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...

ver descrição completa

Na minha lista:  
Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor principal: McCauley, Robert N. (Author)
Tipo de documento: Recurso Electrónico Artigo
Idioma:Inglês
Verificar disponibilidade: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Carregar...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Publicado em: Wiley-Blackwell 2014
Em: Zygon
Ano: 2014, Volume: 49, Número: 3, Páginas: 728-740
Outras palavras-chave:B Religion and science
B Religious Studies
B Philosophy of religion
B cognitive science of religion
Acesso em linha: Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Descrição
Resumo: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.
ISSN:1467-9744
Obras secundárias:Enthalten in: Zygon
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1111/zygo.12116