Was it me, or did Stenger state that 1) we can actually have data on God, and 2) assumptions drawn from such data amounts to scientific evidence against God?
Yeah, I believe he thinks that, along with Dawkins.
FWIW, although some philosophers will scorn such opinions, I don’t entirely see why. Of course, such data and evidence don’t amount to logical proof, but then they never do in the sciences anyhow.
One example: if our biological body plans were perfectly tailored to our environments, that would be some indirect evidence for a superintelligent creator. But the manifest kludge-job that we are physically is, I think, decent indirect evidence against our having been created by such a God.
One can mount any number of such arguments, relying on data from the sciences.
Again, they are not strictly probative, in the sense of providing logical proofs, but then neither is our belief that the earth goes around the sun. And philosophers have no problem claiming we know that from scientific data. So I think those who tend to scorn the kind of approach that Stenger and Dawkins go for are protesting a bit too much. (And IIRC Pigliucci is one of those).
It would be better, I think, for them to grant that Dawkins and Stenger’s arguments are decent but perhaps not the whole story, and that more is required to put the final nails in the coffin, etc. (That said, perhaps the strongest philsophical argument against the existence of God is the Argument from Evil, which is itself a quasi-scientific, or at least an essentially empirical argument. So once again, philosophers who decry these tactics are really protesting too much).