No wonder you and he cannot get on the same page! You do not live in the same world!
IMHO, this irreconcilable divide originates from the strangely successful though tragic philosophic derailing perhaps starting with Descartes – namely, the view that a mechanistic universe can be decoupled from the mind, soul or spirit. The Newtonian paradigm was, after all, very successful for centuries in spurring scientific progress for the good of mankind.
But then came the twentieth century and along with it the discovery that Newton’s physics fail at the very large scale (Relativity) and the very small scale (Quantum Mechanics) simply because – tada – the observer is in fact part of the observation. Rest in Peace, Descartes.
For instance, space/time is relativistic and if a physicist is looking for a particle, that is what he will see. But if he is looking for a wave, that is what he will see (wave/particle duality.)
And more than this, Information Theory has shown that the Newtonian/Bacon reduction of causes to material and efficient cause can no longer hold. (Rosen) Formal cause and final cause are back on the table.
Therefore, whenever I am engaged in a debate (whether theology, math or science) with a materialist (atheist, agnostic or whatever) – I announce right up front that I will not yield control of the rules of engagement – and that includes the control of the dictionary – because “fact” “belief” “truth” “proof” "reality" and more are reduced by my correspondent's worldview.
Indeed, dearest sister in Christ! Ever since Francis Bacon, the scientific method has relentlessly been trying for complete "objectivity," which in practice has meant disqualifying all "subjective" perceptions. That is to say, to make science completely free of the "prejudices" of scientific observers. Which in practice meant dumping all of philosophy so as to clear the way for the Novum Organum of a new and improved scientific Weltanschauung which would be untainted by philosophical ideas and intellectual habits. In other words, perfectly "objective," perfectly empirical....
Oh, according to the Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary, that German word "Weltanschauung" translates as: "a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world especially from a specific standpoint." [Jeepers, subjectivity is invoked in the definition itself.]
The Newtonian revolution — which essentially describes the universe as a vast mechanism whose functions are totally independent of observers — seemed to make this expectation tenable. For quite a while. But then, as you point out, both Relativity and Quantum theory absolutely depend on the presence of observers. So perhaps reluctantly, scientists will come to realize that subjectivity per se cannot be separated from science in principle.
Indeed, on the most basic level, how could that be so? It is subjective minds who are doing the science. And human minds at that; so can we finally stop beefing about the so-called "anthropic principle," widely thought to "distort" scientific knowledge?
Whose scientific knowledge is this, after all?
And indeed, as a practical matter, it seems subjectivity and objectivity — though it appears to me they belong together, to work together — have never been so "fashionably" separated. As Wolfgang Smith points out in Cosmos and Transcendence, the so-called Newtonian reduction itself is already a commitment to a metaphysical (ergo "subjective") proposition, not a "physical" or "scientific" one. It is, to that extent, philosophy in disguise. And —
What we have collectively failed to grasp is that this purportedly scientific Weltanschauung is based, not upon the legitimate findings of science, but upon hidden psychological or a priori assumptions which turn out in the last analysis to be self-contradictory. In the name of physics civilization has succumbed to fantasy.As you note, the Newtonian reduction confines itself to only two of the four classical (Aristotelian) causes, the material and the efficient. But as the physical mathematician and theoretical biologist Robert Rosen well demonstrates (in Life Itself), it is impossible to speak of biological function (or the function of any complex system in nature) without reference to a final cause, executing (so to speak) its formal cause.
In short, all four causal categories are needed — as you say, "Formal cause and final cause are back on the table." And this is fascinating to me, for final cause in particular gives many scientists the heebie-jeebies these days. :^) It's one of the things that Francis Bacon thought he could dispense with, and still do science....
We live in such fascinating times, dearest sister! So much going on, all over the place, in so many different fields. There is tremendous ferment around so many questions.
Thank you so very much for your outstanding essay/post!
May God continue to bless America; may He continue to guide her by His Light and Grace.