I've been spending the past year and a half studying the small space of conscious awareness; the "space" where songs loop around, where memories get pulled in from the deep and interact with incoming stimuli; and trying to get a good, strong mental picture and understanding of the mechanism and interplay. One interesting thing I have noticed, while going through the journals (Google Scholar is my buddy here) - is how often, in the published papers, when it gets to the realm of the experiential; either: a) Buddhism or b) Transcendental Medication or c) Yoga comes in. These appear to be the only three that find favor within the journals at least. Perhaps they are the most scientific-like in their methodologies; and their absence of strong dieties makes it more palatable to utilize their writings and concepts in scientific journals than similar traditions found within other religious contexts. But I believe there is a lot of data that's being dismissed; a "throw the baby out with the bathwater" phenomenon due to a prejudice within much of what is currently acceptable source materials in Science. I don't think the Scientific Method, in its current form, is robust enough to entirely tackle human experience; the room for subjectivity is limited to the hypothesis and the interpretations within the conclusions (and the choices of methodology specific to each discipline); The only way that the Scientific Method could replace all religions would be if it tapped into those things which draw people into Religions in the first place; that is, those who join by choice and not as an accident of Geography or Family preferences. And, it seems to me, those are things that are subjective and not objective. That is where NOMA shines as an answer that is practical and reasonable; in my estimation. Until there is something within Science that can serve the same functions served by Religions, the Atheists dream of a Religion-Free world won't happen. I'm Agnostic, so I manage to annoy both 'sides fo the fence' simultaneously