I would restate Geertz’s definition of religion as follows:
Religion is a system of ideas which conveys human perceptions of the general order of existence in a variety of ways. These powerful concepts affect numerous people, and they are presented in a way that appears both factual and uniquely realistic.
Geertz defines religion in a plausible manner, and I think his description of religion as something that encompasses the “conceptions of a general order of existence” is entirely plausible. This conception of a general order of existence is what I believe to be the defining characteristic of religion, and I decided to leave this portion of Geertz’s quote intact. In my mind, an established system of beliefs that relate to larger metaphysical problems is the essential feature of religion. As we discussed in class, many other groups share traits with religions (i.e. symbols, rituals, group mentality, etc.), but very few of these groups have a stated position on the afterlife or origin on the universe.
I’m not entirely sure why Geertz claims that religion is a system of symbols. Obviously symbols are an important aspect of many religions, but symbols are certainly not a unique feature of religion itself. A symbol is simply one thing used to represent another thing, and this is one of primary aspects of human thought. I think that defining religion as a system of beliefs or ideas would have been more effective, but I can see how one could claim that all ideas and beliefs are essentially just symbols for their “real” counterparts (a Plato reference seems mandatory here). Nevertheless, I found this aspect of Geertz’s definition somewhat distracting. Concepts and beliefs are more specific words, albeit limiting, but I think they would be more appropriate in this context...at least that’s what I believe.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
My big question is though, are you certain that these conceptions are what define religion? Could structures that present these conceptions to the world and that use them to influence and direct people (from individuals to cultures) be another possibility?
Brian,
You make a valid point that the structures that present these conceptions are an integral part of religion. However, I'm not arguing that religious ideas alone (i.e. belief in a deity or conception or an afterlife) constitute the foundation for a religion. I specifically noted that I think religion would be better defined as a system of ideas/concepts, and I think this is what you are alluding to when you talk about structures.
Post a Comment