I have always respected the Science Philosophy of Peter Atkins, a well known UK science supporter. In an interview he attempted to answer that old perennial question

You have said previously that science can explain everything and has no limits. Is this more than just a figure of speech?

His answer was

"Let me clarify slightly. By science I mean the scientific method. I see no bounds to the scientific method. That is: going out doing controlled experiments, setting them into a network of grand ideas and then leading to a broader understanding and the revision of ideas, a progression towards full understanding.

I see no reason why that approach cannot be applied throughout human experience. And I can see no valid argument against it. Arguments which are called invalid are normally those to do with human sentiment and I see no reason why the scientific method cannot be applied to understanding the origin of human sentiment. Of course, in the end, it all comes down to asking the two principle questions which have to be confronted, to be validated.
The first being, “ can it explain the origin of everything out of nothing?”, and the second, “ can it explain consciousness or the attributes of consciousness?”