I do think that Old England is on a pretty decent path here, Wildo; the difference between you and him will end up being one of perspective.
Pure and simple, he will believe, and you will not, however he'll continue to look at God as an infusion into each natural phenomenon that can not be disproven. This is absolutely consistent with the natural explanation of said phenomenon, and a good challenge to anyone who wants a naturalistic explanation.
You can say "9.8 meters per second squared -- not just a good idea, it's the law." He can say, "God dictated that earth gravity in the absence of air resistance results in acceleration of 9.8 meters per second squared. You're right, not just a good idea, it's the law."
Ultimately, a few hundred years ago, you would be saying "HA! There are no evil spirits, as your religion dictates! Sickness comes from microorganisms!"
He would reply unruffled "Then the evil spirits were an allegory of sorts, and you mistakenly think you have disproven God's hand in sickness. God made microorganisms, and those make you sick -- that's the real story!"
So long as Old England is content that faith is an add-on to whatever is the current status of scientific knowledge, he is right: His faith offends nobody and does not impinge on science.
If, however, he insists that the world was created 6000 years ago in a seven-day period, etc. etc. etc., because certain books associated with faith say as much, then we have a problem. Faith impinges on science, because the man of faith claims to have the answer regardless of scientific inquiry.
You two may continue to do ideological battle, but so long as both point to empirical evidence and empirical explanations insofar as they are available, there is no practical distinction between Old England's search for God and your search for answers; he merely posits a universe that taken together has a spiritual fabric, whereas you posit one with no such fabric.
Ultimately the consciousness of the other cannot be discovered or proven except indirectly; in this sense nature itself becomes the "other" (although one is a part of it.)
I will definitely agree, however, that it is simplest to treat scientific inquiry as if one had no faith, to avoid the bias introduced by preexistent formulations of said faith.
PFnV