We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
If science offers a complete account of nature, then it must be able to offer a complete account of human conscious experience, since human conscious experience is a feature of nature. It must be able to say something about what it is like to be a man. Accordingly, for several decades, a relentless effort has been undertaken by those in the disciplines of cognitive science and philosophy of mind to conceptualize such an account – an explanation of the mental in terms of the purely physical. The results of this endeavor are unambiguous – it has been a complete disaster. One would be hard pressed to identify, in all of intellectual history, a philosophical detour more obstinately barren, more improgressive, more tangled up in empty verbiage, more devoid of genuine insight, more irrelevant to life as it is actually lived, than is to be discovered in contemporary philosophy of mind. John Searle described the futile history of this materialist project as follows:
One sees this pattern over and over. A materialist thesis is advanced. But the thesis encounters difficulties; the difficulties take different forms, but they are always manifestations of an underlying deeper difficulty, namely, the thesis in question denies obvious facts that we all know about our own minds. And this leads to ever more frenzied efforts to stick with the materialist thesis and try to defeat the arguments put forward by those who insist on preserving the facts. After some years of desperate maneuvers to account for the difficulties, some new development is put forward that allegedly solves the difficulties, but then we find that it encounters new difficulties, only the new difficulties are not so new – they are really the same old difficulties.
Science has never arrogated to itself a "complete description of nature". One ought distinguish positions held by a paradigm group within science, say evolutionary biology, and what amateurs and other academics say science says. Moreover, in the extreme, quantum mechanics precludes "complete knowledge" of anything physical.
Notwithstanding the above, Nagel and Searle are to be praised for their accurate take on "philosophy of mind".
Scientism assumes that the supernatural (unable to explain) is preternatural (we don't understand it now, but I'm sure we'll find out someday). The universe is mysterious. This is a gift from God. Or maybe He has the same constraint.
I agree that neuroscience leaves a lot to be explained yet. Still we know there are material elements to emotion and behavior. If we change the material condition of the brain with injury or chemical alteration, the individual responds with generally imparied emotional and intellectual ability. Some chemical changes may produce an apparent, usually transient, improvement in emotional or intellectual ability.
This is the basis for an old sit-com standby: Gilligan (Jethro, Barney) suffers a blow to the head and becomes even harder to deal with, so the others find a way to smack (usually his) head to set him straight. In the real world, injury on injury will of course make things worse. I did once read an article about an exception; a boy with severe mental and emotional problems became much more tractable after a head injury. That may not really have been an improvement.
I find myself believing that God has chosen material means to achieve His ends. I don't understand that but it seems generally to be true.