“The naturalistic hypothesis is that causal laws could be discovered which could be successfully applied to all human behaviour, including thought. If such laws were discovered they would not show that a man’s reasons were not his reasons; for a man who is explaining his reasons is not giving a causal account at all. “Causes,” in the scientific sense in which this word is used when we speak of causal laws, is to be explained in terms of observed regularities: but the declaration of one’s reasons or motives is not founded on observation of regularities. ‘Reasons’ and ‘motives’ are what is elicited from someone whom we ask to explain himself”

In the same way, “Given the scientific explanation of human thought and action which the naturalist hypothesis asserts to be possible, we could, if we had the data that the explanation required, predict what any man was going to say, and what conclusions he was going to form. That would not mean that there was no sense in calling what he did say true or false, rational or irrational.”

There is no possibility of conflict between the two kinds of description. They are answers to different kinds of questions.

That a particular mood is associated with a chemical imbalance does not necessarily prove the impossibility of free will, nor does it follow that because observable brain states correspond to physical and psychological experiences, there is nothing transcendent about human existence.

That is true. The technology of the human brain is so far beyond anything modern science really understands or knows how to build that suggesting that the little we do know “proves” the impossibility of a free will is like jungle savages making proclamations about the true nature of the mysterious (to them) laptop computer they have discovered, as though their figuring out there is a relationship between sliding one’s finger across the touch pad and the motions of the little “spear” on the screen makes them experts on computer technology.

What we do know is that if we have a free will, there must be some component of the human intellect that is immaterial. If there isn’t then ultimately our behavior must indeed be reducible to material causes.

That there is an immaterial component to the human intellect is not exactly a far-fetched idea. It is the only explanation for the fact that it can seize upon and be affected by immaterial, abstract concepts. Science has no idea how to configure matter and energy such that matter can be affected by that which has no material existence. The only explanation for the human intellect’s ability to be affected by that which is immaterial is that there is an immaterial component to it that is somehow integrated with the physical, electrochemical functionality of the human brain.

This is not far-fetched nor is it a novel idea. Consider the thinking of one Gregory of Nyssa, who was born about A.D. 335, regarding the obvious existence of our rational souls:

A definition of the soul is then given, for the sake of clearness in the succeeding discussion. It is a created, living, intellectual being, with the power, as long as it is provided with organs, of sensuous perception. For “the mind sees,” not the eye … The objection that the “organic machine” of the body produces all thought is met by the instance of the water-organ. Such machines, if thought were really an attribute of matter, ought to build themselves spontaneously: whereas they are a direct proof of an invisible thinking power in man.

The water-organ, an amazing musical instrument, was an example of the technology of his time. It couldn’t by itself engage in rational thought any more than modern computers or the strictly material electrochemical reactions of our brains do so. There is simply no configuration of matter and energy that enables that configuration to grasp or be affected by the immaterial. Abstract concepts, the grasping of which is essential for rational thought to take place, are immaterial. The human intellect is capable of rational thought, so there must be an immaterial component to our intellect that is able to grasp and be affected by immaterial, abstract concepts. It has traditionally been referred to as our rational soul.

In some bright and sunlit future era where human understanding of reality is no longer confined to the boundaries set by methodological naturalism humanity will catch back up with Gregory of Nyssa and pass him on the road to human understanding of reality, regretting having been sidetracked for so long on the path created by a philosophy of science that branched out into one dead end after another: How does consciousness and self awareness come about? No answer. The explanation for the fine tuning of the Universe that made life a possibility? No answer. The source of biological information? No answer. How was mindless, lifeless matter ever assembled into the astounding functional complexity of a single-celled, reproducing life form? No answer. And it is “against the rules” of methodological naturalism to suggest that intelligence can be detected by its effects in a given phenomenon, even though ordinary people routinely detect the work of an intelligent agent by effects that defy the assumption that their source could have been the lucky combination of the laws of physics and mindless chance. That sand castle on the beach wasn’t just a peculiar, freakishly lucky way the sand just happened to be fashioned by the waves. It seems everybody can understand such things except contemporary science that has been perverted by atheism.

God created ex nihilo out of nothing, therefore He does not ‘need’ creation to be fully Himself, nor is ‘creation’ an extension of Him as various forms of pantheism claim. The relationship of creation and God is expressed by Paul in Acts: “In Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17). As countless ancient and Medieval authors [Anselm and Aquinas] show and such modern authors such as Father Robert Barron, God is so totally Other that He in no way a Being among other beings, even if called the Supreme Being. God’s Being is ‘to be’. He is in no way in any form of competition or possible threat to creation or to man but instead, everything participates in His Be-ing, most especially ‘man’ whose dignity is found in our calling to be be in communion with Him

In terms of science, the Catholic tradition holds that nothing that science can or does discover if it is true, is in any way a threat to faith or religion [of course the key here is: is it true?] All truths of no matter what level of existence come from and participate in the Truth.

In exploring the human psyche, science is exploring a fundamental element of ‘the image of God’ True self-knowledge [humility] is actually open to and easily coupled with faith. As stated in the article what can be rejected are those ‘theories’ reducing the ‘humanum’ to pure material/chemical interactions totally disconnected from and unrelated to the transcendentals of freedom, unity, truth, the good and beauty