I have no idea what you mean by these paras. Could you re-phrase being a little less elliptical?
While I don't see 'science' a the arbiter of the real I do see that it has a proper partnership role in sharing how we evolve a contemporary narrative about the nature of our reality and our role in it - which is, after all, what religion is about - albeit with a strong theme of moral survival that makes no sense to anybody who doesn't get animism...
I meant science and religion have been natural partners - hardly distinguishable, and it has only been since the advent of materialism that the two have seemingly split. So when Dr Martin laments that 'religion' has not kept up with science he is right in one respect. What we call religion has always been animistic, so it could not have followed the materialistic path in any case - even though many of the great scientific minds have been intensely religious. I say that religion has always been about inquiry into the nature of human experience - but in a spirit filled reality, not a mechanical one.
It does seem that what we might call 'spiritual' science has not been obviously active for a long time and that we are in a time of materialistic science. On the supposition that there is wisdom in the way things are, Dr Martin's lament might have been better expressed. He seems to be saying that the cultural elements of traditions are not necessary because people these days just want a tech, and they can't be bothered with the fluff about the Buddha springing from the side of (I forget what was said here). But there are a bunch of problems with that assumption.
I grew up reading Zen. It was what I would have taken to if I had not a deep inner voice telling me not to be an idiot. I loved Zen because it reinforced what contained me. It was like I was a free man who wanted to be put in prison so I could break out, because the feeling of breaking out was what I thought I needed to feel legitimately free. That was my satori moment.
Zen was not my path. I had a passion to not abandon my culture and seek enlightenment by imitating alien and ancient ways. I don't mean, as Dr Martin seems to imply, that I wanted to remain in the fog of my culture's delusion about progressive and superiority. The alien and ancient ways were way markers to a better way of knowing. Where Dr Martin seems to say that enlightenment tech is like a McDonald's drive through - minimal disruption to a normal secular life I see the opposite. Zen inspired me to struggle to see that an attitude of mind is not determined by a tradition. You don't need to be a Christian to be Christian for example. There is no ownership, no branding, of the desire to develop an attitude of mind. That was a liberating and 'enlightening' thought for me.
I don't think you can do just the tech. It like the problem of 'training' where it is expected that rational input as data changes behaviours and values. The input can contribute to, even trigger the process of change, but cannot cause the transformation.
And nothing changed. I still had debts and a crap relationship. I just felt a little less stupid and a little less bothered. But that was good thing.
I have had moments of sudden awakening that have left me deeply affected. But normal life goes on - with its crappy things still intact. For example I came down with GBS in 2008 and had 3 months of total paralysis - ICU, respirator - the whole drama. I didn't know how I was going to come out of it, so I did a lot of frank soul searching and made peace with whatever was to come. I think the whole experience was character building and that I am a way better person for it.
Dr Martin talks about spiritual salesmanship and how people 'sell' enlightenment methodologies without revealing that afterwards some got the same shitty things still happen. The myth is, apparently, that on the other side of enlightenment its all sweetness and light. But its not an escape from crap, just a change of attitude toward it. Is it enlightenment?
I don't think there is one transformative event. If we are working on our ways of knowing there are many events that prompt change and growth.I will have to read Dr Martin's book to get a clearer picture of what he is on about, but on the basis of the show i think he has a useful insight but maybe not the best context in which to express it.