This reminds me of the old Bill Cosby routine where his eight year old kid asks, "Why is there air?"
Simply demanding explanations is the argumentative equivalent of a kid's tantrums. Birds and insects flew long before we could offer a naturalistic explanation -- yet they flew. In fact, the flight of insects is still imperfectly understood, but scientists seldom invoke invisible hands holding things up.
Your position cannot be disproven, but it has a lame history. the argument denying the possibility of naturalistic explanations has been in retreat since the days of daVinci. There is not a single domain in science that was not once considered impenetrable. Not a single accomplishment that was not once declared impossible.
You can hold up brain function as the great fortress of the invisible, because brain science is really, really hard, but what will you do if it falls?
I will accept the fact with good grace.
My point was that Profs. Pinker and Dennett insist on materialist explanations for something that is immaterial. That is to say, they deal with the issue of brain function in its most reductionist form. And it is possible that reduction makes it impossible to come to terms with the problem of consciousness -- which is the very thing they purport to study. They haven't made much of a dent in my little "fortress of the invisible," which is consciousness, after all.
Maybe brain science is "really, really hard" because the fundamental assumption of current approaches to it is erroneous. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, as they say -- no matter how hard you try.