As far as I and many scholars are concerned, magic is based on the imposition of Will (think thelema), science is the study of the resulting natural phenomena (Can you tell me for sure that the universe didn’t will itself into existence?).
Science cannot and will not broach the phenomenal, it concerns itself with pure materialism. Religion on the other hand as we know it today, comes from a collection of ancient philosophies known as the hermetic philosophy, the hermitics point to the divinity of the nous (or Mind) as elaborated by the presocratics. These concern themselves with spirituality and interconnection, they explore inner space and metaphysical space.
Now it is my duty as a philosopher to point out that science is fallible, and that there have been many incidents of book burning, namely Alexandria, where loads of ancient knowledge was lost. We don’t really know anything since the Roman Empire established Christianity and hoarded knowledge. Dig a little deeper and you will see that most of our knowledge today is given to us in very limited doses, and that science is nothing more than a form of proof worship, a dogmatic sect which has provided the relief that religion promises through a twisted form of deus ex machina, and only to those who worship the system enough (the Elite worker bees who earn enough).
What I mean is, don’t be so sure of scientific methods, they will never get us closer to understanding holistic truth, nor help us overcome the enormous rut we have dug for ourselves by blindly following the sociopolitical system thought up by the Greeks and implemented by the Romans for 2 millennia now.
One must see the connection between science and technology, they are reliant on each other, if we don’t focus our research and thinking on unknown principles then how will we develop the technology to measure them? Anaxagoras and the many presocratics imagined and believed through deduction that there were “seeds” of different elements that bound together to form our space and being, this idea remained doxastic until we eventually proved them right when the microscope was invented (they also believed a greater Mind held it all together-but oh no! we can’t discuss that objectively because it’s “theological” and doesn’t belong in science), but it was the belief that set the initial quest off. This brings us to the observation principle; any given process is altered when observed and measured (this caused wave functions to act as particles in an experiment called the dual slit), the alteration in results is speculated to have to do with the observers apriori beliefs (it could be possible that since we believed in atoms before we saw them, we just saw what we wanted when we peeked through that electron microscope and beheld a singularity).
It is important for any thinker or scientist to account for such possibilities, Philosophers and scientists like Dennet who are so quick to discard an idea or contingency due to its doxastic or mystical nature are no philosophers or scientists as far as I am concerned. They are failed scholars who crave acceptance and are partly responsible for holding humanity’s spiritual and moral progress in check.
After all many technological advancements were made based off fantasy and imagination-Startrek and Motorola for example, isn’t it magical that we do that? We bring things forth from inner space to outer space, wouldn’t it be a shame not to explore phenomenal space because philosophers and scientists today are in “all hail matter” mode to an extent I called dogmatic and bordering on the sectarian?