Intuitions and Arguments: Cognitive Foundations of Argumentation in Natural Theology

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 57-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen De Cruz ◽  
Johan De Smedt

This paper examines the cognitive foundations of natural theology: the intuitions that provide the raw materials for religious arguments, and the social context in which they are defended or challenged. We show that the premises on which natural theological arguments are based rely on intuitions that emerge early in development, and that underlie our expectations for everyday situations, e.g., about how causation works, or how design is recognized. In spite of the universality of these intuitions, the cogency of natural theological arguments remains a matter of continued debate. To understand why they are controversial, we draw on social theories of reasoning and argumentation.

1990 ◽  
Vol 45 (12) ◽  
pp. 1386-1386 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica Wolfe
Keyword(s):  

1987 ◽  
Vol 32 (12) ◽  
pp. 1004-1007
Author(s):  
Gregory M. Herek
Keyword(s):  

2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Penny S. Visser ◽  
Robert R. Mirabile
Keyword(s):  

1998 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. S. Stroebe ◽  
H. A. W. Schut
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Youssef A. Haddad

This chapter examines the social functions of speaker-oriented attitude datives in Levantine Arabic. It analyzes these datives as perspectivizers used by a speaker to instruct her hearer to view her as a form of authority in relation to him, to the content of her utterance, and to the activity they are both involved in. The nature of this authority depends on the sociocultural, situational, and co-textual context, including the speaker’s and hearer’s shared values and beliefs, their respective identities, and the social acts employed in interaction. The chapter analyzes specific instances of speaker-oriented attitude datives as used in different types of social acts (e.g., commands, complaints) and in different types of settings (e.g., family talk, gossip). It also examines how these datives interact with facework, politeness, and rapport management.


2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 221-237
Author(s):  
Eyal Clyne

Drawing on speech acts theory, this article discusses the illocutionary and perlocutionary forces of discursive practices with which certain academic circles seek to discredit the Saidian ‘Orientalism’ framework. Identifying the unusual value attached to Said as object of attachment or detachment, desirability and exceptionality, this analysis turns away from deliberations about ‘orientalism’ as a party in a battle of ideas, and studies common cautionary statements and other responses by peers as actions in the social (academic) world, that enculture and police expectations. Cautioning subjects about this framework, or conditioning its employment to preceding extensive pre-emptive complicating mitigations, in effect constructs this framework as undesirable and ‘risky’. While strong discursive reactions are not uncommon in academia, comparing them to treatments of less-controversial social theories reveals formulations, meanings and attentions which are arguably reserved for this ‘theory’. Conclusively, common dismissals, warnings and criticisms of Said and ‘Orientalism’ often exemplify Saidian claims, as they deploy the powerful advantage of enforcing hegemonic, and indeed Orientalist, views.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document