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...
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
Wiley-Blackwell
2001
|
| Dans: |
Zygon
Année: 2001, Volume: 36, Numéro: 3, Pages: 455-465 |
| Sujets non-standardisés: | B
Empirical Theology
B Supernaturalism B William Rottschaefer B Naturalism B limit questions B Underdetermination |
| Accès en ligne: |
Accès probablement gratuit Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Résumé: | 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 |
| Contient: | Enthalten in: Zygon
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/0591-2385.00372 |