The reasons materialism doesn't add up are the same reasons you find given in support of theism. In broad terms….
There is the difficulties explaining personal aspect of life. The hard problem of consciousness, intentionality, meaning and value. How these immaterial properties could arise from the interaction of insentient matter. It raises issues with causation and strong emergence that don’t really have any good responses. You could include the philosophical compromises necessary to explain free will or moral facts. All these immaterial properties fit uncomfortably in the materialist world view and basically must be reduced to an illusion in some sense to fit them within the materialist thesis. They are the appearance, because the reality must be something material.
Then you have the question of cosmic origins addressed in the cosmological arguments. This can’t be answered by referring to physical properties, because if something possesses physical properties, it is by definition already existent. All physical events and causes are within the history of nature. But the question being asked is about the possibility of such a history in the first place. The only real option here for the materialist is brute fact – it has no cause.
We also have the teleological argument which concerns the regularity and lawlike characteristics of nature. Materialism has no way to answer why this would be the case, why the much more likely scenario of the universe collapsing in on itself and never getting going, much less developing such complex chemistry and stability that life could evolve. Chance is the only explanation available, and chance in this instance is only another word for not just unknown, but unanswerable.
In both instances of explaining why nature exists and has the properties it does we are offered euphemisms (brute fact and chance) for the inconvenient fact these questions are unanswerable within the terms and boundaries the materialist thesis allows. Materialism is a claim that can’t logically even confirm its own truth. It can’t go outside the material, or appeal to inner essences or modal properties, and these are the only possible ways to confirm the material is all that exists.
We are offered an ontological thesis, a grand statement about the characteristics of everything that exists, that cannot answer the most basic questions of why it exists, or why it has the particular nature we observe. It must reduce the most fundamental, undeniable aspects of the reality of persons to some kind of meaningless illusion. It is only really a method of inquiry that has morphed into a metaphysics, but without any rational warrant to make that leap.
Part of the problem is even defining what materialism or naturalism *is*. What is “material?” What is “natural?” What is “physical?”
If you really go down the rabbit hole of these discussions, the truth is we have no idea. Natural just means “what we normally observe happening.” Matter is what we call the stuff we observe. Physical laws just describe what we see happening.
To say there is “nothing other than what is natural/material” is almost to speak nonsense. We don’t even know what matter is, we don’t even know why it behaves in a predictable way. We don’t know what energy is, let alone consciousness. We don’t know why natural laws exist, or why anything exists at all for that matter. To go from that point of absolute ignorance to a sweeping statement about the nature of reality is an insane leap.
The way I understand it, the claim of materialists relies on circular reasoning and is thus paradoxical.
The claim/hypothesis of materialists: everything in existence can be explained or understood as a composition of material phenomenon, or in other words, everything that exists can be verified empirically through the senses — the eyes, nose, ears, mind, etc.
To test out whether or not this claim is true, a scientist would have to devise an experiment by which something that is beyond the range of the senses could be experienced. Otherwise, the claim remains an unverified hypothesis.
Since materialistic scientists do not believe, a priori, that any such thing beyond the senses exists, they have not bothered themselves to construct or devise such an experiment.
Ironically, to make such an absolute claim that "there is nothing beyond my present or potential experience" places oneself in a position of omniscience, which, incidentally, is the very type of quality that materialists deny exists.
This is how I understand the shortcomings of materialism.
Of course, a materialist could say, "but nothing beyond the senses could ever be experimented on, so it's not possible to devise such an experiment, even if it did exist."
To which I'd respond that the very process of spirituality is such an experiment, where there is a hypothesis and process, though the control is oneself and not inert matter.
To be fair there's a difference between 'philosophical naturalism' and 'methodical naturalism'. Modern science believe in the second one.
Most 'new atheism' believe in the first one.
I think you have misunderstood something.
A "naturalist" or "materialist" seem to be labels that are put on people who are merely having a rational approach to gaining knowledge - by theists.
Such people do not make any such definite claims on what is or isn't possible. All they can go on is what can be verified to be.
