Abstract
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.
Keywords
William Rottschaefer, limit questions, supernaturalism, empirical theology, underdetermination, naturalism
How to Cite
Drees, W., (2001) “Naturalism Need Not Be “Made Safe”: A Response to William Rottschaefer's Misunderstandings”, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 36(3), 455–465. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/0591-2385.00372