The legitimacy/utility of religion is more or less related to the treatment of culture in human co-existence. Each religion just like culture is unique and superior in its own aspects and as such, its usefulness will be absolute to those that confess it. This is borne out of the fact that there exists several religions across the world which are non-related. However, that does not rule out the fact they share some commonalities like professing a supreme being at the helm of the given religion design. It therefore implies that the utility and the legitimacy of a religion is context specific since there is no one-fit-all type of religion. For example, there is no way Christian teachings can be gauged on their legitimacy in the context of Muslim teachings. The two are absolutely not compatible as they are built on absolutely different believes, values and practices. However, if a religion in the eyes of those who profess it is right, then there is no reason to question its legitimacy or utility for its place in the society would be clear and well known by all.
This however has been met with a lot of opposition in the history of religion. Although some historical moderators have tried to defend the role played by religion, they are much aware that there exists clashes between scientific inventions and religion which put the utility of religion into questions. Time and again, there has been claims that faithful professing certain religions do so due to social pressure, the quest for emotional attachment and appeal to popularity. This fault lines have therefore been used by critics to expose and dispute the usefulness claim of religion. Thea arguments for usefulness of religion have been branded as illogical since one cannot at the personal level prove to whatever one claims on religious matters. Much of what is said and believed by the believers is what they tend to think is right but there is no evidence that it is right. As such, religion is not anchored on any evidence whatsoever in the history hence a common factor for being disputed by scientists and other groups like the atheists. Many of the people who profess these religions do so for fear of consequences they have equally been told about but in real sense have never witnessed them happen to others, and if they did occur, still there was no evidence of a connection between the two events. The above arguments have been used to dispute the fact that religion has any benefit to an individual or a society.
We can do it today.
Further reasons to doubt the usefulness of religion in the daily living as per critics is the presence if constant wars, human atrocities and the willingness of some believers to adopt a psychopathic worldviews. If religion was genuine and actually working as per the assertions of believers and their teachers, then we would never have witnessed in the history of the world such events like war, famine, human suffering etc. since the faithful would have pleaded for the same to be done away with by their supreme beings as per the teachings of protection. This has a further impact on the complete lack of evidence with reference to what religion can or cannot do. Therefore, it is useless for the believers to build their worldviews on such elements through which they gauge happenings and form attitudes about life based on a teachings and frameworks that they cannot substantiate. Critics have pointed religion as a false fallacy that has in many cases led to conflicts and divisions when people don’t agree on a certain factor of a religion or another.
On the teaching of morality and social obligation, the claims have been opposed strongly with the argument that while morals can be experimented and tested scientifically, what then informs the basis upon which religion can measure good or bad morals while itself is not quantifiable in any way possible. Further, there is the question of who decided what is to be considered, morally upright or wrong at a time that none of the believers existed and they just follow blindly without any questioning of the sources of those teachings. There is also the absoluteness with which one is taken when they express personal knowledge and fear in god. Such a person is assumed to automatically have good morals. Critics wonder what if such a person is just pretending in the eye of the public and does what they deem fit when they are out of the public domain. Will such a person still be morally upright? It is in the eye of such holistic considerations that religion has found its application in personal and group contexts limited of late. This has more so come along with the increase in technology and research and science has been used to inform the decision made by man. With matters like religions which are more of spiritual and based on belief, it has become difficult by the days to convince anyone of how it works or how it helpful without any substantial prove of the same hence the plight of religion and its teachers.
- Faiguet de Villeneuve, Joachim. “Sunday.” The Encyclopedia of Diderot & d’Alembert Collaborative Translation Project. Translated by Noah Shusterman. Ann Arbor: Michigan Publishing, University of Michigan Library, 2002.
- Jaucourt, Louis, chevalier de. “Hospitality.” The Encyclopedia of Diderot & d’Alembert Collaborative Translation Project. Translated by Sophie Bourgault. Ann Arbor: Michigan Publishing, University of Michigan Library, 2013.
- Jaucourt, Louis, chevalier de. “Samanean.” The Encyclopedia of Diderot & d’Alembert Collaborative Translation Project. Translated by E.M. Langille. Ann Arbor: Michigan Publishing, University of Michigan Library, 2012.
- Jaucourt, Louis, chevalier de. “Jew.” The Encyclopedia of Diderot & d’Alembert Collaborative Translation Project. Translated by Ronald Schechter. Ann Arbor: Michigan Publishing, University of Michigan Library, 2002.
- Jaucourt, Louis, chevalier de. “Mohammedanism.” The Encyclopedia of Diderot & d’Alembert Collaborative Translation Project. Translated by Susan Emanuel. Ann Arbor: Michigan Publishing, University of Michigan Library, 2005.