My perspective as an agnostic is that you generally can't judge the legitimacy of a religion based on its beliefs; some religions are more believable than others, and it's more likely that a believable religion would turn out to be true. But in religion, 'more likely' isn't good enough. In some churches, it seems like the theology is being shifted to make it more believable, less faith-based (the United Church for example, where it's no longer a requirement to believe in the divinity of Christ), and I wonder what's the point? In what way is the religion stronger because the burden of faith has been decreased.
The second analysis is looking at the logic of a religion. Does it hold together within its own little bubble, or is it full of contradictions and impossible tasks. I think most religions suffer from some faults here, some more than others. If a religion espouses the sacredness of life, for example, but also advocates war against non-believers, then it has problems. If the religious texts are structured in such a way that almost any action can be justified or condemned depending on interpretation, then the religion is fairly useless. The legitimate religions are those that actually offer a path for its followers. What that path is and where it leads is less important (in terms of legitimacy) than how well that path is constructed.
|