And what do you concider to be material? Does this mean you don't consider things commonly referred to as immaterial, angels/deamons, as being a reality; or do you believe them to have a material cause?
There are two answers.
If you take matter
seriously, then I think you find that its connotations are bit more broad than the silly notions we typical use to discuss it. I would suggest researching its etymology. In this case, I think you can man an argument for a Christian materialism, but I don't think it would be worth effort and arguably an exercise in a bit a sophistry as I don't think it do much more than perhaps jar some out of the prejudice people have against matter
I was primarily referring here to realm of what the "neuroscientists" claim to study, something like the "mind". In that case, I don't think an amaterial account for the mind is necessary to properly critique what they are doing. I think one can remain quite much within the material world so to speak and deal with the hifalutin charlatans well.
This isn't to say they don't have their proper field of study, they do. After all if you take a hammer to my noggin, good bye mind. On a good day I lose it for about eight hours. If these "neuroscientists" want to study such phenomena that is one thing, the problem I have is when we start extrapolating from measurements something like phenomenon of the subject. But that is not to say I think the subject is necessarily amaterial, supermaterial, etc. I just think it is radically irreducible for a number reasons (demonstrations) and that is to say transcendent. So if put into a corner and asked: "Hey orthonorm, where do you stand on the question of the mind in two words?" I would say I am a transcendental materialist and bite my tongue really hard and ask the machine how I was really feeling.