NATURALISM AND THE CATEGORIES "SCIENCE" AND "RELIGION": A RESPONSE TO JOSH REEVES with Josh A. Reeves, "A Defense of Science and Religion: Reflections on Peter Harrison's 'After Science and Religion' Project" and Peter Harrison, "Naturalism and the Categories 'Science' and 'Religion': A Response to Josh Reeves."

This article is a response to Josh Reeve's "A Defense of Science and Religion." I begin with the disclaimer that this was not solely my project but a joint enterprise. A common commitment of participants was to make the disciplines of history and theology central to the discussion and explore what new possibilities follows for the field of science and religion. I then address Reeves's two central concerns: first that I am too dismissive of the categories "science" and "religion." In fact I have not advocated dispensing with these categories, but have insisted than we employ them critically and with a sense of their history. The second concern is that my position on naturalism seems to place me perilously close to advocates of ID or scientific creationism. I deny this, but point out that more work needs to be done, beyond simply invoking methodological naturalism, to clarify the differences between naturalistic and theological approaches to the world.