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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Zygon 2001-09, Vol.36 (3), p.455-465
Main Author: Drees, Willem B.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
empirical theology
limit questions
naturalism
Nature
Rottschaefer, William
supernaturalism
Theology
underdetermination
William Rottschaefer
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
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:0591-2385
1467-9744
DOI:10.1111/0591-2385.00372