Geertz's definition of religion

Clifford Geertz's definition of religion:
"A system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic."

While I think Geertz's definition does an adequate job sharpening out a jagged form of what religion is in an objective viewpoint, I feel that Geertz's definition does not adequately describe why "men" have religion; to me, that is where its importance lies. But as we talked about in class, religion cannot be placed in a box with rough edges, but it is instead fluid, with obscure edges at times. It does not matter what religion is or what it looks like in objective terms, because those are all effects of the reasons why religion exists among men, and that is where the subtleties and intricacies of religion lie. I believe that what religion really is is the idea or feeling that takes place in man, for that is what exists first. The "system of symbols," the "powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods," and the "aura of factuality" are results of how man tries to implement and promote religion, not the actual religion itself. I believe that religion was created to satisfy the innate human desire for meaning and purpose in life. It's occurrence in man probably coincided with the origination of man's ability to conceptualize about human existence, and cause and effect. Once we were able to conceptualize the nature of cause and effect, we likely applied it to our own existence and, at the time, a omnipotent god was probably the simplest answer. It is also a comforting answer, in that it often addresses afterlife questions and introduces ideas such as fate or karma, salvation or damnation, in which we can to some degree influence our future or eternal fate.

One other thing that i think remains unclear in Geertz's definition is whether the creation of the "system of symbols" and the "conceptions of a general order of existence" are conscious and deliberate. Geertz, by stating that these conceptions are "clothed with an aura of factuality," almost implies that it is done so deliberately. I think this is important because if the desire for religion and religion itself were intuitively sensed by man rather than consciously reasoned, it would have more validity, since religion relies on faith and goes against reason. That is why I don't think religion can be rationally or pragmatically proved.