Premium
ON McCAULEY'S WHY RELIGION IS NATURAL AND SCIENCE IS NOT : SOME FURTHER OBSERVATIONS
Author(s) -
Peterson Gregory R.
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
zygon®
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.222
H-Index - 23
eISSN - 1467-9744
pISSN - 0591-2385
DOI - 10.1111/zygo.12115
Subject(s) - natural (archaeology) , natural science , argument (complex analysis) , epistemology , statement (logic) , natural kind , cognition , philosophy , sociology , psychology , history , aesthetics , biochemistry , chemistry , archaeology , identity (music) , neuroscience
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.