No, there is a difference between experience, perception and proven facts.
Perception depends on subjective interpretation. Interpretations are subjective to a certain point. Once they are proven and can only be challenged by proving alternative intepretations they are not subjective anymore, they become what we like to call facts or scientific theories.

When you see something you see something, may it be true or false. You know there is something that has some sort of cause.
If you prove the existance of something through various experiments it is anything but subjective. It is a proven fact or scientific theory and can be used to invent new stuff such as spacshuttles, which certainly do exist.

Irrational beliefs, however, can considered subjective because they depend on interpretation and personal opinion. That applies to both science and religion.
To clarify this: Evolution is a fact. Natural selection is a theory. They both are considered proven (not too sure about natural selection, but evolution definitely is proven).
1 dimensional strings and higher dimensions are no facts, they may exist but we do not know. Superstringtheory would require to prove the existance of both to be considered. Therefore believing in the existance of either of them, at this point, is irrational.

No, a brain can interpret experiences and is capable of comparing them with various information, which is why we educate ourselves. And there is a thing called logic which we use to analyse and interpret things so that they make sense.
Science is very much based on that logic and whenever we prove an alternative interpretation of something to be correct and therefore disprove a previous interpretation we learned something and benefit from it. That leads to scientific progress and new amazing things like TVs and cars etc.
The existance of technology like that proves that the brain is very much capable of perceiving the true nature of our environment.
I'd say every sane brain that has access to the respective organs required to perceive certain information from the environment can recognize the existance of many physical laws, they are not subjective but universal (as far as we know). If you mean something else, like people are borg etc. then I have to agree, we are individual beings that depend on verbal exchange of informataion.

Which is why no scientific theory ever goes without critic.
A good scientist will be perfectly willing to accept when his theory has been proven to be incorrect through various experiments.
For example, they have just proven that the theory of relativity might be incorrect because they have discovered electrons that travel faster than the speed of light (I am a layman so I can't say much about that, feel free to correct me on this one, but my point stands).
Making mistakes is essential to find the truth because through mistakes we learn. There is no such thing as a transcendental universal truth. There are only physical laws, time and matter which interact with each other and we need to determine them in order to comprehend them. Once we comprehend something it is considered a fact or proven theory and we move on to determine something else.

Can't ignore sociology because unlike science (talking about science and research only, not philosophies or anything) religion is a social thing.
But I am willing to leave it out of this discussion because it is hardly interesting at this point anyway.


You need to define your beliefs more precisely.
I think you are willing to acknowledge that the bible has loads of flaws.




Edit: I am argueing from an ignostic point of view, by the way.
-----
cn i jion pls