I don't find that accepting the existence of emotions in decision making has any impact on my religious beliefs.
"[The former chancellor of Germany, Schroder,] did not add the optional phrase So wahr mir Gott helfe ('so help me God') when sworn in as chancellor for his first term in 1998." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schr%C3%B6der)
Theists, for the most part, have their moral outlook determined by their respective religions. Which is stupid, but at least it's standardized.
Many atheists believe that their morality is determined by reason. Brooks' point is that there's no such thing as morality determined purely by reason. There are necessarily some subjective premises in there.
All that this observation does is counter-refute atheists' refutation of the idea that atheists can't be moral. The idea that atheists can't be moral is still stupid (IMO), but not for the reason that some atheists say.
if the ability to absorb a system of ethics is an inherited trait, then atheists have presumably inherited the ability as well and would therefore be (from a statistical perspective) as ethical as everyone else.
the basis of his claim (snyde corner of the mouth slander, really) undermines the claim itself. the whole thing cancels out rather nicely.
"It challenges the new atheists, who see themselves involved in a war of reason against faith and who have an unwarranted faith in the power of pure reason and in the purity of their own reasoning."
It seems to me that the position of "new atheists" is that science is the only (known) universal means of answering the questions that it is capable of answering. The contents of the article (though not scientific) have been shaped by scientific insights. Doesn't it sort of back up the idea that we can do morality without god? if anything, wouldn't that give the "new" atheists some backing?