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...
| 1. VerfasserIn: | |
|---|---|
| Medienart: | Elektronisch Aufsatz |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Verfügbarkeit prüfen: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Lade...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Wiley-Blackwell
2001
|
| In: |
Zygon
Jahr: 2001, Band: 36, Heft: 3, Seiten: 455-465 |
| weitere Schlagwörter: | B
Empirical Theology
B Supernaturalism B William Rottschaefer B Naturalism B limit questions B Underdetermination |
| Online Zugang: |
Vermutlich kostenfreier Zugang Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Zusammenfassung: | 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 |
| Enthält: | Enthalten in: Zygon
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/0591-2385.00372 |