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!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3222-707d22330d9ffe0b63f16bff138ba3d7a55b15760d12dad058f6f46edba4b9683
cites
container_end_page 465
container_issue 3
container_start_page 455
container_title Zygon
container_volume 36
creator Drees, Willem B.
description 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/0591-2385.00372
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_234201409</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>79102333</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3222-707d22330d9ffe0b63f16bff138ba3d7a55b15760d12dad058f6f46edba4b9683</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkE1PAjEQhhujiYievTZcPC30a1vWmxJFDR8BNUQuTZdOdXHZxXaJ8u8F13h1Lu9h3mcmeRA6p6RNd9MhcUIjxrtxmxCu2AFqUCFVlCghDlHjb3uMTkJYEkKkUrKB5iNTbbzJs7DCIwCLR2WFrwG3hsYCfjQOWpf4Ck8hrMsiAK5KPMvyPDMrPC2rKizeDDjwFwEPs7ApLPhQmcJmxWs4RUfO5AHOfrOJnm9vnnp30WDcv-9dDaIFZ4xFiijLGOfEJs4BSSV3VKbOUd5NDbfKxHFKYyWJpcwaS-Kuk05IsKkRaSK7vIla9d21Lz82ECq9LDe-2L3UjAtGqCDJrtSpSwtfhuDB6bXPVsZvNSV670_vDem9If3jb0eImvjMctj-V9fzl_64xqIay0IFX3-Y8e9aKq5iPRv1dcwfxIROpnrKvwFM1n-y</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>234201409</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Naturalism Need Not Be "Made Safe": A Response to William Rottschaefer's Misunderstandings</title><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Drees, Willem B.</creator><creatorcontrib>Drees, Willem B.</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0591-2385</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1467-9744</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/0591-2385.00372</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ZYGOA7</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Boston, USA and Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers Inc</publisher><subject>empirical theology ; limit questions ; naturalism ; Nature ; Rottschaefer, William ; supernaturalism ; Theology ; underdetermination ; William Rottschaefer</subject><ispartof>Zygon, 2001-09, Vol.36 (3), p.455-465</ispartof><rights>2001 by the Joint Publication Board of Zygon</rights><rights>Copyright Blackwell Publishers Inc. Sep 2001</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3222-707d22330d9ffe0b63f16bff138ba3d7a55b15760d12dad058f6f46edba4b9683</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Drees, Willem B.</creatorcontrib><title>Naturalism Need Not Be "Made Safe": A Response to William Rottschaefer's Misunderstandings</title><title>Zygon</title><description>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.</description><subject>empirical theology</subject><subject>limit questions</subject><subject>naturalism</subject><subject>Nature</subject><subject>Rottschaefer, William</subject><subject>supernaturalism</subject><subject>Theology</subject><subject>underdetermination</subject><subject>William Rottschaefer</subject><issn>0591-2385</issn><issn>1467-9744</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2001</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkE1PAjEQhhujiYievTZcPC30a1vWmxJFDR8BNUQuTZdOdXHZxXaJ8u8F13h1Lu9h3mcmeRA6p6RNd9MhcUIjxrtxmxCu2AFqUCFVlCghDlHjb3uMTkJYEkKkUrKB5iNTbbzJs7DCIwCLR2WFrwG3hsYCfjQOWpf4Ck8hrMsiAK5KPMvyPDMrPC2rKizeDDjwFwEPs7ApLPhQmcJmxWs4RUfO5AHOfrOJnm9vnnp30WDcv-9dDaIFZ4xFiijLGOfEJs4BSSV3VKbOUd5NDbfKxHFKYyWJpcwaS-Kuk05IsKkRaSK7vIla9d21Lz82ECq9LDe-2L3UjAtGqCDJrtSpSwtfhuDB6bXPVsZvNSV670_vDem9If3jb0eImvjMctj-V9fzl_64xqIay0IFX3-Y8e9aKq5iPRv1dcwfxIROpnrKvwFM1n-y</recordid><startdate>200109</startdate><enddate>200109</enddate><creator>Drees, Willem B.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishers Inc</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200109</creationdate><title>Naturalism Need Not Be "Made Safe": A Response to William Rottschaefer's Misunderstandings</title><author>Drees, Willem B.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3222-707d22330d9ffe0b63f16bff138ba3d7a55b15760d12dad058f6f46edba4b9683</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2001</creationdate><topic>empirical theology</topic><topic>limit questions</topic><topic>naturalism</topic><topic>Nature</topic><topic>Rottschaefer, William</topic><topic>supernaturalism</topic><topic>Theology</topic><topic>underdetermination</topic><topic>William Rottschaefer</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Drees, Willem B.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Zygon</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Drees, Willem B.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Naturalism Need Not Be "Made Safe": A Response to William Rottschaefer's Misunderstandings</atitle><jtitle>Zygon</jtitle><date>2001-09</date><risdate>2001</risdate><volume>36</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>455</spage><epage>465</epage><pages>455-465</pages><issn>0591-2385</issn><eissn>1467-9744</eissn><coden>ZYGOA7</coden><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>Boston, USA and Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishers Inc</pub><doi>10.1111/0591-2385.00372</doi><tpages>11</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0591-2385
ispartof Zygon, 2001-09, Vol.36 (3), p.455-465
issn 0591-2385
1467-9744
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_234201409
source Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects empirical theology
limit questions
naturalism
Nature
Rottschaefer, William
supernaturalism
Theology
underdetermination
William Rottschaefer
title Naturalism Need Not Be "Made Safe": A Response to William Rottschaefer's Misunderstandings
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T04%3A59%3A26IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Naturalism%20Need%20Not%20Be%20%22Made%20Safe%22:%20A%20Response%20to%20William%20Rottschaefer's%20Misunderstandings&rft.jtitle=Zygon&rft.au=Drees,%20Willem%20B.&rft.date=2001-09&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=455&rft.epage=465&rft.pages=455-465&rft.issn=0591-2385&rft.eissn=1467-9744&rft.coden=ZYGOA7&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/0591-2385.00372&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E79102333%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3222-707d22330d9ffe0b63f16bff138ba3d7a55b15760d12dad058f6f46edba4b9683%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=234201409&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true