Paul was a super naturalist. A person who is free to interpret amazing events as either being super natural, or of not being so (albeit he was of a faith that interpreted certain specific events as necessarily being super natural).
A naturalist (at least the way I use the word--which I think is pretty conventional) holds a doctrine that super natural interpretations of events are universally invalid. They will usually never express it this way, because people like to think of themselves as open minded et al. But the fact is, if you hold that there is no super nature, then you hold that no event is super natural.
However this doctrine is arrived at, once in place it is quite immune to any contrary evidence. For any remotely feasible alternative explanation to a super natural explanation is automatically preferred. Moreover, even when no apparent natural explanation seems remotely feasible, a naturalist holding such a doctrine will presume that there is some unknown trick, mistake, lie, error, or something else that invalidates an otherwise convincing proof of super-naturalism.
Now firmly held unshakable doctrines are nothing new. But the really funny thing about this doctrine, is that the people holding it think of themselves as being skeptics and great believers of following evidence and reason.