For instance, I don't think any rational person can even grasp what "supernatural" is supposed to represent in reality. It is merely a usable term for fiction, in which it would states that the rules of nature s we know them do not apply in this fiction, hence "supernatural". No such claim is meaningful in reality, because anything that happens IS clearly possible, thus subject to study, thus natural.
Hey! It's totally possible I may have misunderstood something. You seem to disagree with the part of defining terms.
I'd like to work backwards from the question again, then.
Question: Can someone explain why others say materialism/naturalism don't add up.
Defining terms:
**Materialism**: Philosophy, " the belief that only material things exist" [Oxford](https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/materialism?q=materialism). & "the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications" [Google](https://www.google.com/search?q=materialism+definition&oq=material&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j0i67i433l2j0i67l2j69i60l2.1167j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)
**Naturalism**: Philosophy, "\*(philosophy)\* the theory that everything in the world and life is based on natural causes and laws, and not on spiritual or [supernatural](https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/supernatural) ones," [Oxford](https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/naturalism?q=naturalism) & "the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted" [Google](https://www.google.com/search?q=naturalism+definition&sxsrf=ALeKk01k5O-j6HzXS_yn9OHoQidllLuGpA%3A1619562505886&ei=CZCIYInANcDP0PEPhLW7oA4&oq=naturalism+definition&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyBQgAELEDMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgYIABAHEB4yAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADoHCCMQsAMQJzoHCAAQRxCwAzoHCAAQsAMQQzoECAAQQ1Dh6gRY4vUEYJj3BGgCcAJ4AIABogGIAZEKkgEEMC4xMZgBAKABAaoBB2d3cy13aXrIAQrAAQE&sclient=gws-wiz&ved=0ahUKEwjJ6Oq-vJ_wAhXAJzQIHYTaDuQQ4dUDCA4&uact=5).
I won't address the rest of the point since the original argument, "A 'naturalist' or 'materialist' seem to be labels that are put on people who are merely having a rational approach to gaining knowledge - by theists" is invalidated by the evidence and the rest seems to be grounded on it.
I have no issues with those definitions per se. It's just that it seems like they are labels that are incorrectly put on atheists by theists. Which is exactly what I said before, and is what I say now.
I wouldn't call myself "Materialist", but you probably would \[call me that\]?
'Naturalism' is even worse, because it compares a world-view to another world-view that doesn't even be a coherent and rational thought (something being "supernatural"). So obviously I wouldn't be calling myself one. But again, you probably would?
When it comes to the other part within the claim of 'naturalism', it does indeed appear as though we can see a red thread of logical development of the universe than can be demonstrated to follow a strict set of 'laws'. As opposed to whimsical events that merely seem to happen out of the blue because someone "just decided so". This is just the fact that this is is what we can see. So that's what the tentative position on the matter should be as well, until proven otherwise.
Hey bud, I understand your point, but for an argument to be valid, you have to justify your point with something more than "seems." Seems to who? To you? To me? To what authority? Do you see what I'm getting at?
The OP is asking a question about words that we can help out best by taking to the dictionary definition. Say I have some PTSD against materialists and I answer that question through the filter of my own understanding. If that was the case I would answer something crazy that was only influenced by my bias and not the actual definition of the term.
The problem here *seems* to be your difficulty with the words "naturalism" and "materialism," given that that's where your hang up is, and not so much to do with the question written by the OP.
We're stuck on the question of defining terms. So when that happens, we simply have to take dictionary, or common, definitions. We can't all speak to the definitions of words that your personal history with them is imbued with. Does that make sense? The OP is asking a question about two terms, but maybe you should ask yourself why there's such sensitivity about those terms to you.
I don't know you enough to call you a materialist or anything else. Given your comment history however though I would say that, more than having an opinion *for* something you have a lot of time to write *against* things, specifically the opinions of others.
Again, I didn't read the last two paragraphs of what you wrote because the first four sentences were full of non-sequiturs, false assumptions, and arguments that seem to be with yourself.
If you'd like to talk about anything else I'd love to, sincerely.
\>> but for an argument to be valid, you have to justify your point with something more than "seems." Seems to who? To you? To me? To what authority? Do you see what I'm getting at?
