How do we know if a person or group of people is/are “religious”? What does Tylor say we should look for to answer that question?

Although individually we may have different definitions of belief, Tylor sees the importance of coming to a common set of rules defining a religion. His proposal is to use a wide definition of Religion: “It seems best to … simply claim, as a minimum definition of Religion, the belief in Spiritual Beings.” In his experience, previous definitions of Religion have been too narrow, only taking into account beliefs congruent with those of the researcher. He quotes several writers who have simultaneously confirmed Religion in “savages” according to Tylor’s definition, and refuted the Religion according to their own more narrow definitions. In this day and age, we tend to generally accept this much wider definition, therefore causing Tylor’s argument to seem the more adept; however, the researchers which he mentioned must have sounded thoroughly logical in their own time. Consider the possibility that our “logical” definition of religion must be as constantly changing as the religions it defines. Thus, perhaps Tylor’s “broad” definition is not really so broad. Belief itself is arguably reliable. However, limited to Tylor’s point of view, Religion is defined by belief in some sort of soul, whether it belong to inanimate objects, animals, or especially humans; along with a tendency to believe in higher spiritual beings, who feel “pleasure or displeasure from human actions.” He denotes this crude base of religion as Animism and affirms its presence in all currently known religions, whether in its most basic or most “evolved” (or Christian) form.