Perhaps this article should have a subtitle;
Ways to see the works of the creator: Microcosmic vs Macrocosmic views.
The materialist accepts the assertions of learned men in white coats that certain propositions must be true due to a preponderance of evidence.
The religious accepts the assertions of learned men in black coats that certain propositions must be true due to their source.
In most cases neither individual has the faintest, foggiest idea of the accuracy of the data they are being asked to accept, and do so purely because the source is acceptable to them.
The rationalist is inclined to mock any explanation that involves anything that cannot be demonstrated under controlled conditions, labeling any deviation as 'magickal thinking' or worse.
Yet medical testing has to take sympathetic magick into account when deriving results. When a drug is under clinical trial, a significant minority of those receiving the placebo will report improvement or alleviation of symptoms.
These results must be taken into account to assess the effectiveness of the drug, and the side effects.
This is referred to by researchers as the 'Placebo effect'.
It is classic sympathetic magick, and the basis of much Shamanic healing.
The Religionist is inclined to denigrate any explanation that contradicts the tenets of his or her particular belief structure. If all else fails, there is a distressing tendency for them to perform the equivalent of sticking fingers in their ears and singing "La la la la" to themselves.
The history of science, however, is littered with errors, foolishness, persecution and stupidity no less egregious that that of religion, and its followers are no less blind in their beliefs.
Admittedly the Church did persecute scientists a few centuries ago, and the lesson appears to have been learned well, as Science now persecutes it's own.
One wonders if Wegener, for instance, felt relieved that his career was destroyed by empiricists.
A common phrase heard from the scientific true believers is that "you cannot make anything from nothing".
This not, however, necessarily true: a cursory understanding of pure mathematics leads to the proposition that a combination of a positive quantity and a negative quantity of the same nature and mass will equal nothing.
It is thus possible by analysis to extract something from nothing.
Every scientific fact is really just a proposition supported by a quantity of evidence.
Often the interpretation of that evidence is made by individuals who have allowed themselves to become influenced by a desired result, and inadvertently to misinterpret the evidence.
Often a new discovery will result in the need to re-evaluate the evidence, and change the result completely.
Both science and religion are attempts by men and women to explain the works of the creator to themselves.
there is thus a need, even a requirement for both so that in time we as a species may begin to comprehend the diversity of creation.