On the topic of Einstein's "quote" -
yeah that is why I wrote it the way I do - it is sort of a gloss of what Einstein said. and aan Interpretation of what he said. Both dangerous - so let me just take credit for the concept - energy never dies only changes form - and then there is nothing to argue about except that I am plagiarize. But you notice he has the same problem I have with the concept - the maintenance of the "individuality" after death. In that sense I agree with you ... no soul as a individual with some of our identity preserved ... but energy never dies therefore some energy (which some people like to call spirit) does continue in the world. I had the experience - my husband died when my daughter was 2 years old - I realized that some of his DNA lives on in my daughter in a very concrete and physical fashion.
Scientific evidence is like language; it has to have universal rules and interpretation, or there is no ability for universal application, which makes discovery and experimentation largely pointless. When discussing something objective, within the physical realm, it is legitimate to expect that scientific rules can and will be respected. When they're ignored or minimized in favor of ethereal, experiential anecdotes and so forth, it will bring impatience and probably ridicule from the scientifically minded. We know that science has a concrete basis that is no respecter of persons; there is a very objective, streamlined process within science to determine the results of research/experiment/etc. It can be depended on.
Experiential evidence is highly subjective; it is accepted in court with certain limitations. for.
Scientific and Experiential evidence are both highly subjective - really scientific (and by this I mean "positivist" "scientific method" ) is experiential. Try on for size: Phenomenology by Husserl, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), by Thomas Kuhn.
Science is just as much "a story we tell ourselves" = it is just loaded with many more "factoids" not necessarily more truth or meaning. I am trying to find my way through this domain myself - I call myself a recovering positivist. I have spent some enjoyable hours lately reading Sartre on Imagination. That is another one you could give a go.
The point of what I'm saying is let's not dismiss the experiential since it is all we have. The distinction is then reduced to shared experiences (which are negotiated through some means - like an agreed upon series of rules like the scientific method and are never truly shared since no one can occupy the same EXACT "space and time" with any one else - even 2 inches away give different perspective) vs. personal or private and unshared experiences.
Carry on ... I enjoy the "negotiation" ,i.e. discussion