>” I can't believe you're arguing that people shouldn't need facts to back up their statements.”

I never said people shouldn’t need facts to back up their statements. I am trying to say that there are other ways to make assertions without having to cite peer reviewed studies.

And, that when people get stuck in a mindset of dismissing any idea that doesn’t have a citation to justify it, when subjects come up that aren’t easily studied empirically you end up with a blind spot. In my example the blind spot was infant pain. In my mind, any rational person would look at a crying baby and come to the conclusion that the little baby feels pain. But, if you demanded I bring a fact to back that assertion up, for the longest time I couldn’t provide you with one.

Yet again, your complaint about people asking for citations for doubtful claims doesn't seem to have any relation to secularism or its lack thereof. You might want to reconsider whether you are forcefully bringing religion into things where it doesn't belong just to make an argument against secularism for the sake of it.

Intuition can be secular. It is possible to conclude that the crying baby is feeling pain, or make many other types of hypotheses, without providing citations or using a religious framework.

That isn't intuition. That's a learned response.

I thought learned responses were tied to some form of conditioning.

https://dictionary.apa.org/learned-response

Anyway, my point is that a religious framework isn't needed to have a gut feeling about something.

Yes, which isn't intuition. Intuition is when you have a correct feeling about something even though you have no knowledge of the situation.

That's too strict of a definition, in my opinion, and I don't understand how conditioning is related to the crying baby example. Intuition can produce incorrect judgments and doesn't need the person to be clueless. Here's a dictionary definition:

> (knowledge from) an ability to understand or know something immediately based on your feelings rather than facts

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/intui...

No, it really isn't, not unless you have alternative definitions for "understand" or "know."

It's trivial to find examples of intuition being incorrect. The APA has a cover story on this:

https://www.apa.org/monitor/mar05/misfires

I view the emphasis on the scientific method and empiricism as the legitimate means of determining truth to be a major component of secular values. And for what it’s worth it’s a really valuable mindset for most real world phenomena, but not all.

I know plenty of religious people also like the scientific method and empiricism, but probably only as much as where it won’t conflict with their beliefs. I’m sure a pious doctor would easily dismiss a paper refuting the efficacy of prayer. So to me, at least, this kind of scientific worldview is not really a feature of religious thinking, but the two can coexist up to a point.