Effigy Mounds

The definition of religion we learned in the class on monday was: 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. 

I think it is really interesting that Geertz says that we must present these symbols with a light of factuality.  In order to form a set of beliefs, or ideas to follow, the only way to legitimize them is to present them in a factual matter.  When reading about the effigy mounds i noticed that everything was presented in this way.  

Is this really an accurate way of presenting religion though?  Nothing is really ever factual, especially not with symbols that date back over 1,000 years.  We have no idea where the mounds came from, or what they truly represent, we can only make educated guesses.  While i do agree that religion should be based around factual observations, this is rather unaccurate.  

I also find it interesting that Geertz explains that the reason we clothes these conceptions with an aura of factuality, is for them to appear to realistic.  This is kind of seems to be suggesting that we must make a personal opinion into a fact, which doesn't make it a fact at all.  So does religion come from a fake place?  Is religion essentially made up?  I think it is.  Of course, this isn't somethign most religious people want to admit, but we really have no evidence for beliefs or rituals.  Well we do, but we don't have evidence that these beliefs are the correct in what they suppose.