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...
1. VerfasserIn: | |
---|---|
Medienart: | Elektronisch Aufsatz |
Sprache: | Englisch |
Verfügbarkeit prüfen: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
Veröffentlicht: |
Wiley-Blackwell
2001
|
In: |
Zygon
Jahr: 2001, Band: 36, Heft: 3, Seiten: 467-475 |
weitere Schlagwörter: | B
Empirical Theology
B Supernaturalism B Naturalism B limit questions B Underdetermination B Willem B. Drees |
Online Zugang: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
Parallele Ausgabe: | Nicht-Elektronisch
|
Zusammenfassung: | 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 |
Enthält: | Enthalten in: Zygon
|
Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/0591-2385.00373 |