My understanding has always been that, while some Buddhists do in fact proclaim belief in various deities (Tibetan Buddhism in particular), there is always an acknowledgement that they only exist in the realm of the mind. That is, subjective experience is elevated and the idea that "objective reality" can be experienced is discarded. The common word for this is Nondualism. And this Tim Maudlin person does confess to being a non-dualist.
I agree that the tone of the Scientific American article was annoying and somewhat condescending. But overall I don't have any issue with the ideas presented. I don't see the conflict.
I saw the ideas presented as one of a long stream of similar ideas which have been presented, all of which shape a narrative that obscures more than it reveals. I happened to make a comment on this instance. It's great that you don't see a conflict or have any issues with the ideas presented...I'm a different person.
One thing that's happened regarding Buddhism is that western people have picked up the things they like and ignored the rest. In reality, Buddhists think that the experience of Oneness that they reach is real. They may give it different names. But I haven't heard it said by them that the experience is limited to the mind (by which you must mean an individual brain in a head). I think western "apologists" for Buddhism have done that, in order to curry favor...to win over a handful of materialists.
They are wasting their time. A materialist is already someone who staked out the least courageous position of engagement in life. What good is their approval?
I agree that the tone of the Scientific American article was annoying and somewhat condescending. But overall I don't have any issue with the ideas presented. I don't see the conflict.