Now I have Frank and Amos and Susan I need to reply to.... mercy! (not Rig...he is just being silly)

Frank: yes...sure, I am so VERY much aware of religion & well-meaning 'religious folk' being part of a pervasive set of problems. This comes directly from the logical/philosophic principle that from false premises, anything follows. This means that IF a religious belief, no matter how sincere, is based on incorrect information, it is possible to derive any sort of conclusions and support any sort of behavior. This is WHY we get much 'good' done in the name of religion, as well as much silliness and just plain evil. You make a good point that basically good people will channel their religious beliefs into basic goodness....and we see every day what basically bad or confused or disturbed people will do.
   But... I also understand why religion came about and why it persists in the world. Just 200-300 years ago, almost everyone still attributed supernatural origins to what they saw... (insert 12 paragraphs of explication here)

------------------------------------------------------------
Amos is sorta easy: "..There are many narratives of consciousness being able to take over inanimate forms or at least permeate them with perception."

Yes indeed...but narratives are easy. *I* can make up a narrative..(you wouldn't believe me...but....)
Even when a narrative comes from someone totally honest & sincere, there are always alternative explanations for the belief/experience/memory.
What sort of explanations? Ummm...scientific ones.


That means answering Susan/WSY IS harder and more convoluted.
I may indeed have to contemplate my answer, Susan...at least the long form. The short form is that 'science' means the 'scientific method'...and there are reams of stuff written on that, and more cogently than I might do it.
   Those who 'practice' science are like practitioners of any field...they can do it well, with a full understanding of its principles, or poorly- inserting personal, subjective interpretations of data. It isn't easy, or we'd not have quite so many disputes.

"At the moment, or necessarily so?" .... ummm...both, I'd say. If, by definition, religious, spiritual, psychic and various superstitions are not subject to any known scientific test, they must remain in the realm of conjecture and..... well...narrative. (yeah, I know...some think it may be possible someday to 'measure' certain psychic stuff....but....)

And, the hardest part of all, Susan, is explaining about "...and is that statement a fact you are reporting, or an opinion, and if so, whose?"....

Some aspects of it are very like math & logic, in that it IS possible to determine the internal consistency of claims and to show whether or not basic scientific method is being followed correctly.....but some formulations of what is said is quite personal and tainted with careless language. What IS totally 'opinion' is which basic premises one accepts. Humans are strange in that **they are ABLE to ignore, deny, and reject** any data or contrary opinions they decide doesn't fit their pre-concieved opinions!...(including logic & math! remember attempts to legislate that pi=3?) I can barely contain myself sometimes when someone smugly asserts. "well, it's true for ME!"...arrgghhh. This is a basic misunderstanding of just what *true* means; and unlike Humpty-Dumpty, words do NOT "...mean just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

I often refer to the fallacy of 'equivocation'...and various other "informal fallacies". It is well worth reading thru them.........


(see....I really don't have time to write a short answer)

ah, well......