000			03317ctm a22003614a 4500
001			16686865
003			OSt
005			20250804090443.0
007			ta
008			180319s2011 nyuab b 001 0 eng
010			_a 2011009751
016	7		_a015903229 _2Uk
020			_a9780199341542 (pbk)
020			_a0199827265 (hardcover : alk. paper)
035			_a(OCoLC)ocn707725980
040			_aDLC _cDLC _dYDX _dOCO _dYDXCP _dBWX _dYAM _dCDX _dDEBBG _dI3U _dBDX _dUKMGB _dDLC
050	0	0	_aBL240.3 _b.M43 2011
082	0	0	_a201.65 McC 2011 _222
100	1		_aMcCauley, Robert N.
245	1	0	_aWhy religion is natural and science is not / _cby Robert N. McCauley.
260			_aNew York : _bOxford University Press, _cc2011.
300			_axv, 335 p. : _bill., map ; _c25 cm.
504			_aIncludes bibliographical references (p. 305-326) and index.
505	0		_aNatural cognition -- Maturational naturalness -- Unnatural science -- Natural religion -- Surprising consequences.
520			_aThe battle between religion and science, competing methods of knowing ourselves and our world, has been raging for many centuries. Now scientists themselves are looking at cognitive foundations of religion--and arriving at some surprising conclusions. Over the course of the past two decades, scholars have employed insights gleaned from cognitive science, evolutionary biology, and related disciplines to illuminate the study of religion. In Why Religion is Natural and Science Is Not, Robert N. McCauley, one of the founding fathers of the cognitive science of religion, argues that our minds are better suited to religious belief than to scientific inquiry. Drawing on the latest research and illustrating his argument with commonsense examples, McCauley argues that religion has existed for many thousands of years in every society because the kinds of explanations it provides are precisely the kinds that come naturally to human minds. Science, on the other hand, is a much more recent and rare development because it reaches radical conclusions and requires a kind of abstract thinking that only arises consistently under very specific social conditions. Religion makes intuitive sense to us, while science requires a lot of work. McCauley then draws out the larger implications of these findings. The naturalness of religion, he suggests, means that science poses no real threat to it, while the unnaturalness of science puts it in a surprisingly precarious position. Rigorously argued and elegantly written, this provocative book will appeal to anyone interested in the ongoing debate between religion and science, and in the nature and workings of the human mind.--Book jacket.
650		0	_aReligion and science.
650		0	_aPsychology, Religious.
650		0	_aCognition and culture.
856			_uhttp://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&doc_number=024558153&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA _library=BVB01&doc _number=024558153&line _number=0001&func _code=DBRECORDS&service _type=MEDIA _library=BVB01&doc _number=024558153&line _number=0001&func _code=DBRECORDS&service _type=MEDIA _zInhaltsverzeichnis
906			_a7 _bcbc _corignew _d1 _eecip _f20 _gy-gencatlg
942			_cBK _2ddc
999			_c9467 _d9467