Clifford Geertz's Definition of Religion

When I first read Clifford Geertz's definition, I found it to be belittling and dismissive of religion as a legitimate institution. While I do still find his definition to be rather condescending, it does work within the context of "Religion as a Cultural System."

Although his definition is acceptable, his bias against religion is evident in both his tone and diction. Geertz's use of words like "clothing," "aura of factuality," and "seem uniquely realistic," are all ways of injecting his own negative opinion of religion into the definition. Each of these terms make it seem as though all religions are never right, but only seemingly right. While I may or may not disagree with this stance, I do not think that this is an appropriate thing to imply when attempting to define religion

Regardless of this, I think that Geertz is on to something when thinking about religion as a cultural system. What he is really trying to say with this definition is that Religion's main funtion in a culture is to establish certain attitudes and inspire action through the use of sacred objects and traditions. This I do agree with, and I dont think that this assertion is demeaning to religion. If one truly thinks about the impact of religion on a culture, it is undeniably the establishment of certain moral standards and attitudes and inspiration to adhere to them. This is just what Max Weber proves in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism where he displays how religion has injected certain attitudes and practices into a culture as whole.

Of course there is more to religion than just its cultural role. Nevertheless, understanding this role is still vital to understanding religion as an institution and should not be considered demeaning.