This is fundamentally a "biological sciences are eating everything" piece - that we can explain all of the human experience through a bunch of biochemical reactions in our grey matter, and thus working on philosophy in other ways (making models and assertions experientially) is no longer a valid way to get to truth.

I'd argue that doing a biochemical reverse engineering of even one person's brains is impractical, and more likely to tell you about their food or companionship preferences than anything profound.

Just like newtonian mechanics is still useful in the age of quantum mechanics, classical philosophy and religion is still valuable, well tested, and empirically useful, even if it isn't verifiably true, as making a verifiable answer is far beyond (and likely will remain far beyond) our current capabilities.