This simple, one might almost say simple-minded, claim seems to lie at the heart of all of the "God doesn't exist" books that have appeared of late.
For example, as one reviewer puts it: "[Stenger] argues there is no credible evidence for 'out of body experiences.' "
Fine. But how would anyone know if someone had had an OBE? What would constitute "credible evidence"?
There are certainly any number of examples of patents being able to describe what was going on in the operating theatre whilst they were supposedly deeply unconscious. And this includes what the patients claimed to have SEEN, as well as what they heard.
So what Stenger really seems to be saying is that there is no evidence which he and people who think like him find credible.
Well, he's entitled to his OPINION, but why should other people accept HIS opinion over any other?
Because his opinion is based on scientific evidence, perhaps?
Again, fine. But who says that "scientific" evidence is the be all and end all?
Why, the people who regard "scientific" evidence as the only valid kind of evidence.
So all we actually have is a vacuous self justification:
Scientific evidence is the ONLY valid form of evidence because the people who believe it is the only valid form of evidence say so.
By that logic, surely:
Religious experience is a valid form of evidence because the people who believe that religious experience is a valid form of evidence say so.