Summary of Myth, Truth, and Justification in Religion
Summary of “Myth, Truth, and the Justification in Religion”
William L. Power
Phil 1200
In the article, “Myth, Truth, and Justification in Religion”, the author, William L. Power states and thoroughly explains his opinions and thoughts on theology and religion. Power presents three main arguments within the article to help prove his overall point. The first argument stated is the way theology and religion, or, in his words, a theology and a religion should be viewed to have the best understanding of the two. The second argument stated is how the functions of myths or stories should be interpreted for the proper understanding of a certain story or myth and how they contribute to religion and theology. Lastly, the third argument presents if and how myths represent reality. This argument is only legible due to the previous two arguments, which I will begin to illustrate in my next paragraphs. In the article, the first argument the author presents is how he believes theology and religion should be viewed to be better understood. Power explains the different communities within a religion and all of its signs, prayers, rituals, etc. He then attempts to explain his argument by stating in paragraph 8, “…one can see that a religion has a syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic dimension. As such each religion can and perhaps should be studied, if it is to be understood adequately…” and then continues to say in the same paragraph, “…one must understand and assess a religion in terms of its intellectual, moral, and emotional credibility.” These are examples of the author picking apart religion and revealing its parts; the essential parts that need to be understood before one can fully comprehend a religion entirely. After he explains the way a religion should be interpreted, he then continues into paragraph nine and states that “an understanding of theology which conforms to the triadic dimensions of a religion follows naturally”, tying both
William L. Power
Phil 1200
In the article, “Myth, Truth, and Justification in Religion”, the author, William L. Power states and thoroughly explains his opinions and thoughts on theology and religion. Power presents three main arguments within the article to help prove his overall point. The first argument stated is the way theology and religion, or, in his words, a theology and a religion should be viewed to have the best understanding of the two. The second argument stated is how the functions of myths or stories should be interpreted for the proper understanding of a certain story or myth and how they contribute to religion and theology. Lastly, the third argument presents if and how myths represent reality. This argument is only legible due to the previous two arguments, which I will begin to illustrate in my next paragraphs. In the article, the first argument the author presents is how he believes theology and religion should be viewed to be better understood. Power explains the different communities within a religion and all of its signs, prayers, rituals, etc. He then attempts to explain his argument by stating in paragraph 8, “…one can see that a religion has a syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic dimension. As such each religion can and perhaps should be studied, if it is to be understood adequately…” and then continues to say in the same paragraph, “…one must understand and assess a religion in terms of its intellectual, moral, and emotional credibility.” These are examples of the author picking apart religion and revealing its parts; the essential parts that need to be understood before one can fully comprehend a religion entirely. After he explains the way a religion should be interpreted, he then continues into paragraph nine and states that “an understanding of theology which conforms to the triadic dimensions of a religion follows naturally”, tying both