism truly takes root.

There is some evidence that organized religion is in steady and growing decline in Europe, though, and that it's being replaced, not by a philosophically rigorous naturalistic worldview, but by a vague and fluffy spirituality that finds things like psychics potentially plausible. A very consumerist spirituality, it would seem. This is akin to the religious mix that has arisen in Japan since WWII. I wonder if that's what democratic, capitalist societies characterized by religious freedom will eventually produce. A kind of diffuse spiritual glop . . . But I'm still not quite convinced. Maybe Brooks is onto something. Maybe it'll be a vague and consumeristic New Age future for faith, but I'm suspect that the old-time religion will continue to go down swinging (as it always has) and I suspect the old organizations may have more tricks up their sleeve than I'd like to believe or David Brooks can imagine . . . Your thoughts?