Explanatory Modesty: 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.”

Although I certainly have differences with some of my commentators, I am grateful for the time, effort, and attention that each has devoted to my book, Why Religion Is Natural and Science Is Not. They have helpfully pointed out features of my positions that need clarification and elaboration. I am a...

全面介紹

Saved in:  
書目詳細資料
主要作者: McCauley, Robert N. (Author)
格式: 電子 Article
語言:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
載入...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
出版: Wiley-Blackwell 2014
In: Zygon
Year: 2014, 卷: 49, 發布: 3, Pages: 728-740
Further subjects:B Religion and science
B Religious Studies
B Philosophy of religion
B cognitive science of religion
在線閱讀: Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)

MARC

LEADER 00000naa a22000002 4500
001 1827965088
003 DE-627
005 20221220052628.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 221220s2014 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1111/zygo.12116  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1827965088 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1827965088 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 0  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a McCauley, Robert N.  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Explanatory Modesty: 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.” 
264 1 |c 2014 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a Although I certainly have differences with some of my commentators, I am grateful for the time, effort, and attention that each has devoted to my book, Why Religion Is Natural and Science Is Not. They have helpfully pointed out features of my positions that need clarification and elaboration. I am also grateful to the editor of Zygon, Willem Drees, for this opportunity to undertake that task here. 
601 |a Religion 
601 |a McCauley, Robert N. 
650 4 |a Religious Studies 
650 4 |a Religion and science 
650 4 |a Philosophy of religion 
650 4 |a cognitive science of religion 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Zygon  |d Oxford : Wiley-Blackwell, 1966  |g 49(2014), 3, Seite 728-740  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)300593570  |w (DE-600)1482903-4  |w (DE-576)090854799  |x 1467-9744  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:49  |g year:2014  |g number:3  |g pages:728-740 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1111/zygo.12116  |x Resolving-System  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
856 4 0 |u https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/zygo.12116  |x Verlag  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mteo 
936 u w |d 49  |j 2014  |e 3  |h 728-740 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
ITA |a 1  |t 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4235369997 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1827965088 
LOK |0 005 20221220052628 
LOK |0 008 221220||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2022-12-06#E92F2CCC2AF7D4BDC161694B5FE1512298480492 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-Tue135  |c DE-627  |d DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixrk  |a zota 
OAS |a 1  |b inherited from superior work 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw 
REL |a 1 
SUB |a REL