On Brain Scans

Ok atheists, you think you've got the final nail for the coffin of Catholicism hidden in reading minds with brain scans. A core part of Catholic belief is the human soul, a metaphysical part of us that allows us to have intelligence past that of other animals. While watching an episode of Through the Wormhole, I realized there are a bunch of things that could be seen as arguments against the existence of the soul. Here, I'll address that.
I'll start in an unconventional way by conceding many things. First, you are correct. Your memories are hidden in the brain. They can be changed. Second, dreams are a pure part of us. The human brain controls and broadcasts images to our soul. Third, the soul does not see, hear, touch, taste, or smell. You're right. That's the brain.
So now let's show why these aren't sufficient disproofs of the soul.
On the memory statement. Memories can shape how we think and act. However, they do not change who we are. Memories on their own do not do anything. They are like pixels on a computer screen. They don't mean anything unless we assign meaning to them. That analogy applies perfectly to memories. Memories are like a storage of what we see and hear and detect with our senses. However, the soul is how we apply our identity to them. That's why some people would view one memory one way and another a different way. The soul is how we apply our knowledge and our experiences.
Now what if they were changed? When people suffer amnesia, they don't lose their identity. While a movie character probably isn't the best example, Jason Bourne is well known. Bourne wakes up with no knowledge of who he is or what he is. However, he still has a personality that exists separate from his memories. That example, and its real life counterparts, show why there is a metaphysical part of us that makes us intelligent. Our personality is not stored within the neurons in our brain. Our personality is a metaphysical part of our soul that is given to us by God.
On the dream statement. Dreams are an inherent part of us. Yes, that's true. By nobody knows what causes dreams. Why can we dream but not be conscious of how to change it? My theory is that the brain takes data from our everyday lives and from motor detection and creates a sort of movie with it. It's like a 4D movie. That's because the brain is the bond between the soul and the physical world. So when the brain takes stuff we've experienced and makes a dream out of it, the soul, our intelligence, still analyzes it via a separate part of us. That's why you can still think in your dreams. I had a dream once. I was on a date with someone I knew. I didn't like her when I was awake. As a result, I kept thinking, while trapped in the dream, that she wasn't my crush. You see, the dream shows us the disconnect between our brains and our soul. Our soul is what interprets and thinks and makes us different from others.
Now on the third statement. I'll define the soul here. The soul is a metaphysical part of each one of us that grants us intelligence and rationality. It also grants us an intuition. The brain is like a camera. it takes information and records it. However, it doesn't do anything to interpret it. Our soul, on the other hand, is like a computer processor. It lets us interpret what's going on. It lets us control our emotions. It lets us feel our emotions in a very vivid manner. The brain relays messages to the soul, and the soul analyzes it. The brain is what detects angry when someone wrongs us. The soul is what labels it as such. The soul is what puts things together to make sense of things.

Because the Bible Says So

This is a very, very common rationale behind many controversial subjects Christians support. However, while the Bible is true in a moral and allegorical sense, those who use it as their sole justification are just as wrong as those who don't believe.

I'll start the body of this article with a quote from Revelation 3:16: "But since you are like lukewarm water, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth!" Those who simply quote the Bible epitomize this. While the Bible is correct, we are called as Catholics to transcend petty arguments about quoting the Bible as the whole justification for a doctrine. Rather, it is important for us to understand and analyze why the Bible says what it does. By saying "the Bible says so" as our go to backup against arguments by those who do not believe, we fail to recognize our obligation to understand the Bible. While it is true that the Bible is infallible, and moral truths expressed in it are consistent with the will of God, that doesn't make it suitable as an argument to make. I am not saying it is an insufficient argument. Rather, I am saying that those who use it as their first go to justification have insufficient knowledge of their own faith. Those who merely quote the Bible, not knowing why the Bible says what it says, and not knowing God's reasoning for his morals, are lukewarm in their faith because they refuse to invest their time into it.

So to sum this post up, don't automatically quote the Bible when confronted about the Church's controversial teachings. Rather, find a reason why it is true via reflection and personal reasoning. By reaching the objective truth of the BIble through your own efforts, you know what the Bible means and can analyze it much better than if you merely memorize a few words about it. So, to all of you that believe the Bible is sufficient as an argument for controversial teachings, you are correct in that regard. However, you are wrong to think it is okay under God to simply memorize words and not understand their meaning as a Catholic.