A copy of this work was available on the public web and has been preserved in the Wayback Machine. The capture dates from 2020; you can also visit the original URL.
The file type is
In "Conceiving God: Literal and Figurative Prompt for a More Tectonic Distinction" Robert Masson criticizes my claim that some concepts of God can be literal in the sense of a non-extended meaning as defined by cognitive linguists. He claims that all of our ideas for God can only be through extended meanings (what is typically called figurative language). He says that blending theory requires this conclusion. In response I make three points. First, I argue that this is not what cognitivedoi:10.1515/opth-2018-0037 fatcat:fpqkwjgrl5f23lv4wmjgsbc4mm