On Clifford Geertz's Definition of Religion

Geertz, paraphrased, says this about religion: that it is a structure of symbols and ideas meant to impress a world-view of order and meaning upon its followers. This meaning may or may not be true; but it is given such an "aura of factuality" that believers buy into it.

I understand Geertz is a secular anthropologist, interested only in the social aspects and implications of religion. This is well and good; but his cavalier treatment of religion and religious people is ugly and unnecessary. Actually, it seems to me to diminish his credibility as an objective anthropologist. Who created these "systems of symbols", and why? He never says; but the tone of the rest of the definition is answer enough in my mind: these systems of symbols are created to hoodwink the masses; they only seem factual, he says, but are really nothing more than stories to appease and control. These symbols and stories, he cruelly implies, cannot truly explain away great metaphysical mysteries; they are merely there to "establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men", and to provide a (false) conception of the "general order of existence". If that be the case, what more is religion than a dam preventing the tides of anarchy and despair from crashing round about us? It seems to me that this definition is far too subjective, and far too disrespectful, to be taken very seriously--at least outside the realms of pure anthropology.