Discerning the Limits of Religious Naturalism
In response to my “How to Make Naturalism Safe for Supernaturalism: An Evaluation of Willem Drees's Supernaturalistic Naturalism” (Rottschaefer 2001), Willem Drees maintains that I have misunderstood his purpose and views and have failed to make the case against his view that naturalism is intr...
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: 467-475 |
Further subjects: | B
Empirical Theology
B Supernaturalism B Naturalism B limit questions B Underdetermination B Willem B. Drees |
Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
Parallel Edition: | Non-electronic
|
Summary: | In response to my “How to Make Naturalism Safe for Supernaturalism: An Evaluation of Willem Drees's Supernaturalistic Naturalism” (Rottschaefer 2001), Willem Drees maintains that I have misunderstood his purpose and views and have failed to make the case against his view that naturalism is intrinsically limited. In this response, I comment on these concerns. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1467-9744 |
Contains: | Enthalten in: Zygon
|
Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/0591-2385.00373 |