One of the first dichotomies each of us makes as an infant is probably that between mother and not-mother. Typically, we later generalise this to the organism / mechanism classification of things which we encounter in the universe. Being one of our first discernments, we naturally apply it to many unknown situations in an attempt to understand them, as we go through life.

Many people think of boats and ships as female entities. We swear at and cajole things like cars, computers and other machines when their actions do not correspond with our expectations, as if they were living beings. The earth itself is thought by many to be a living being: Gaia, although the opposite view was espoused by Douglas Adams in his Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy book series, in which he suggested the Earth was in fact a very complex computer created to solve the question "Why is '42' the answer to the question "What is the meaning of life, the universe and everything?"?"

So it is only to be expected that people will analogise the universe itself to person or to a machine, and here lies the simple dichotomy of religion and science.

There is of course more to each than just which metaphor to apply to the world. Each religion has a long complex history, and has associated ceremonies which give many people joy and understanding. Science with its offshoot of engineering, has given us the machines which are essential to our most modern civilisation.

The view I wish to promote here is that both are correct and true. This can be glimpsed in the aphorism that if God had meant man to fly, He would have given us the brains to devise machines in which to do it. So the universe (and indeed any entity) can be seen as both an organism and a mechanism. Choosing one point of view is an act of faith and in no way invalidates the other.

We may take as an example the main theories of twentieth century physics: namely Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Their axioms are totally contradictory. Relativity takes as its starting point that all measurements are relative but can be accurate. Quantum Mechanics assumes that measurements can be absolute but are always inaccurate. Each theory gave us great insight into many physical phenomena in our universe, yet they cannot both be correct at the same time. For a given physical situation, physicists use an act of faith to decide which theory to use. Maybe there is a greater 'Unified Theory' which encompasses both. Many people have tried to compose one (for example Sir Arthur Eddington), but all such theories so far have had lacunae, and there are phenomena in our universe to which they give the wrong answers.

There appears to be a similar dichotomy in our experience. Our understanding of anything new is always based on that which we have encountered before (hence our knowledge is relative) and our knowledge is incomplete as we have not made observations from the beginning of time (and hence our knowledge is inaccurate).

Such is life, the universe, and everthing.