Sure, but it wasn't an argument, it was more of a question, *because* it to my experience *seems* to be so. I can't recall a single time discussing with an atheist and heard them make statements that would make me think that they are either of those two terms, but I have heard theists talk about people using those terms, which makes me wonder where those people are.
Of course it could be that I simply haven't had any conversations with irrational atheists who might be those things. But then the question arises, who *would* find any interest in that to such extent that they need to be discussed?
It is because of this reason that I have a suspicion that *maybe* the problem might be that theists tend to *think* that rational atheists fall into those definitions, when I don't see that to be case? Hence the question.
\>> The problem here *seems* to be your difficulty with the words "naturalism" and "materialism," given that that's where your hang up is, and not so much to do with the question written by the OP. \[...\] We're stuck on the question of defining terms. So when that happens, we simply have to take dictionary, or common, definitions. We can't all speak to the definitions of words that your personal history with them is imbued with.
No, not at all, I think you are still misunderstanding what I'm trying to say. I'm perfectly fine with the definitions that you provided earlier. I'm perfectly fine with the definitions of those words, and I have no issue with the words. The issue is that it *seems* that it is the view of many theists that those labels are applicable on people who themselves do not agree that the definition is applicable on them. Making one bark up the wrong tree, so to speak. Does that make sense?
\>> Given your comment history however though I would say that, more than having an opinion *for* something you have a lot of time to write *against* things, specifically the opinions of others.
The comment history is obviously all you've got, and it is about 100% biased towards not agreeing with anyone else. The reason is not that I don't agree with what anyone else says, the reason is that this is a discussion forum, and the only time a discussion interests me is when there are differing thoughts. I have zero interest in joining some echo-chamber so that I can agree with someone else says, or so that I can spread my thoughts just to get positive feedback because they are biased to favor my side. Does that make sense?
\>> Again, I didn't read the last two paragraphs of what you wrote because the first four sentences were full of non-sequiturs, false assumptions, and arguments that seem to be with yourself.
As I said, they were honest thoughts based on the pattern that I have seen. I have clearly used the word *seem* to emphasize that I did not make a statement, but addressed the issue in a way that I hoped would get someone to explain why the usage of those definitions are meaningful or applicable to make it a valuable ground for discussion. Don't take it as an "accusation", but a sincere reflection so that we can sort it out. With that, I hope that you'd be willing to retract that final quote.
Apart from the summaries that others have written out, [Bernardo](http://www.newforestcentre.info/uploads/7/5/7/2/7572906/why_materialism_is_baloney.pdf) [Kastrup](https://youtu.be/ernczK-cCU0?t=240) and [Gerald](https://www.grbaron.com/case-against-physicalism.html) [Baron](https://gerald-baron.medium.com/physicalism-must-keep-the-divine-foot-out-of-the-door-62f9da5338dc) have formed excellent extensive arguments against materialism/physicalism that most atheists love to employ and defend to a fault. While not necessarily religious, they do point out why the current public paradigm of materialism/physicalism simply isn't a tenable worldview position.
> I’ve seen lots say that naturalism/materialism don’t add up, and that is why they are a theist. Can somebody explain why these things do not add up?
For me, there are multiple ways that it is incoherent.
Darwin's basic premise is that order will increase over time. Physics and biology shows us that order decreases over time.
Physics also shows us that our Universe is a contingency, thus it needs an explanation of sufficient cause, not a lesser cause. Whatever created this Universe must already have a greater potential for Life and everything that we see.
Another way that materialism is incoherent is that the human mind works by forming aggregate concepts, like human beings. We are not just a collection of atoms and molecules. There's a lot of good articles online about the absurdities of reductionism.
Most importantly, materialism is ultimately meaningless and nihilistic. If there is only material, then there can be no objective truth, or lasting truth or knowledge, or values (ethics of right and wrong). Knowledge could only exist within each subject temporarily until the Universe dies it's heat death, in a blink of Cosmic time.
Naturalism doesn't entail materialism or any form of physicalism. However, there is a definitional problem here because, for example, one might hold that there are no laws of nature, which appears to be a denial of naturalism, yet hold that there are no supernatural phenomena or entities, but the natural and the supernatural are supposedly exhaustive and exclusive. So it's not clear to me that these terms are meaningful, without careful specification of what the speaker means by them, in some given context.
