Response to Definition of Religion

In his definition of religion, Clifford Geertz claims that religion is made up of symbols only, symbols that propose a certain view of the world and make such a view seem real though in fact it may not be, all of which works together to produce particular mental states (or "moods and motivations") in the people who follow the religion in question.

Religion, it seems to me, is far too strong a force to be simply made up of symbols. Symbols are a big part of religion, yes, but there has to be something behind the symbols. There must be some underlying idea, represented on the surface by the symbols. In Christianity, for example, the underlying idea is that Jesus Christ was the son of God and died to save humans from hell. Each religion has its own basic idea or set of ideas, which can be called to mind and represented by certain symbols (such as the cross for Christians), but the symbols themselves are not the powerful agents that produce these moods and motivations. The symbols become merely reminders of what the practitioners of the religion believe, a sort of shorthand for the stories, mythology, and tenets of belief that are the true backbone of a religion.

Then, too, symbols serve to identify one's religion. A person wearing a six-pointed star on a necklace is assumed to be Jewish, and one with a cross is assumed to be Christian. Each symbol, in this case, is both a token of the ideas of its respective religion and a way to identify those who share the same beliefs. Early Christians used a simple drawing of a fish to identify one another in times when to be openly Christian meant persecution and likely death-- they could not loudly proclaim their beliefs on street corners, so they surreptitiously sought each other out through the use of symbols. The symbols were not themselves the important point in an exchange, but rather what they represented, the ideas in the minds of their users. That is to say, while symbols are important in religion, they are not all-important. The symbols are more a device or tool than an active agent in the formation of religious beliefs or states of mind, tools that help this formation but do not entirely drive it.

Geertz's "system of symbols" is a somewhat useful jumping-off point for a discussion of a definition of religion, but it is hardly comprehensive or entire. While the symbols and the system they inhabit do much to promote, identify, and recall religion and religious beliefs, they are not themselves they creators or generators of such beliefs. There must be some underlying idea or set of ideas behind the symbols that infuses them with meaning-- for without meaning, a symbol is just a pretty picture, without power or influence.