Geertz

Geertz essentially says that religion is a means (ritual, symbols, concepts, etc.) by which people are infused with what they will believe to be truth- whether or not it is- to an extent beyond most non-religious beliefs those people hold.

When considering Clifford Geertz' definition of religion, I think we must look at it as a definition of the function of religion, and not as the essence of the concept. It is not even a definition for the intended function of religion. Most spiritual leaders, I think, would think of the symbols and rituals of their religions as means of revelation, ways in which to open the eyes of the naturally unknowing to the fundamental truths of the cosmos (i.e. "moods and motivation"). This is the intended function of religion, but given the fact that the truths of these various belief systems generally conflict with each other, most of them can not (in any traditional paradigm) be actually functioning as such, in which case they most likely fit in with Geertz' definition- though the two definitions are not mutually exclusive; a religion can certainly formulate and clothe conceptions which are in fact true.

As for the real function of religion- I think Geertz pretty much captures it. I'm not sure if the moods and motivations established are always "powerful and pervasive", as some religions it seems to me have somewhat more relaxed ideas about things- they describe a truth, but the truth is designed to work for you, and not you for it. This is how I wish all religion functioned, but unfortunately we see very little of that because, logically, the religions with the most forceful truths are most likely to survive (forgive me for viewing religion here through the lens of evolution). In any case, I do not see his definition as entirely accurate here- though I prefer his specificity to overcautiousness.

Can the actual essence of the concept, then, be defined? Not really, no. One can certainly draw connections and find common ground between religions- but there will almost always be exceptions to any definition which is specific enough to be useful. It's like trying to define the sandwich. Dictionary.com defines it as "Two or more slices of bread with filling such as meat or cheese placed between them". Interesting. So is a gyro a sandwich? a hamburger? One pizza flipped onto another pizza? But there is another definition listed as well- "Something resembling a sandwich". Thank you, dictionary.com. I think you've really nailed the issue here.