You seem to suppose that mathematical calculation is the only language that allows for “objective” statements - that is, the statements of facts rather than of subjective preferences. This is, certainly, a widespread assumption; however, it was never proven to be universally true.
I understand that you speak out of your experience. But experiences may be very diverse. For instance, I belong to a tiny Protestant Christian minority in a predominantly secular country. Being a Protestant Christian is anything but a conformity to standard opinions here.
I’m not imposing my premise on anybody. My starting point is the Christian Gospel as I claim that Jesus’s bold self-humiliation and self-sacrifice are the correct image of divine action that creates and sustains the entire world; this understanding of creation as kenosis corresponds quite well with what is known about the world. But it goes without saying that a proponent of any other worldview is also free to attempt demonstrating a congruence between the common knowledge about the world and their foundational scriptures.
Here you seem to equate “thinking of nature” with “scientific investigation” (God is certainly not a factor in the latter!)
But scientific investigation is something more specific: it is to make hypotheses on how some observable phenomena are related to some other existing things or processes and to check these hypotheses empirically.
Thinking about interconnections in nature is not everything that would always interest human beings. E.g., there is a question of the world’s origin. It is beyond the scope of any science - but not beyond the scope of rational thinking (in the broadest possible sense, the world as a whole is an aggregate of everything that exist; any cause or condition cited by a scientific explanation must exist; in other words, sciences explore the connections between the elements of this “aggregate” but not the origin of the latter).
In short, there is a legitimate place for a certain metaphysics in between sciences and religion. This intermediary allows for a meaningful natural theology; whereas, without the former, sciences and religion lack a language that the both sides would comprehend.