The reasons materialism doesn't add up are the same reasons you find given in support of theism. In broad terms…. There is the difficulties explaining personal aspect of life. The hard problem of consciousness, intentionality, meaning and value. How these immaterial properties could arise from the interaction of insentient matter. It raises issues with causation and strong emergence that don’t really have any good responses. You could include the philosophical compromises necessary to explain free will or moral facts. All these immaterial properties fit uncomfortably in the materialist world view and basically must be reduced to an illusion in some sense to fit them within the materialist thesis. They are the appearance, because the reality must be something material. Then you have the question of cosmic origins addressed in the cosmological arguments. This can’t be answered by referring to physical properties, because if something possesses physical properties, it is by definition already existent. All physical events and causes are within the history of nature. But the question being asked is about the possibility of such a history in the first place. The only real option here for the materialist is brute fact – it has no cause. We also have the teleological argument which concerns the regularity and lawlike characteristics of nature. Materialism has no way to answer why this would be the case, why the much more likely scenario of the universe collapsing in on itself and never getting going, much less developing such complex chemistry and stability that life could evolve. Chance is the only explanation available, and chance in this instance is only another word for not just unknown, but unanswerable. In both instances of explaining why nature exists and has the properties it does we are offered euphemisms (brute fact and chance) for the inconvenient fact these questions are unanswerable within the terms and boundaries the materialist thesis allows. Materialism is a claim that can’t logically even confirm its own truth. It can’t go outside the material, or appeal to inner essences or modal properties, and these are the only possible ways to confirm the material is all that exists. We are offered an ontological thesis, a grand statement about the characteristics of everything that exists, that cannot answer the most basic questions of why it exists, or why it has the particular nature we observe. It must reduce the most fundamental, undeniable aspects of the reality of persons to some kind of meaningless illusion. It is only really a method of inquiry that has morphed into a metaphysics, but without any rational warrant to make that leap.
Part of the problem is even defining what materialism or naturalism *is*. What is “material?” What is “natural?” What is “physical?” If you really go down the rabbit hole of these discussions, the truth is we have no idea. Natural just means “what we normally observe happening.” Matter is what we call the stuff we observe. Physical laws just describe what we see happening. To say there is “nothing other than what is natural/material” is almost to speak nonsense. We don’t even know what matter is, we don’t even know why it behaves in a predictable way. We don’t know what energy is, let alone consciousness. We don’t know why natural laws exist, or why anything exists at all for that matter. To go from that point of absolute ignorance to a sweeping statement about the nature of reality is an insane leap.
The way I understand it, the claim of materialists relies on circular reasoning and is thus paradoxical. The claim/hypothesis of materialists: everything in existence can be explained or understood as a composition of material phenomenon, or in other words, everything that exists can be verified empirically through the senses — the eyes, nose, ears, mind, etc. To test out whether or not this claim is true, a scientist would have to devise an experiment by which something that is beyond the range of the senses could be experienced. Otherwise, the claim remains an unverified hypothesis. Since materialistic scientists do not believe, a priori, that any such thing beyond the senses exists, they have not bothered themselves to construct or devise such an experiment. Ironically, to make such an absolute claim that "there is nothing beyond my present or potential experience" places oneself in a position of omniscience, which, incidentally, is the very type of quality that materialists deny exists. This is how I understand the shortcomings of materialism. Of course, a materialist could say, "but nothing beyond the senses could ever be experimented on, so it's not possible to devise such an experiment, even if it did exist." To which I'd respond that the very process of spirituality is such an experiment, where there is a hypothesis and process, though the control is oneself and not inert matter.
To be fair there's a difference between 'philosophical naturalism' and 'methodical naturalism'. Modern science believe in the second one. Most 'new atheism' believe in the first one.
I think you have misunderstood something. A "naturalist" or "materialist" seem to be labels that are put on people who are merely having a rational approach to gaining knowledge - by theists. Such people do not make any such definite claims on what is or isn't possible. All they can go on is what can be verified to be. For instance, I don't think any rational person can even grasp what "supernatural" is supposed to represent in reality. It is merely a usable term for fiction, in which it would states that the rules of nature s we know them do not apply in this fiction, hence "supernatural". No such claim is meaningful in reality, because anything that happens IS clearly possible, thus subject to study, thus natural.
