It gives be a basis for my life, interactions with other, and justification for a value of how I treat others instead of being selfish.

From my own experiences I would have to say that it is not a choice of HOW we choose, but a matter of WHY do we stay or move away from any belief?

As a child, you have no choice on the belief.  It is what your parents have chosen.  Look at the parents in any religion and see what they are telling their children is the correct belief.  The children are indoctrinated into the parent's belief system. 

It is only as they get to become teenagers and the reasoning part of the brain starts to work that they question a belief.  Even though the reasoning area of the brain doesn't develop fully until one is in their twenties, you are able to discern right from wrong. 

It is when the belief system does not "work" with a person's morals that the problem develops.  There is an internal questioning of why does the belief teach this and how it is in conflict with an actual situation in a person's life.  Then one tries to find an answer for that situation in the belief.  A lot of times the answer in the belief does not allow for the situation to continue.  There are generally harsh actions that are required, a turning away from another person, which then causes a loss of "faith" in the belief when it is shown not to be what everyone in your life has said it would be. 

At this point the person makes one of two choices: 1. Looks for other belief systems that would answer the situation in a more "Moral" manner, 2. Stays with the belief system out of fear of reprisal, or the embarrassment that could be caused by other close members of the belief system.

Ok, back on track .

Is the story believable? 

I can agree with some of your examples : Is this fisherman credible? Does the fisherman's story follow logically?

Does the story comply with the laws of physics?
Not necessary - Example, pick up a basket ball, then through at the hoop.  It goes in, misses, bounces off, slightly off center.  The laws of physics certainly come into play, but how does the law of physics prove that a small child can accomplish this feat with no knowledge of the  mathematical calculations necessary, let alone the interaction between the senses and the muscles that occurs naturally?


Is the story repeatable and testable?The circumstances and conditions have all changed, let alone that the fish probably moved elsewhere for a while.

Do we feel empathy toward the person? 

Is there a desire to find a partnering with the person over the actual factual basis of the story?

Do we look at the story as unbelievable, but accept it as we have stories that others would find unbelievable but they are true for us?

In the realm of probability is it possible to have happen, even if the majority of probability is against it.

Does the person refer a story that binds into our cultural belief system and therefore sounds logical?

Maybe I am misunderstanding, but I thought the question was in regard to belief, not scientific proof.

Wikipedia - Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.

In answering your question in reference to the belief standard then your contentions about trying to be scientific and provable would not necessarily apply. Why they may "prove or disprove" the scenario, they do not impede or compliment a belief situation.

The belief of truth is the psychological state of the person hearing the story and how they think that it fits into their reasoning.

Here is the rub. 

When you define a justifiable belief, then one must be able to "prove" that it actually happened or can happen  by duplication.

Belief as also was noted by philosophers is a vague and oblivious subject matter. The justified true belief theory of knowledge suffered a significant setback with the discovery of Gettier problems, situations in which the above conditions were met but that many philosophers disagree that anything is known.

Another part of belief deals with faith as wikipedia states: Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing

My answers are in line with faith.  Ex. We assume a justifiable belief that every day, the earth rotates around the sun and we have a cycle of day and night. Has been, will be. Provable scientifically and rationally. We can reasonable predict how much longer that the sun will burn and we will rotate and therefore we have a solid basis of belief.  Yet, this belief excludes the scientific fact that people die. One does not know with infallible accuracy the moment of their death. We plan our whole lives around the belief that we will get up each morning and in the later years we worry about when we will expire. Yet, at any moment you can die.  But you believe that won't, when someone worries, you tell them not to worry, I'll be here tomorrow. Can you prove that beyond a shadow of doubt.  No. 

Without the irrational belief that humans will be alive the next day society would logically become stagnate. Fear that the next breath could be your last, or the person next to you or a colleague would deter advancement.  But we go on and develop as a race and society.  It is the belief that humans will survive and persevere.   It is based on both a rational expectation of the life cycle of humans and the faith that our death is not imminent.

Your scenario on the fisherman can be looked at by both thoughts and come up with two different answers based on which end result you really want.  Scientifically, it would probably not happen.  Faith wise, it allows an emotion that may fill a need to persevere or become more tolerant. 

So, do you worry about each breath or atmospheric condition of each room or outside conditions, or do you continue with your studies, develop your theories, and pursue enlightenment for humanity with an expectation of being around for a while? 

Faith based beliefs = ego.

You are correct that the majority of things that we do not know we don't hold a belief in it.  There are exceptions.  I would venture to submit scientific theories as part of those exceptions. 

Until we know everything about any item, then we have a "belief" that it is correct, when somewhere in the future it may fail and which case it would then be an incorrect theorem. 

Such as your doctor example, your assumption is correct, yet because it falls into that realm of having a possibility of failure at an unknown or unexpected time, then it with "faith" that we accept the doctor's conclusion of continuance of life.

Faith base thoughts are because as a species we think that we are more special, more advanced, more aware of our environment then other life forms. Which then lends us to the path that as such  a special species, surely we would not be held to the same standards of life and death as the other life forms that inhabit the earth.  Mind you that we have been unable to break any of the language codes of the other animals, cannot relate if they have the same rationalizing ability in a different manner, or if they have a "faith" in an afterlife. They can "sense" somehow disasters before they happen, forge for food without mechanical means, form societies of different genders, different subspecies and even communicate with each other no matter where the other animal was located before the meeting of the two.  Yet we think that they are lower intelligence because "we cannot learn, discern or comprehend" what they do. 

Why would we look at death as the end? We interpret stories, examples, writings, sayings into a justification that we will not suffer the ordinary status of "dead":.

Maybe the answer is just another question such as this one which came from a Kabballic website: You've got to ask yourself, "What am I in it for?"
Is it Relationships, business ventures, spiritual practices, making new connections; what are your intentions?
Or is it to grow and help people as part of the process?

Most faith based beliefs have an agenda and they cannot accept another's as being valid. They all have to prove that their's in the only "correct" way.  But the proof is only known when one dies. Too late to verify which is true.  So far, we have not been able to resuscitate everyone after death to verify what there is after that die.  Their intention is to help people grow as part of the process, but with a caveat that the person accepts only their viewpoint as being valid.

Judaism doesn't accept other religion's teaching as being a part of theirs, Christians accept Judaism and their teachings up to the point where it conflicts with the New Testament, Mormons accepts both but holds that the Christians have corrupted Christianity and they have the real scoop on how to interpret, then we have the Muslims who acknowledge both Judaism and Christianity but changes them into a less important interpretation then Mohammed's. 

As people all these religions can agree on scientific proof and "laws".  It is the agenda of the religion that becomes the "justification factor" for outside  acceptance of circumstances and ideas not able to be justifiable proven.