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.”
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 cogni...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
Tipo de documento: | Electrónico Artículo |
Lenguaje: | Inglés |
Verificar disponibilidad: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
Publicado: |
Wiley-Blackwell
2014
|
En: |
Zygon
Año: 2014, Volumen: 49, Número: 3, Páginas: 716-727 |
Otras palabras clave: | B
Justin Barrett
B maturationally natural B HADD B cognitive science of religion B Robert McCauley |
Acceso en línea: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
Sumario: | 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. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1467-9744 |
Obras secundarias: | Enthalten in: Zygon
|
Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/zygo.12115 |