Consciousness itself is dialectical. It is not at all surprising that aspects of consciousness which we identify as "religious" and aspects of consciousness that we identify as "scientific" have existed side-by-side throughout the history of our species, as means by which we observe, reflect, ponder, and investigate. Properly understood, these two impulses do not oppose each other, except to the extent that they goad each other on to explanations that are more-and-more adequate to the complexity of existence, as we experience it.

By way of analogy: a child, one day, takes a science class and begins to think of his mother as an assortment of amino acids, molecules and cells, not altogether different from the chemical soup that is his morning bowl of oatmeal. This new perspective stands alongside the perspective (frame of mind) in which mom is still "mom," to whom he is profoundly grateful, in a way he would not be if he were merely assessing the nature of her derivation from the elements of the periodic table. The one perspective does not preclude the other. The "religious impulse" can be described as that sense of "creaturely dependence" (Rudolph Otto) that can persist--as one lens through which reality is understood--within the mind of even the most astute and rigorous scientist.

These two impulses each can become dangerous, though, when they are artificially separated and put at odds with each other. When that happens, either from the "scientific" or the "religious" side, critical aspects of our full human reality become reduced, to fit into the confines of our preferred theory. So, for example, there are real dangers if the boy thinks that his perception of mom as molecules means he needs to discard his notion of mom as "mom," as being a mere illusion. So, too, if he refuses to recognize the ways in which she is chemical soup, out of fear of losing "mom," he forfeits the endless potential for exploration of the natural world which is opened up by that perspective. At the same time, he demonstrates a rigidity of thought, incapable of viewing phenomena through more than one exclusive paradigm or lens.

It is helpful to think about the idea of fairness in society as having meaning on two levels. The uppermost level is the one in which the old maxims hold true: "Work hard and you'll get ahead." "Persistence pays off." "The early bird gets the worm." The outcome of our actions in this upper level is relatively predictable--but only because there are consistent laws, rules, and principles, and steady enforcement of these, that ensure the connection between work and reward.

The lower level is where the machinery and infrastructure for the upper level resides. Here we find the foundation, joists, and floorboards for the activities that take place above. When these things are not in place, or are selectively in place only for certain people but not others, the traditional maxims do not hold true. Incentive to work, for example, is taken away, because experience shows that the fruit of my labor is likely to be taken by someone else. The carrots that society dangles to motivate people are not, apparently, dangled for me, but for people who already possess a critical mass of social capital, that then gives them access to a level playing field which they can assume (incorrectly) is equally accessible to everyone. 

True injustice is usually invisible to those who are not personally experiencing it themselves. To those privileged to partake of the level playing field, the only explanation available to account for those who are struggling is that they are not trying enough. It cannot be readily seen that the part of the floor these strugglers stand upon is one where the foundation, joists, and floorboards are out of place. The incentive to try hard is a luxury not available to those who are excluded, for any number of possible reasons, from the system that joins work with reward in a reasonable way. 

Being aware of these two levels, and the importance of the lower level, obligates us to do more than say, "Try harder." It obligates us to acknowledge and address a level of inequality more radical than what can be attributed to one's effort and motivation. It obligates us to acknowledge that society is capable of deeming certain people as unworthy of being considered as people at all.