Thanks for the work out. The difference in the way we look at things is great.
First. I just don't see the relationship between provability and following a religion. I would venture to say that ALL (or nearly all) the important decisions we are obliged to make are made with insufficient data and knowledge. I can't prove my wife loves me. Sometimes I'm not sure I love her! But we are maried (these 29 years) and we stay married.
I can't prove I'm right when I resist the person attacking me with a club (this happened recently) and I can't prove I'm wrong to resist. I say my prayers (really quickly), make my best guess, and draw my pistol.
The question about being right or wrong was an effort to find your first principles, your axiomata or postulates. Some people say there IS no right or wrong. Others say there are right and wrong but they are unknowable. Ohers that they are knowable, but only through revelation. Others that they are knowable through careful thought. (And, no doubt, others say yet other things.)
I myself think that some matters are knowable generally (to humans who seek knowledge and who are of decent mental capacity and maturity, NOT to all humans) while other important matters are knowable only through revelation. It follows that I think some important matters are not provable in a secular sense. Consequently, to insist on secular provability is, in my view, to err and to err importantly.
For example, I think that in a polygamous marriage, husband, wives, and children are all going to have more difficulty being otherwise good and happy that they would if, to the extent possible ceteris paribus, they were in a monogamous household and/or some of the women involved were single and chaste. Whether the excellence of monogamy compared to polygamy is provable or not, the consequences will still be, um, consequent. So some decisions may matter gravely and affect innocent and otherwise uninvolved people. Standing by and waiting for iron-clad proofs MAY be a serious moral error with serious consequences.
Also, when you say you accept things as they are, again I don't see the relevance and I question the accuracy. Are you suggesting people who follow a religion do NOT accept things as they are? Is THAT provable? ;) Maybe they're the only ones who are close to perceiving things as they truly are. And again, unless you mean "I accept things as they SEEM to me," I don't understand. Who KNOWS or sees "... things as they are"? I think only God does -- not me, that's fer shur!
You're right, I should start saying that I accept things as they seem to be to me. I'll try and remember this. I always thought that when I say that this is what I believe, it meant the same as seems.
The way it seems to me, is that people are born...some good, some bad, with varying degrees of both or either. I have no idea why.
With reference to religion, I don't see how you can say that people accept things as they are. For some examples; how can Muslims believe that God wants them to kill for Him? That is just something written in a book, is this as things are. Or how can Christians believe in resurrection? Coming back from the dead is not as things are.
But then again, it seems to me that this is the way God wants it, or it would be different.