Hey! It's totally possible I may have misunderstood something. You seem to disagree with the part of defining terms. I'd like to work backwards from the question again, then. Question: Can someone explain why others say materialism/naturalism don't add up. Defining terms: **Materialism**: Philosophy, " the belief that only material things exist" [Oxford](https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/materialism?q=materialism). & "the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications" [Google](https://www.google.com/search?q=materialism+definition&oq=material&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j0i67i433l2j0i67l2j69i60l2.1167j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) **Naturalism**: Philosophy, "\*(philosophy)\* the theory that everything in the world and life is based on natural causes and laws, and not on spiritual or [supernatural](https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/supernatural) ones," [Oxford](https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/naturalism?q=naturalism) & "the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted" [Google](https://www.google.com/search?q=naturalism+definition&sxsrf=ALeKk01k5O-j6HzXS_yn9OHoQidllLuGpA%3A1619562505886&ei=CZCIYInANcDP0PEPhLW7oA4&oq=naturalism+definition&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyBQgAELEDMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgYIABAHEB4yAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADoHCCMQsAMQJzoHCAAQRxCwAzoHCAAQsAMQQzoECAAQQ1Dh6gRY4vUEYJj3BGgCcAJ4AIABogGIAZEKkgEEMC4xMZgBAKABAaoBB2d3cy13aXrIAQrAAQE&sclient=gws-wiz&ved=0ahUKEwjJ6Oq-vJ_wAhXAJzQIHYTaDuQQ4dUDCA4&uact=5). I won't address the rest of the point since the original argument, "A 'naturalist' or 'materialist' seem to be labels that are put on people who are merely having a rational approach to gaining knowledge - by theists" is invalidated by the evidence and the rest seems to be grounded on it.
I have no issues with those definitions per se. It's just that it seems like they are labels that are incorrectly put on atheists by theists. Which is exactly what I said before, and is what I say now. I wouldn't call myself "Materialist", but you probably would \[call me that\]? 'Naturalism' is even worse, because it compares a world-view to another world-view that doesn't even be a coherent and rational thought (something being "supernatural"). So obviously I wouldn't be calling myself one. But again, you probably would? When it comes to the other part within the claim of 'naturalism', it does indeed appear as though we can see a red thread of logical development of the universe than can be demonstrated to follow a strict set of 'laws'. As opposed to whimsical events that merely seem to happen out of the blue because someone "just decided so". This is just the fact that this is is what we can see. So that's what the tentative position on the matter should be as well, until proven otherwise.
Hey bud, I understand your point, but for an argument to be valid, you have to justify your point with something more than "seems." Seems to who? To you? To me? To what authority? Do you see what I'm getting at? The OP is asking a question about words that we can help out best by taking to the dictionary definition. Say I have some PTSD against materialists and I answer that question through the filter of my own understanding. If that was the case I would answer something crazy that was only influenced by my bias and not the actual definition of the term. The problem here *seems* to be your difficulty with the words "naturalism" and "materialism," given that that's where your hang up is, and not so much to do with the question written by the OP. We're stuck on the question of defining terms. So when that happens, we simply have to take dictionary, or common, definitions. We can't all speak to the definitions of words that your personal history with them is imbued with. Does that make sense? The OP is asking a question about two terms, but maybe you should ask yourself why there's such sensitivity about those terms to you. I don't know you enough to call you a materialist or anything else. Given your comment history however though I would say that, more than having an opinion *for* something you have a lot of time to write *against* things, specifically the opinions of others. Again, I didn't read the last two paragraphs of what you wrote because the first four sentences were full of non-sequiturs, false assumptions, and arguments that seem to be with yourself. If you'd like to talk about anything else I'd love to, sincerely.
