The Logical Atheist

Callers to online atheist talk shows frequently cite their personal experiences as evidence for the existence of God or a god. That is, they directly perceive God through their sensations. This will not do. What's open to challenge is not the experience itself--we may take the callers at their word--but their interpretation of what they feel. They can be absolutely certain they felt something, but what they may not be regarded as infallible about is their explanation of their experiences. To be taken seriously, their explanations must be open to examination and criticism. I can witness a breathtaking sunset at the beach and be overcome by a good feeling I never experienced before. But how I interpret that feeling is another matter entirely. If I explain it by the sheer splendor of the sight, that is entirely plausible and worthy of acceptance by others. Not so my claim that I experienced God's presence or something extranatural. If I submit that as evidence for the existence of...

From now on I will try to remember to use the term extranatural  instead of supernatural . The latter suggests that something is natural and then some. Superman has "powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men," But he was not beyond nature; he was like us but more so.  In contrast, extranatural  suggests something outside of, separate from, nature and not subject to nature's laws. The analogy with  extralegal  is clear: it describes something or someone that is beyond the law and not subject to its authority. While something or someone can be beyond the civil or criminal law, nothing can intelligibly be said to be outside of nature or existence--for what could the concept be  possibly mean in that case?