David Weisman separates himself from the too-prevalent Psychology Today quackfest by noting that the thing we take as our unified mind doesn't really exist, "it is easily fractured into separate parts, in which the subject maintains subjective unity through the use of confabulation" something Buddhism has long contend.

But, as we all know, "When science supports a particular religious teaching, you can expect members of that religion to become strict empiricists, telling themselves and the world that their belief is grounded in reality."

This is the same as any segment of politics or culture.   If an article is written here critical of the methodology in a global warming study, we are shills for Big Oil.  If it is supportive, we are all liberal academics chasing funding.

Buddhism, he notes, may be different from many religions in that it got some neuroscience concepts right long before science validated them - "Does this endorse Buddhism? Well, yes it does, and it does so surprisingly well. Buddhism gets quite a bit correct. It does so in a vague manner of course: they get to propose a soulish thing that accounts for mental activity and partially survives one's death and they get to deny this thing as well."

Check out Buddhism and Neuroscience on Psychology Today.