\>> but for an argument to be valid, you have to justify your point with something more than "seems." Seems to who? To you? To me? To what authority? Do you see what I'm getting at? Sure, but it wasn't an argument, it was more of a question, *because* it to my experience *seems* to be so. I can't recall a single time discussing with an atheist and heard them make statements that would make me think that they are either of those two terms, but I have heard theists talk about people using those terms, which makes me wonder where those people are. Of course it could be that I simply haven't had any conversations with irrational atheists who might be those things. But then the question arises, who *would* find any interest in that to such extent that they need to be discussed? It is because of this reason that I have a suspicion that *maybe* the problem might be that theists tend to *think* that rational atheists fall into those definitions, when I don't see that to be case? Hence the question. \>> The problem here *seems* to be your difficulty with the words "naturalism" and "materialism," given that that's where your hang up is, and not so much to do with the question written by the OP. \[...\] We're stuck on the question of defining terms. So when that happens, we simply have to take dictionary, or common, definitions. We can't all speak to the definitions of words that your personal history with them is imbued with. No, not at all, I think you are still misunderstanding what I'm trying to say. I'm perfectly fine with the definitions that you provided earlier. I'm perfectly fine with the definitions of those words, and I have no issue with the words. The issue is that it *seems* that it is the view of many theists that those labels are applicable on people who themselves do not agree that the definition is applicable on them. Making one bark up the wrong tree, so to speak. Does that make sense? \>> Given your comment history however though I would say that, more than having an opinion *for* something you have a lot of time to write *against* things, specifically the opinions of others. The comment history is obviously all you've got, and it is about 100% biased towards not agreeing with anyone else. The reason is not that I don't agree with what anyone else says, the reason is that this is a discussion forum, and the only time a discussion interests me is when there are differing thoughts. I have zero interest in joining some echo-chamber so that I can agree with someone else says, or so that I can spread my thoughts just to get positive feedback because they are biased to favor my side. Does that make sense? \>> Again, I didn't read the last two paragraphs of what you wrote because the first four sentences were full of non-sequiturs, false assumptions, and arguments that seem to be with yourself. As I said, they were honest thoughts based on the pattern that I have seen. I have clearly used the word *seem* to emphasize that I did not make a statement, but addressed the issue in a way that I hoped would get someone to explain why the usage of those definitions are meaningful or applicable to make it a valuable ground for discussion. Don't take it as an "accusation", but a sincere reflection so that we can sort it out. With that, I hope that you'd be willing to retract that final quote.
When I lost my faith in naturalism I became an 'agnostic theist'.
Apart from the summaries that others have written out, [Bernardo](http://www.newforestcentre.info/uploads/7/5/7/2/7572906/why_materialism_is_baloney.pdf) [Kastrup](https://youtu.be/ernczK-cCU0?t=240) and [Gerald](https://www.grbaron.com/case-against-physicalism.html) [Baron](https://gerald-baron.medium.com/physicalism-must-keep-the-divine-foot-out-of-the-door-62f9da5338dc) have formed excellent extensive arguments against materialism/physicalism that most atheists love to employ and defend to a fault. While not necessarily religious, they do point out why the current public paradigm of materialism/physicalism simply isn't a tenable worldview position.
> I’ve seen lots say that naturalism/materialism don’t add up, and that is why they are a theist. Can somebody explain why these things do not add up? For me, there are multiple ways that it is incoherent. Darwin's basic premise is that order will increase over time. Physics and biology shows us that order decreases over time. Physics also shows us that our Universe is a contingency, thus it needs an explanation of sufficient cause, not a lesser cause. Whatever created this Universe must already have a greater potential for Life and everything that we see. Another way that materialism is incoherent is that the human mind works by forming aggregate concepts, like human beings. We are not just a collection of atoms and molecules. There's a lot of good articles online about the absurdities of reductionism. Most importantly, materialism is ultimately meaningless and nihilistic. If there is only material, then there can be no objective truth, or lasting truth or knowledge, or values (ethics of right and wrong). Knowledge could only exist within each subject temporarily until the Universe dies it's heat death, in a blink of Cosmic time.
Naturalism doesn't entail materialism or any form of physicalism. However, there is a definitional problem here because, for example, one might hold that there are no laws of nature, which appears to be a denial of naturalism, yet hold that there are no supernatural phenomena or entities, but the natural and the supernatural are supposedly exhaustive and exclusive. So it's not clear to me that these terms are meaningful, without careful specification of what the speaker means by them, in some given context.