The task of defining what a religion is is certainly not an easy task. For countless millennia, humanity has worshiped a pantheon of deities, whether it be the Sun as seen in ancient Aztec culture or the God of the Hebrews. Therefore, a definition of what religion is must be accessible and comprehensive, as it seems to address a myriad of beliefs of different scope. The three definitions I have chosen to analyze focus primarily on the nature of belief within a religion. For example, Marx viewed religion as a means of subjugation in order to maintain the status quo through the impartiality of an ideology that maintained an absolute balance leading to stagnation and therefore lack of change. Thus, belief in a religion is only the reaction of the oppressed to offer them a shadow of comfort in a “heartless world”. Tylor focused on the notion of belief as defining religion, in that religion itself is formulated by primitive man explaining what he did not understand by giving all things Anima to explain what they could not understand. He claims that belief in spiritual beings is animism and that humanity has borne the resulting ignorance. Feuerbach's definition is certainly thought provoking in that his definition of God is a construct of man, rather than the traditional vice versa. Feuerbach, like Tylor and Marx, focuses on the nature of belief within religion. I chose this option because I would prefer to focus on belief in religion rather than its practice, in part because of Freud's emphasis on the practice of religion as a neurosis that spread throughout the generations, and also because I would prefer to be able to make comparisons between the three definitions, the nature of the belief being a foundation...... middle of paper ...... primitive man could not understand, and as such, are the result of the ignorance of primitive society. Tylor therefore argues that the idea of ​​a belief in one or more Gods is the result of the "survival" of religion. Tylor asserts that religious survival is due to the fact that some are guilty of limiting and relying on outdated custom when science can explain such custom. phenomena far away. This explanation is difficult to categorize, because it is certainly a sociological explanation, but also an anthropological and psychological one. The studies analyzed by Keleman identified that children appear to identify certain objects in a method similar to Tylor's animism, in that things are given a morality – positive or negative based on the likelihood of harming the child. This could be evidence supporting Tylor's argument that through knowledge such things become more than just good or bad..