The First Cause? Prime Mover Argument

[Hatshepsut]

I would have to accept any conclusions that Physics has on the subject on a certain level of faith.

I'm not sure the conclusions are taken on faith. Certain premises are, however:
1) Nature is lawful and its laws can be precisely described by mathematics
2) Physical laws are the same everywhere in the universe and at all times throughout its history
3) Principles of parsimony and symmetry inform the best theoretical systems
4) Truth is established by a cycle of hypothesis, experiment or observation, and peer review

and so on. Other sciences like biology or sociology also start from these premises but may relax the math in (1). I think these premises constitute a belief system, carefully noting that a belief system doesn't have to be a religious or political ideology, or an all-inclusive absolute, even though humans have a tendency to package eclectic sets of beliefs into "platforms" to make jumping on the bandwagon easier. We also have a popular scientific narrative, where the universe begins in the big bang, galaxies, stars, and planets condense, life arises and evolves its way up to a pinnacle of intelligence in Homo sapiens. This narrative is taught beginning in 2nd grade in most schools as fact or history, omitting the philosophical complications and uncertainty that children aren't mature enough to grasp.

Such as that special qualifications, authority, and peer review can lead to orthodoxy and groupthink. The Curia is a peer review system for Roman Catholic doctrine, after all, and arrests in Stalin's great purges were all peer-reviewed and approved by NKVD committees. Thomas Kuhn explained it for scientific paradigms in his Nature of Scientific Revolutions.

But some things, like Apatosaur fossils in Utah that are clearly skeletons of ancient critters which have turned to stone, really are facts. So are the line spectrum of hydrogen and the cosmic microwave radio background hiss. Modern science has done a better job of accounting for these facts, and can predict them from theory sometimes, as with Gamow's big bang and the microwaves. There's no way I could recommend abandoning the scientific project just because I might be "agnostic" concerning some of its basic premises. I like my better living through chemistry too much.  

I would also contest that physics or mathematics gives us a truthful picture of "things in themselves" as opposed to a mere model....The scientific world-view has...the assumption that...correlation can establish causation.

So, we should never think of electrons as "real." Instead, we say the electron concept successfully explains electricity and chemical reactions. Prudent.

But scientists don't assume correlation establishes causation. Even social workers know better. A cause will produce a correlation, but not the other way around.