Religious apologists talk about the
supernatural as if it is real. They compare it to the
natural. However, they use different criteria in evaluating them:
- Supernatural: understood through subjective experience and authority (dogma, preaching, and writings).
- Natural: understood by observation and experimentation (science)
Because these ways of looking at reality are evaluated for authenticity through different criteria, conversation tends to break down. I propose a challenge to the religious in the form of this question:
Instead of comparing the natural with the supernatural, why not compare the supernatural with the unknown? To a science-based thinker, the reality of a supernatural realm is
unknown.