Naturalism Need Not Be “Made Safe”: A Response to William Rottschaefer's Misunderstandings | Zendy

Drees Willem B. | Zendy

AI Assistant Blog Pricing

Home ZAIA Blog

Premium

Naturalism Need Not Be “Made Safe”: A Response to William Rottschaefer's Misunderstandings

Author(s) -

Drees Willem B.

Publication year - 2001

Publication title -

zygon®

Language(s) - English

Resource type - Journals

SCImago Journal Rank - 0.222

H-Index - 23

eISSN - 1467-9744

pISSN - 0591-2385

DOI - 10.1111/0591-2385.00372

Subject(s) - naturalism , epistemology , object (grammar) , philosophy , linguistics

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.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here

Accelerating Research