No surprise: reductionism seems to be the point of science. But if there is a neurobiological [spelling  changed by PeWi] basis for religion (Dawkins is a biologist), then there must also be a neurobiological basis for atheism:

After donning a helmet wired with electromagnets, some 

subjects reported experiences they described as mystical, or at least 

misty. When Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, put on the

hood, it only made him a little dizzy. Persinger was quick to note that

Dawkins had scored way below average on a psychological

questionnaire measuring temporal lobe sensitivity--hints of a 

neurobiological correlate for atheism.

As Thomas Adams points out (for whom I must also credit the Slate link):

Johnson's last line here is brilliant. After all, if theism is simply a

product of neurochemistry, then so is atheism - something that the 

"explainers of religion" all too often forget. Perhaps, in the end, the 

neurotheologians will show that it is atheism, not theism, which is 

caused by a mental defect (this would be the logical conclusion, of 

course, since the vast majority of the world's current and past 

inhabitants have been theists). If so, will Slate.com then treat us to 

articles that attempt to explain the "atheism meme" and the "agnostic 

delusion"? (emphasis supplied)

That parenthetical is, of course, exactly right. But whether or not Slate, or anyone else, ever attempts to explain the "atheism meme" or the "agnostic delusion" is really neither here nor there, because in the last analysis this entire discussion is not a discussion but is, as Bunting points out, the same old song, and it is only about power. Power, however, serves no one, and makes sure always that its own ends are served.

all from Mr Madison

My tongue is firmly planted in my cheek whenever I quote this. Afterall, what IS normal.