(284) "Only 1%" accept the validity of subjective experience as well as obective facts

Circa 11: a.m. on January 12th 2017 I was doing some cleaning and had on in the background this podcast of Sam Harris ́:
https://soundcloud.com/samharrisorg/60-an-evening-with-richard-dawkins-and-sam-harris-2
It had arrived by e mail ten hours earlier and this was the first time I heard it. Here is the Youtube version - An Evening with Richard Dawkins – Featuring Sam Harris – Night 2 - YouTube

I was thinking about my six previously cited reasons for accepting the existence of some Deity.
Those are -
a) My over forty very brief experiences of a compassion way beyond normal consciousness and which could only be described as Divine.
b) That others report such experiences of the Divine.
c) The coincidences recorded here.
d) The faults with neo-Darwinism.
e) The philosophical argument from design.
f) The very existence of the ́Occult Classics ́.

I would also now add

g) The aesthetic sense in Man.

To each of my six points instance there are, of course, counter arguments.

Sceptics might argue:-

a) There is only my testimony to have experienced the Divine.
b) There is only the testimony of those others who claim to have experienced it too.
c) Coincidence need not necessarily point to anythng beyond itself.
d) Lack of authentic evidence for neo-Darwinian theory does not demand acceptance of a Deity. Strident anti-Darwinists such as Dr James le Fanu and Richard Milton have no religious beliefs.
e) Those who detect design in Nature that they attribute to a Higher Power speak only for themselves.
f) And claims re an ́outpouring of Esoteric truth ́ in books which began in the late 19th century with Blavatsky have yet to be independently corroborated. Some people simply like drawing attention to themselves. Plus a lot of the writings of Blavatsky, Bailey, Besant, Rudolf Steiner, etc is largely repetitive verbiage.

Point a) was overwhelmingly the most important one.

Impossible for the experiencer to doubt some Divine component to reality after even one such experience. I promoted it in my mental reckoning from 80% significance to a full 90%.
Point (c) I demoted from a significance of 10% to now only 5%.
Point (d), however, I, continued with an allocation of just 1%. It may at best be called "indirect evidence", since critics of neo-Darwinism like Richard Milton and Dr James le Fanu harbour no belief in a Deity.

I found myself thinking on how, in any exposition of why I accepted God's existence, the importance of the faults with neo-Darwinian theory were only 1%.
Within four seconds of my thinking that I heard what Harris, when in conversation with perhaps the world's leading neo-Darwinist, says at 17:17 of the podcast.

"Just imagine what it would be like if only 1% had dreams at night"
That caught my attention so I listened more keenly to the few minutes before and after that.
Circa 14:05 he and Dawkins agree that personal and introspective experience may be of value scientifically. Harris expounds on how he has been trying to do away with the distinction between outer ́canonical ́fact and subjective experience. For him, each is valuable.