Religion can be succinctly encompassed in a very simple concept that everyone could define: it is the belief in the existence of a superior being called God, a belief that precipitates historically in stories, more properly called “myths” and in rituals. Religion would, therefore, be a “telling” and a “doing as staging”. A human community is structured and organized around these myths and rituals to whom, the individuals that practice it, holds strong value. Culturally, biologically and psychologically, religion can be analyzed in a multifaceted form. Religions lend itself to be woven between such disciplines as ethics and culture, facets that make it challenging to be universally, and personally for me, defined. The definition of the term “religion” as a parameter of absolute value can be, as I proposed above, risky. However, the religion-culture equation according to the definition of relativist anthropologist Clifford Geertz is even riskier in my opinion.For Clifford Geertz, “religion” is a fundamental and autonomous component of every culture where, by culture, we mean a model of meanings manifested by historically transmitted symbols, a system of inherited concepts expressed in symbolic forms for half of which men communicate, maintain and develop knowledge and attitudes about life. A system of effective symbols to establish in the human group powerful, persuasive and lasting attitudes and motivations based on the formulations of concepts that they concern the general order of existence. This is achieved by wrapping these concepts with such a propensity of possibilities, that the realization of the fixed, idealized feelings and motivations appear absolutely realistic.And it’s a merit of Geertz: his use of religion is all mundane: also any mysticisms are interpreted and explained in depth. Compared to Geertz, Durkheim, for the which religion and the sacred are connected; they constitute, in essence, the representation of the collective nature of religions. Both use a definition of religion as a system of beliefs that have value, and functions, for society; which is the ultimate focus in explaining the role of religion for people. The diversity of position is that for Durkheim society builds itself and idealizes it by its sacred representation; for Geertz, everything is the result of interpretations of the individuals who use religious signs to establish “markers” stable, so as to not make free interpretations flow naturally.Durkheim, in his fundamental work dedicated to the elementary forms of religious life, makes use of the distinction between the sacred and the profane in order to show, through extensive empirical analysis in the ethnic field, the “social” origin of religion. Religious phenomena are created within a society to give cohesion to society itself. Religion is for Durkheim “a system of solidarity of beliefs and practices related to sacred things, that is, separate and interdict, which unites in a single moral community, called the church, all those who adhere to it”. The sacred, therefore, understood as that which possesses extraordinary and potentially dangerous qualities and which can be approached only through a certain ritual is at the root of this religious meaning. Therefore, for Durkheim, religion is a series of beliefs and practices shared by a community; on the contrary, the individual beliefs of a subject concerning the supernatural do not constitute a religion if they are not institutionalized and shared.The French sociological school, founded by Durkheim, combines sociological and ethnological studies in a unitary vision of primitive peoples and civilized people. I find this to be most representative of my own holistic view of religion and its meaning throughout society. In reconstructing the origin of religion, and to formulate a general theory of religious phenomena, I find that as an institutionalized and organized form of the sacred, it holds society together around a set of values on which order is founded. Rites are used to keep the collective consciousness alive. Exploration with which I agree, based above all on the interpretation that Durkheim poses to religion. According to Freud, religion originates from man’s own weakness, that feels helpless in front of the forces of nature from which it is surrounded on the outside, and the forces of the instincts that rise up within him. There, religion is born in a relatively primitive phase of human development, when man is not yet able to dominate these external forces e internal by reason, and must be content to repress them or keep them at bay with the help of other emotional forces, or “counter-affections”, that they have the function of suppressing and neutralizing what he would not know how to deal with a rational plan. Thus man develops what Freud calls “derivative illusion” from the experience of each individual in childhood.Feeling exposed to dangerous, uncontrollable and incomprehensible forces, the man remembers, going back over the years, an experience he had as a child, when he felt protected by a father who seemed to him a creature supremely wise and strong, and from which it was possible to obtain love and protection provided that his orders were obeyed and they were not transgressed its prohibitions. In this interpretation of religion, I find Freud to be lacking the individual context of each person’s individual experience rather than a generalized experience. In Freud’s thought, therefore, religion is nothing more than a repetition of our childhood experiences. In front of the forces that threaten him, the adult behaves as he has learned to behave as a child when he was afraid and found comfort in the figure admired and feared by his father. Freud compares religion to neurosis obsessive that is found in children. Religion is indeed a neurosis collective, caused by similar factors. This thought once again does not align with my personal explanation and interpretation of religion; whilst Freud’s embodies the complexity of religious practices, I find there to be a lack of positive psychology and an overstatement of his theoretical views which do not succinctly align with my personal view of society’s role of religion. This theory on the psychological genesis of religion is proposed above all to explain why the idea of ??a god was formed. But according to Freud, his doctrine is not limited to this explanation psychological. From it, it is evident how unreal the conception is theistic which is a simple illusion based on certain human desires.In addition to an illusion, Freud says that religion is a danger because it tends to sanctify certain bad human institutions with which one is always ally; moreover, religion tends to impoverish intelligence, teaching to believe in an illusion and prohibiting critical thinking. This last remark aligns closely with my overall belief of religion, and is quite possibly, a mere detail in comparison to the similarity he makes with other claims. The notion of “survival” is very important for Tylor, as for all the evolutionary anthropology, because it allowed to demonstrate that any society, even the “civil” ones, had passed through the different cultural stages of development, starting from living conditions equal to those of the current “primitive” or “savages”, which in turn could legitimately be considered living documents of our own previous phases of development. On the basis of these theoretical and methodological premises, Tylor concentrated in particular on religion, hypothesizing its origin in animism, that is the “belief in spiritual beings”, which the British anthropologist puts at the base of all religions, as a point of common departure. As can be deduced from the reading of the animistic hypothesis, all the work of Tylor is aimed at the reconstruction of the evolutionary sequence of the culture of humanity. If placed in the cultural and social context of the time – “evolutionism” apart -, its methodological rigor has contributed decisively to the birth of anthropological studies. Conceptually this explanation of religion is not as complex as the doctrine that I believe is encompassed in religious practices. I see the further connection of religion as a social encrypted phenomenon, much different than Tylor’s over-simplified schema. Religious systems play a peculiar role in the world of human and social relationships. As a human art, religion appears as a singular and demanding activity that feeds visions capable of passion and deep involvement. By their very nature, religious systems have given space to the individual’s creativity and freedom of expression. They have led to comparisons, often problematic and culturally dense, with other individuals or groups; further represented in the anthropological literature. Hence the importance, today, of anthropological analysis, increasingly considered an indispensable tool to appropriate the social and cultural significance of religious phenomena. In conclusion, it is undeniable the deep differential existence of each form of religion and the intrinsically important distinction to be made between these. My personal consideration of religion lies in the complex blend of socio-cultural beliefs that I find differs drastically throughout geographic locations. Further, I see religion and its prevalence to be analyzed not only on the geographical manner in which religions are ‘assigned’ but also in the propensity of individuals to confirm both from a personal belief added to the past cultural religious association. It is therefore trivially difficult to arrive at a complete culmination of the meaning of religion in terms of society and people as it has, for centuries, been molded and explained divergently.