Science rests on philosophical assumptions. There is no philosophy free science. So if you want a deeper and more accurate understanding of the implications of scientific conclusions, then study philosophy. Otherwise continue to drown in a puddle thinking it’s an ocean.
It is somewhat frustrating that some of the loud evangelical atheist voices online completely disregard this point. (Please note people are different. Not all atheists are the same, and there are many intelligent atheists who understand the point I’m making).
Take neuroscience as an example.
Neuroscience’s assumption is that neurobiological events are in some way the same as subjective conscious experience. This assumption cannot be demonstrated scientifically. Philosophical enquiry is required to demonstrate the coherence and validity of such an assumption. Nothing neural could justify that assumption because neuroscience requires it as a starting point to make sense of subjective consciousness. Professor Raymond Tallis (who is an atheist) discusses this point from the perspective of neuroscience:
“If we could obtain a complete record of all neural activity, and we were able to see the firing state of every individual neuron, would this advance our understanding in the slightest?… For this to be the case, one thing at least would necessary: we would have to be sure that neural activity we observed was in some strict sense identical with consciousness… we need to move on from the technical limits and methodological muddles of scan-based cognitive neuroscience to the conceptual, indeed philosophical, problems neuromania ignores.”
Hence, neuroscience cannot fully explain subjective consciousness because it stops at neural activity which is based on the assumption that neural activity is identical to subjective experience. However, as discussed above, this clearly moves away from observation to philosophical reasoning. Philosophers of mind, Riccardo Manzotti and Paolo Moderato, summarise this point:
“There is a big difference between the experimental validity of neuroscientific research as such and the unwarranted mental ontology it conveys.”
(Final note: I do appreciate everyone is on an intellectual and spiritual journey, including myself. So no hating, and let us all display tolerance and humility 🙂😉)
 Tallis, Raymond, Aping Mankind: Neuromania, Darwinitis and the Misrepresentation of Humanity. (New York: Routledge, 2014), p. 84.
 Manzotti, Riccardo, and Moderato, Paolo. “Is Neuroscience Adequate as the Forthcoming “Mindscience”?” Behavior and Philosophy 38 (2010):
 Image: https://neurosciencenews.com/consciousness-vibration-10217/: Image Link