This is modest attempt to approach an anthropological definition of religion by Guido Verboom that has been online since 2002. The 2025 has been improved with the use of Perplexity.
Anthropology has long grappled with the challenge of providing an anthropological definition of religion that is both inclusive and analytically useful. In the context of cultural anthropology and broader social sciences, a robust and precise anthropological definition of religion is crucial-not only for academic clarity but also for practical application in research and professional practice. As anthropologists, our training enables us to operationalize complex concepts such as culture, ritual, and meaning-making, which are essential for understanding both traditional and contemporary forms of religion.
The 2002 Definition
In 2002, I formulated the following definition of religion:
“Religion is a set of beliefs and/or practices for regulating and approaching reality, expressed in (a) doctrine, (b) philosophy, (c) myth, (d) symbol, (e) ethics, (f) ritual, (g) material, (h) experience, and (i) social organization, in some way related to spiritual qualities, phenomena, or entities.”
This definition was intentionally broad, aiming to encompass the diversity of religious expression across cultures and history.
Reasoning Behind the 2002 Definition
The original 2002 anthropological definition of religion was shaped by several key considerations:
1. Inclusivity Across Traditions
Religions manifest in countless forms, from major world faiths to indigenous and new religious movements, and even philosophical systems with religious dimensions. The definition needed to be broad enough to include all of these, regardless of their specific doctrines or practices.
2. Recognition of Both Belief and Practice
Anthropological research shows that religion is not just about beliefs, but also about what people do-rituals, ethical codes, festivals, and daily practices. The definition therefore explicitly included both “beliefs and/or practices.”
3. Multiple Modes of Expression
Religion is expressed through many channels: doctrine, philosophy, myth, symbol, ethics, ritual, material culture, personal experience, and social organization. Listing these modes acknowledged the complexity and richness of religious life.
4. The Role of the “Spiritual”
The phrase “in some way related to spiritual qualities, phenomena, or entities” was chosen to capture the sense that religion deals with realities or dimensions that transcend the ordinary, material world. This open-endedness allowed for the inclusion of theistic, non-theistic, animistic, and shamanistic traditions.
5. Avoiding Ethnocentrism
By not insisting on belief in gods or an afterlife, the definition avoided privileging Western or theistic models of religion, making it suitable for cross-cultural research.
6. Analytical and Practical Utility
A broad, inclusive definition was intended to be operationalizable for anthropologists and social scientists, guiding observation and comparison across diverse contexts.
Reviewing and Improving the Definition: The Process
Now in an age of AI, I came to review this definition to further improve it’s apbllicability and usability. Science never sleeps! 🙂 Here are the steps we have taken.
1. Identifying Strengths (Validations)
The original definition had several strengths:
- Inclusivity: Recognizing both beliefs (cognitive elements) and practices (performative elements).
- Diversity of Expression: Acknowledging the many forms religion can take.
- Applicability: Including both theistic and non-theistic traditions.
- Social Dimension: Recognizing religion’s role in shaping communities and social structures.
2. Recognizing Weaknesses (Falsifications)
However, critical review revealed several issues:
- Over-inclusiveness: The definition could include secular ideologies or philosophies (like Stoicism) that do not involve the sacred.
- Empirical Vagueness: The lack of clear, observable criteria made it difficult to apply in empirical research.
- Ambiguity of ‘Spiritual’: The term “spiritual” was too vague, leading to subjective interpretations.
- Individual vs. Collective: The definition allowed for purely individual religion, while much anthropological theory (notably Durkheim) emphasizes collective recognition and practice125.
3. Stepwise Refinement
To address these issues, we undertook a systematic, iterative process, drawing on classic works in the anthropology of religion1235:
- A. Excluding Non-Religious Ideologies:
We specified that religion must be explicitly related to “the sacred” (that which is fundamentally distinct from the profane), rather than the more ambiguous “spiritual.” This aligns with Durkheim’s classic distinction and excludes secular philosophies. - B. Ensuring Empirical Usability:
We required at least one “regular and predictable ritual.” Rituals are observable and measurable, making the definition more practical for research and distinguishing religion from abstract worldviews. - C. Clarifying the Sacred:
By anchoring the definition in “the sacred,” we included both theistic and non-theistic religions (such as Buddhism), while avoiding the ambiguity of “spiritual.” - D. Emphasizing Collectivity:
The definition was refined to require that the sacred is “collectively recognized by a community,” thus reinforcing the social nature of religion and aligning with Durkheim’s insights.
4. Synthesizing and Simplifying
After these adjustments, the anthropological definition of religion was both precise and comprehensive. To improve clarity and usability, we distilled the definition to its core-a communal system of beliefs and practices, rooted in the sacred and expressed through ritual. The detailed list of possible expressions (doctrine, philosophy, myth, etc.) was retained as a secondary, explanatory sentence.
