All I am saying is that if something “seems to be true” or “seems to be real” it would be rational to suppose that it´s real/true, unless someone presents evidence to the contrary. This is what I understand by intuition.
If a religious experience seems to be real, it is fair to assume that it was real , unless someone provides evidence to the contrary
Your example (what I highlighted in bold), is making assumptions that everything you believe in “to be true, by default”.
That’s the opposite as to what people do in science.
In Natural Science, no new models (eg hypotheses) are ever considered “true by default”.
Any model - new model (hypothesis) or existing model (scientific theory) must be tested first, before it can be considered true. None of them are accepted by default.
A hypothesis would contain some “proposed” explanations to phenomena that a scientist is trying to explain, by attempting to answer at the very least 1st two questions below, like
- WHAT they are?
- HOW do they work?
- WHAT possible applications the phenomena may have?
- HOW would you make the applications work?
Not all phenomena have applications, so you would attempt to answer questions 3 and 4, ONLY WHEN they are applicable.
The explanations might also “proposed” mathematical proofs, like some equations, formulas, constants or metrics. That’s what proofs are, logical statements in the form of equations. Proofs are not evidence, leroy; they are parts of the “proposed” explanation.
The new model (hypothesis) should include some predictions, as standards or yardstick in which to test the hypothesis.
And lastly, the hypothesis would and should contain instructions as to how would one test all of the above (eg test the explanations, test the proofs and test the predictions). Such proposed testings are necessary to determine if it is true or false, and you would obtain the evidence through going out in the fields to find the evidence, or you would find the evidence in the test results of lab experiments.
In the lab experiments, for instance, the hypothesis should have instructions as to
- what equipments or devices you would need to carry out the experiments,
- and what test subjects would you in the experiments.
Once you have completed the formulation of the hypothesis, the next step in Scientific Method would be to carry out the actual testings and analyzing the evidence and data. The more evidence you have, the better you can make decisions about the hypothesis’ status.
These tests, observations and evidences needs to be repeatable, empirical and testable.
These tests should yield one of the following outcomes -
(A) ...evidence/observations that might demonstrate the model is true and probable;
(B) ...or the evidence/observations might demonstrate the model is false and improbable.
One way or the other, the evidence are required for testings any model, new or old. No models are considered true by default, without testings.
With religions, it required only “belief” and “faith” in the scriptures or teaching, to be true; no testings and no evidence are required.
Science and religions are not the same things. Religions don’t need to follow the requirements of natural science, which are -
- to be testable or falsifiable (Falsification),
- be tested (required in Scientific Method),
- and be subjected to scrutiny and analysis by independent scientists (Peer Review)
God, miracles and resurrection as narrated in the Bible, cannot be tested and don’t need to be testable, hence the needs for belief and faith to accept god, miracles and resurrection.
That’s the differences between religions and sciences.
)