Huh?

David Brooks is pretty good at proving he doesn't know what he's talking about, but this is strange. Here's where I have a problem with it:

"And yet my guess is that the atheism debate is going to be a sideshow. The cognitive revolution is not going to end up undermining faith in God, it’s going end up challenging faith in the Bible."

The revolution he speaks of has to do with the introduction of Buddhist philosophy into the field of cognitive neuroscience. He's right about that, but how does this not undermine faith in God? Earth to David Brooks: Buddhists don't believe in God. One of the Buddha's most fundamental messages is that there is a Middle Path between nihilism and worship that recognizes spirituality but denies the existence of God. A simple Wikipedia lookup would have cleared that up. Does Mr. brooks have no internet, or is he just lazy? And Andrew Sullivan is no better. The lesson here is that we should not talk about religions with which we are not familiar. I don't talk about Sikhism or Jainism, and Brooks and Sullivan shouldn't talk about Buddhism.

Update: Strangely, John Derbyshire seems to have the best take on this. This discussion has obviously entered a realm so unfamiliar that nobody knows upon which side of the line to stand.