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...

Полное описание

Сохранить в:  
Библиографические подробности
Главный автор: McCauley, Robert N. (Автор)
Формат: Электронный ресурс Статья
Язык:Английский
Проверить наличие: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Загрузка...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Опубликовано: Wiley-Blackwell 2014
В: Zygon
Год: 2014, Том: 49, Выпуск: 3, Страницы: 728-740
Другие ключевые слова:B Religion and science
B Religious Studies
B Philosophy of religion
B cognitive science of religion
Online-ссылка: Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Описание
Итог: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
Второстепенные работы:Enthalten in: Zygon
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1111/zygo.12116