In my view, there is a mutual dialogue between the natural and the supernatural. There is a complementary interplay between what we see to be true and what we justify through our subjective existential experiences. When we understand the world through the natural means but ignore the supernatural we alienate the philosophical aspect of our existence. When we operate only on our beliefs in the supernatural we alienate physically demonstrable reality.
When tracing humans origins through history there is clearly a spiritual side to our experiences. Religion, in my view, is the formalizing of spiritual claims into rules and principles which can be shared among a community of like believers. No matter what culture you look at, there is a tradition of religion. Our earliest artistic artifacts are sculptures of deities such as The Venus of Willendorf. These indicate religious beliefs were fundamental to early man’s reality. Long before we understood how atmospheric changes in pressure affect the wind we attributed the natural cause of tornadoes and hurricanes to the gods. There were gods for nearly everything, from lightning to the sun. We needed a reason for natural occurrences and human intentions.
In a day and age where we attempt to find the rules and principles for everything, it becomes apparent we need religion more than ever. Mankind has sought reason through their history, and reason is not synonymous but complimentary to science. Science gives us an understanding of mechanisms and objects. It shows us: what things are, how things work, and possibly why things work. However, you cannot establish a purpose from science. There is no teleology in evolution, only mechanistic change. The Big Bang does not tell us what we should do. There is no foundation for ethics in science. “You cannot get an ought from an is”, to quote Hume. Finally, there is no claim to absolute truth in science, only evidence for or against. However, we must have ethical systems; we must have epistemological foundations; most of all, we must have purpose. Our very consciousness cries out for these things. If there is no formal religion, all spiritual claims are equal: meaningless. They are subjective and cannot impose authority on anyone’s actions. If this is true, then might is right because there is no restraint of purpose and a battle of the wills must be the conclusion to antithetical beliefs.
The Anthropic principle is one of the most motivational arguments in my mind for pursuing interplay between what we can observe through our senses and what we can contemplate through concepts. The majesty of this argument shows that we are here by an infinitesimally small chance and due to an extraordinary amount of fine-tuning. This gives one who understands the gravity (constant principle) of our unique existence a sense of awe and wonder; an inclination to spirituality. If looking to the heavens and realizing we are a speck of a planet in the speck of a solar system which is a speck in the universe, does not bring about a feeling of something inexplicably supernatural, then your life needs some perspective. There is no naturalistic explanation for this awe though it is the natural that leads us to the conclusion.
Kant defined the beautiful object as: a natural or artificial thing that sets the reproductive imagination to play by seeking the rule or rules by which it came into being. The beautiful is a constant pursue for the aesthete. We seek it passionately in many different forms, constantly compelled to find the structure and cause of each object. It is beauty that drives scientists and theologians alike, though through different means. This pathological attribute of the human experience drives us to understand existence.
There are things beyond beauty though. By Kantian aesthetics, the sublime object is always natural, terrifying, and cannot be bound by rules because it posits the infinite, which is beyond the understanding. When we observe the Grand Canyon or a star system through the Hubble telescope we are humbled by realizing something that sets our minds wild because we cannot truly grasp the rules by which it exists. We are humbled by the sublimity. This experience calls us intuitively to try to achieve something sublime and inferences our beliefs in thing we cannot answer. Within our minds are contained questions beyond what we know or what can understand. Does God exist? Are we immortal? Is infinity abstract or real? Is there absolute free will?
After presenting reasons for the necessity of both the natural and supernatural when understanding the reality in which we exist, I would like to show some consequences of this assumption. First, we should all strive to understand both realities in a context which is both fulfilling and challenges us to study these aspects more.. We do not understand reality in whole, but in part which can lead to incorrect conclusions. It is intellectually deceitful to oneself to only pursue understanding in one of these realms.
Second, our sense of beauty and the sublime compels us to pursue both a spiritual life and a natural life. If we do not, then we are like blind women in a garden. We can engage in the senses of smell and of touch, but the visual beauty is beyond our reach. The reward of being an aesthete leads to a gratification of our intimately human desires.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Willendorf
http://www.rowan.edu/open/philosop/clowney/aesthetics/philos_artists_onart/kant.htm
http://www.reasons.org/articles/anthropic-principle-a-precise-plan-for-humanity

My assumption is that: the supernatural exists as an important part of our reality.
Consequences: We should all pursue an objective truth diligently through both mediums. A sense of the beautiful and of the sublime should compel us to believe in higher things.