Hi Ben, perhaps you may offer something to explain this. Christianity is also hermeneutics. It affects how someone constitutes "valid" evidence. A naturalist might consistently interpret evidence in favor of atheism. She might consistently experience evil, and exclaim, "Ah! This is evidence God doesn't exist!"
On the other hand, a theist might constantly interpret evidence in favor of theism. She might consistently experience - help me here - divine experience (?) and say, "Ah! This is evidence of God's grace."
Consequently, the theist's stack of pennies might just end up being the "mountain." The theist can readily say that her beliefs are a product of inductive reasoning but with some weird forms of "evidence" that we'll never comprehend.
One of Sentell's concern is that different (groups of) people interpret evidence differently. It's also mine. I just couldn't come to understand what the Christians mean when they talk about "divine grace" or the "Holy spirit." Of course, anyone could treat them as mere gibberish. But take them seriously for a moment, and one realizes they're not uttering nonsense. These things mean something to them - and perhaps we'll never know what they mean.
It occurred to me, then, that perhaps we're seeing things through very different lenses.