RT Article
T1 ON McCAULEY'S WHY RELIGION IS NATURAL AND SCIENCE IS NOT: SOME FURTHER OBSERVATIONS: with James A. Van Slyke, “Religion Is Easy, but Science Is Hard . . . Understanding McCauley's Thesis”; Andrew Ali Aghapour, “Defining ‘Religion’ as Natural: A Critical Invitation to Robert McCauley”; Gregory R. Peterson, “On McCauley's Why Religion Is Natural and Science Is Not: Some Further Observations”; and Robert N. McCauley, “Explanatory Modesty.”
JF Zygon
VO 49
IS 3
SP 716
OP 727
A1 Peterson, Gregory R.
LA English
PB Wiley-Blackwell
YR 2014
UL https://www.ixtheo.de/Record/182796507X
AB Robert McCauley's Why Religion Is Natural and Science Is Not provides a summary interpretive statement of the standard model in cognitive science of religion, what I have previously called the HADD + ToM + Cultural Epidemiology model, along with a more general argument comparing religious cognition to scientific thinking and a novel framework for understanding both in terms of the concept of the maturationally natural. I here follow up on some observations made in a previous paper, developing them in light of McCauley's own response to my previous arguments.
K1 Robert McCauley
K1 maturationally natural
K1 HADD
K1 cognitive science of religion
K1 Justin Barrett
DO 10.1111/zygo.12115