The first theory discussed by Pals, represented by E. B. Tylor and James Frazer, reflects an early anthropological phase that viewed religion as the product of intellectual error in humanity’s attempt to understand the natural world. Religion, from this perspective, appears as an immature form of rationality—an early and mistaken kind of science. Pals does more than summarize animism or evolutionary schemes of belief; he exposes their limitations, particularly the tendency to reduce religion to faulty reasoning while detaching religious experience from its social and symbolic contexts. The reader is thus reminded that theories of religion are always products of their time, embedded in assumptions about progress, rationality, and Western superiority.
With Sigmund Freud, Pals moves into the darker terrain of psychology. Religion is no longer understood as an intellectual mistake but as an emotional illusion—a projection of human desires, fears, and inner conflicts. God emerges as a cosmic father figure, and religious rituals as symbolic repetitions of childhood trauma. Importantly, Pals does not present Freud as a simple enemy of religion. Rather, Freud appears as a serious interpreter of religion’s psychological function. Even as illusion, religion endures because it operates at the deepest levels of human experience. Much like Geertz’s reading of ritual as both a “model of” and a “model for” reality, Freud reads religion as a mirror of human vulnerability.
Karl Marx, as interpreted by Pals, offers a thoroughly political and materialist understanding of religion. Religion is the “opium of the people,” not merely because it dulls suffering, but because it functions as consolation within a world structured by inequality. Pals carefully situates Marx’s critique of religion within his broader critique of capitalism and alienation. Religion is not the primary cause of suffering but a symptom of unjust social arrangements. In this view, religion becomes both the language of suffering and a mechanism of legitimation. This section reveals Marx not as a destroyer of faith, but as a sharp reader of power relations concealed behind sacred symbols.
In contrast to Marx, Émile Durkheim returns religion to the center of social life as a source of collective meaning and solidarity. In Pals’s reading, Durkheim understands religion as society worshiping itself; what is held sacred is ultimately the moral force of the collective. The distinction between the sacred and the profane is not metaphysical but social. At this point, Seven Theories of Religion begins to resonate strongly with Geertz’s symbolic anthropology, particularly in its emphasis on ritual and symbol as the glue of community. Religion is less about theological truth than about how societies understand and affirm themselves.
Max Weber, as presented by Pals, introduces a more nuanced and historical approach. Religion is neither illusion nor mere social function but a system of meaning capable of shaping human action. Weber’s analysis of the Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism illustrates how religious ideas can orient life conduct and economic behavior. In this resensi, Weber appears as a thinker who bridges subjective meaning and objective structure—an approach that would later exert a profound influence on interpretive anthropology in the tradition of Geertz.
The sixth figure, Mircea Eliade, moves the discussion beyond reductionist social science toward religion as a sui generis experience. For Eliade, religion is fundamentally an encounter with the sacred—an existential experience that cannot be fully explained by psychological or social factors alone. Pals honestly presents both the strengths and weaknesses of this perspective. On the one hand, it respects the depth of religious experience; on the other, it risks neglecting historical context and relations of power. Here, Eliade serves as a reminder that religion is not always reducible to social analysis, but also involves awe, fascination, and the human confrontation with transcendence.
Clifford Geertz, as the seventh theory, appears not merely as a conclusion but as an open synthesis. Pals presents Geertz as a thinker who understands religion as a system of symbols that shapes human moods and motivations by providing conceptions of an ordered reality. This resensi emphasizes that Geertz does not seek to determine whether religion is true or false, but how it is meaningful. Through an interpretive approach, religion is read as a cultural text that demands patient ethnographic understanding.
Overall, the greatest strength of Seven Theories of Religion lies in the clarity of its narrative and its intellectual fairness. Pals does not dogmatically privilege one theory over others; instead, he opens a dialogue among perspectives. Each theory is treated as a lens rather than a final truth. This resensi highlights a central lesson of the book: to understand religion is to live with interpretive tension, not to seek definitive closure.
For Indonesian readers, Pals’s book holds particular relevance. Amid ongoing debates about religion, modernity, and identity, Seven Theories of Religion offers a more reflective and humble way of thinking. Religion is not positioned as an object of attack or defense, but as a complex and multilayered human phenomenon. This resensi reads Pals’s work as an invitation to think rather than to judge.
Like Geertz’s The Interpretation of Cultures, Pals’s book demands patience and a willingness to suspend premature conclusions. It is not a fast read, but a dialogical one. Each theory opens new questions, and each question challenges readers to reflect on their own assumptions about religion.
Ultimately, Seven Theories of Religion is not only a book about theories of religion, but about how humans understand themselves. Through religion, humans articulate fear, hope, suffering, and the search for meaning. This resensi suggests that the book’s greatest achievement lies in its ability to preserve this complexity rather than reduce it to simple answers.
In closing, Daniel L. Pals has produced a work that deserves repeated reading, especially for those who seek to understand religion not as a fixed doctrine but as a cultural phenomenon continually open to interpretation. Like Geertz, Pals reminds us that the task of the scholar is not to simplify the world, but to render it intelligible in all its complexity.