The Improved Anthropological Definition of Religion (2025)
“Religion is a system of beliefs and practices shared by a community, rooted in the sacred, which orders reality and provides meaning through regular rituals. These beliefs and practices may be expressed through doctrine, philosophy, myth, symbol, ethics, ritual, material objects, personal experience, and social organization.“
Conclusion
This improved anthropological definition of religion is the result of a critical, stepwise process:
- Retaining the strengths (validations) of the original definition: inclusivity, diversity, applicability, and recognition of religion’s social dimension.
- Addressing the weaknesses (falsifications): ensuring the definition is neither too broad nor too vague, is empirically usable, and reflects the collective nature of religion.
- Grounding in anthropological theory: Especially Durkheim’s distinction between the sacred and the profane, and the importance of collective ritual125.
By following this process, we have arrived at an anthropological definition of religion that is both theoretically robust and practically applicable-serving the needs of anthropologists, researchers, and practitioners in business and beyond.
The original text
____
Since the early days of cultural anthropology, religion has been a topic of interest. Sir Edward Burnett Tylor (1832–1917) is the founding father of the anthropological study of religion. He saw religion as a way to understand the unexplainable (Kottak 1996:260). Nowadays the phenomena religion is considered a cultural universal (van Beek 1982: 3)(Kottak 1996: 260)(Morris: 1). But the concept of religion arguably not.
Tie back
In the nineteenth century French encyclopedists introduced the concept, that etymological tracing back to the Latin `religare´, meaning to tie back. The anthropologist, in contrast with for instance theologians, do not ask whether there is divine truth in religion, but look at the content of the religion (van Baal & van Beek 1985: 1). Max Weber refused to define religion (Morris: 69) and that might indeed be the wisest thing to do. But I will take the risk of burning my fingers by looking at some anthropological definitions.
Traditional societies
In classical anthropology the definitions tend to focus on religion in `traditional´ societies. In this they put emphasis on the interaction with supernatural entities (Spiro 96)(van Beek 1985)(Kottak 1996). Although subject of debate, religion in my view is very well possible without any supernatural beings, as Durkheim has debated in the case of Buddhism. The most important point of Durkheim is that religion can be seen as something sacred or as he puts it:
a unified set of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden, — beliefs and practices which unite [into] one single moral community, all those who adhere to them (Durkheim [1915] 1964: 37 cited in Morris 1987).
What also is worth noting is that he takes religion as being both believe and practice. Furthermore Durkheim sees religion specific as something collective, while magic would be typified by individual practice. With his emphasis on a community as the basis of religion, the spiritual practice of shamanism would for instance not be considered a religion.
Is it true?
Another definition is by Clifford Geertz. He defines religion as
(1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) 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 (Geertz 1985: 4).
Implicitly Geertz suggest that the religious experience is not true (an aura of factuality, seem…realistic), which seems a biased view. Durkheim takes a more neutral approach: All [religions] are true in their own fashion. It is the task of the anthropologist to understand these fashions. Van Baal & van Beek add as a critical point to Geertz´ definition that it lacks specificity. It wouldn’t contain a `directly observable, formal characteristic which is universally applicable as a means of identifying the religious´ (van Baal & van Beek 1985: 3) In other words, it doesn’t leave the anthropologist much to study. Hereafter they define religion themselves as:
all explicit and implicit notions and ideas, accepted as true, which relate to a reality which cannot be verified empirically (van Baal & van Beek 1985: 3)
Here, Geertz’ rich symbols, moods, motivations and conceptions have been reduced to only notions and ideas. However, there is a similarity between the two definitions. In contrast with Durkheim both Geertz and van Baal & van Beek take non-empirically perceivable objects (notions and ideas; a system) as the core of religion instead of also having an eye for the practice. However, not only that what is believed but also that what is done is an essential part of religious tradition. Some people might refer to their religion as mainly being the actions they are taking while others might emphasis the beliefs. Hence, a truly anthropological definition would embrace both possibilities.
More social
Radcliffe-Brown puts more emphasis on the social aspect of religion, according to Morris:
“We should see religious beliefs and observances as a part of a complex system by which human beings live together in an orderly fashion. We should look, he maintains, at the social functions of religion, that is, the contribution that it makes to the formation and maintenance of a social order” (Morris 1987: 127)
In other words religion itself cannot be studied, at least not by a social scientist. Only expressions of religion can be observed.
So now?
So, summarizing, a definition in the line of the given arguments should have eye for the cognitive as well as the performative nature of religion. Moreover a good definition incorporates the dimensions in which it is expressed and take awareness of the fact that it has something to do with the spiritual. This leads to:
A set of beliefs and/or actions to regulate and approach reality, expressed in: (a) doctrine, (b) philosophy, (c) myth, (d) symbol (e) ethic, (f) ritual, (g) matter, (h) experience and (i) social organisation, in some way related to spiritual qualities, phenomena or entities.
Guido Verboom, 2002
Edits
- revised 2015: language and style
- revised 2019: improved readability
- revised 2025: new definition based on the falsification and validation by perplexity.ai
Thank you to everyone for the many visits and feedback!
See also
