Not that you are correct about your view on limitations of reductionism - but even if you were the answer is: because the alternative is magic. Thanks but no thanks.

That's an unconvincing response. The alternatives are not necessarily magic (it's terribly unclear what you mean by "magic" here, but I'm making some reasonable assumptions) -- but if they were, why would that be so terrible? You're certainly free to denounce whatever you want as "magic" -- but that doesn't tell me why it's bad.