In his essay, Religion as a Cultural System: The Theory of Clifford Geertz , the prominent religious scholar Ira Chernus states: “One of the most influential figures in this social-scientific approach to religion is the anthropologist Clifford Geertz. In an essay titled "Religion as a Cultural System" (1965) he spelled out a definition of religion that many others have borrowed, adapted, and employed in studying religion.” Chernus goes on to say that according to Geertz, religion is "(1) a system of symbols (2) which acts to establish powerful, pervasive and long-lasting moods and motivations in men (3) by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic."
I should remark that Geertz’s definition parallels William James observations years prior in his book The Variations of Religious Experiences, that spiritual or religious experiences generate a “sense of reality”. Geertz’s definition was first published in the mid-1960’s while William James book was published in 1902. The concept of a “sense of reality” would necessarily seem to include “moods and motivations” (2), “conceptions of a general order of existence” (3), “an aura of factuality” [=reality] (4), and finally emotions which seem ‘realistic” (5).
However, both seem to lack any concept of “spirit” or “transcendence.” As such, my argument is that Geertz’s universally accepted definition of religion, which leaves out both “spirit” and “transcendence,” would not be a proper definition of religion since “spirit” and ‘transcendence” would seem obviously included in all religions that I am aware of. Because I was reading, Shamans, Sorcerers, and Saints, by the anthropologist Brain Hayden, at the moment, I sent him an email, and stated my views, saying Geertz’s definition is not actually a definition of religion but a definition of ideology. In spite of the fact that Hayden, in his book, quotes Geertz’s definition of religion and accepts it, Hayden agreed with my conclusion that Geertz’s definition was not truly a definition of religion.
I believe a quick glance at the ‘communist ideology’ might be in order. Communism is based on Marxist theory. Marxism definitely is a system of symbols - or meaning structure - which in this particular case focuses on a socioeconomic and political analysis that emphasizes the social-political-economic force of capitalism as a vehicle for class exploitation, producing class conflict. Marxism has a dialectical view of social evolution and political dynamics of class relations and social conflict founded on the materialist factors of historical development. Marxist theory led to the development of communism which presented all the social and political problems as being produced by class conflict generated by capitalism. So, communism became a “workers’ ideology” dedicated to certain principles of equality and fairness – against the capitalist ideology which exploits and uses the workers class in a cruel and senseless way.
In a quick comparison of Geertz’s definition of religion to communist ideology, in communist ideology there is: (1) the Communism-Marxist system of symbols, with the (2) emotional motivation of injustice (even monkeys show a sense of fairness), a (3) sense of reality, or conceptions of a general order of existence, as well as (4) an order of factuality from Marist theory (which happened to be incorrect in many of its tenets), as well as (5) realism from a party established hierarchy of roles and statuses (the existence of statuses and roles is a de facto proof of factuality) and meetings of the people and masses. So, Geertz’s definition of religion fits extremely well as a definition of ideology, especially in light of the fact that transcendence and spirit do appear to be largely a unique characteristic of religion.
In my research I hadn't seen any other anthropologist or psychologist challenge Geertz's definition of religion, which was first published in the 1960's. In spite of the fact that transcendence and spirituality are relatively obvious characteristics of religion, no one questioned Geertz. Of course, I should note that, from personal experience, I know very well there is a "superstitious stigma" attached to spirit and spirituality, and as the psychologists Baruss and Mossbridge note, the "superstitious stigma" attached to spirituality and psychic is very much a factor in academic reality. In their book Transcendent Mind, the talk about how even the Nobel-laureate Josephson was literally ostracized and "uninvited" to a convention about physics due to his interest in psychic phenomena. It is ironic because roughly 2,000 years ago Aristotle observed that it i the sign of intelligence that a man can entertain an idea without embracing it. Conversely I would say that when men absolutely and totally adamantly refuse to even consider an idea or think it over, or even "look" at evidence and facts, then those men could only be considered intolerant and ignorant. In any case, of all people Geertz, would definitely, without question, have grasped the reality of spirit and spirituality. A great deal of his writing focused on spiritual rituals. My take is that Geertzs left spirit out on purpose because he feared academic retribution.
The bottom line is, as Einstein stated unequivocally, "Never stop asking questions!" That is something many seem to fail to do at times - politically, and religiously, as well as academically and scientifically.