English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Open

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Clifford Geertz's influential definition of religions as providing their members with both an ethos and a worldview—in his terms, both a "model for" and "model of" reality—has of late become a neuralgic point of contention in religious studies. In particular some critics have seen his ideas of religious models of reality as biased, out-moded, or in other ways confused about the way that language refers (or does not refer) to the world. In this article, I consider two criticisms of Geertz's project and seek to show that, despite the partial value of the criticisms, the idea of religious models of reality continues to be a legitimate and fruitful approach to what religious communities are typically up to.

Religion, Models of, and Reality: Are We Through with Geertz?