Clifford Geertz v. Intro to Religious Studies

In class, we talked about definition of religion. One example was from Clifford Geertz, his definition stirred up a little controversy in the Intro to Religious Studies class at Lawrence University. Our class felt many different ways about his definition. 

Some people thought that Geertz's biased definition was too mathematical or too concise for defining religion. Along the same lines, it puts religion "in a box", making it something easy for a simple mind to grab a hold of. Some people thought his definition condescends or belittles religion. 

On the other hand, Geertz's definition does highlight some examples of faith, he uses "moods and motivations" and an "aura of factuality" as examples of faith. These give religion a sort of level of mystery. 

Although, both ways of interpreting this definition can be correct, I feel that I "sharply" disagree with Geertz's definition. He takes something so powerful, and waters it down to a very vague and biased definition. He's taking something intangible and trying to make it tangible. Geertz is putting religion "in a box", if you will.