APA (7th ed.) Citation

Van Slyke, J. A. (2014). RELIGION IS EASY, BUT SCIENCE IS HARD … UNDERSTANDING McCAULEY'S THESIS: 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.”. Zygon, 49(3), 696-707. doi:10.1111/zygo.12113

Chicago Style (17th ed.) Citation

Van Slyke, James A. "RELIGION IS EASY, BUT SCIENCE IS HARD … UNDERSTANDING McCAULEY'S THESIS: 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.”." Zygon 49, no. 3 (2014): 696-707, https://doi.org/10.1111/zygo.12113.

MLA (8th ed.) Citation

Van Slyke, James A. "RELIGION IS EASY, BUT SCIENCE IS HARD … UNDERSTANDING McCAULEY'S THESIS: 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.”." Zygon, vol. 49, no. 3, 2014, pp. 696-707, https://doi.org/10.1111/zygo.12113.