Naturalism Need Not Be “Made Safe”: a Response to William Rottschaefer’s Misunderstandings.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
Read Online Read More Add to Saved list
  • Author(s): Drees, Willem B.
  • Source:
    Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science. Sep2001, Vol. 36 Issue 3, p455. 11p.
  • Additional Information
    • Subject Terms:
      NATURALISM; RELIGION & science
    • Abstract:
      In this article, I respond to William Rottschaefer's analy- sis 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 FROM AUTHOR]
    • Abstract:
      Copyright of Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)