Naturalism Need Not Be “Made Safe”: A Response to William Rottschaefer's Misunderstandings
In this article, I respond to William Rottschaefer's analysis of my writings on religion and science, especially my Religion, Science and Naturalism (1996). I show that I am not trying “to make naturalism safe,” as Rottschaefer contends, but rather attempting to explore options available when o...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Electronic Article |
Language: | English |
Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
Published: |
Open Library of Humanities$s2024-
2001
|
In: |
Zygon
Year: 2001, Volume: 36, Issue: 3, Pages: 455-465 |
Further subjects: | B
Empirical Theology
B Supernaturalism B William Rottschaefer B Naturalism B limit questions B Underdetermination |
Online Access: |
Presumably Free Access Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
Summary: | In this article, I respond to William Rottschaefer's analysis of my writings on religion and science, especially my Religion, Science and Naturalism (1996). I show that I am not trying “to make naturalism safe,” as Rottschaefer contends, but rather attempting to explore options available when one endorses naturalistic approaches. I also explain why I object to the label “supernaturalistic naturalism” used by Rottschaefer. Possible limitations to naturalistic projects are discussed, not as limitations imposed but rather as features uncovered. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1467-9744 |
Contains: | Enthalten in: Zygon
|
Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/0591-2385.00372 |