Earhart opened his discussion in the first section by claiming that religion is universal. He began by introducing the different religions present in various parts of the world, past and present (Egypt, Rome and India to name a few). Following that, he introduced his argument that religion exists in every culture. Stating that almost every day, the media displays religious events happening all around the globe, he concluded that religion is an important aspect of people’s lives. In addition, he wrote that religion is inherent in all humans, discussing that all humans have the ‘potential’ to be religious. As such, choosing not to be affiliated with any religion does not make one any less religious. Extending this claim to the whole society, he tries to convince his readers that all humans have a religious dimension and thus religion is universal. He then concluded that the study of religion is driven by ‘selfishness’ as one wants to gain self-understanding through learning about other traditions.
I agree with the arguments that Earhart made to a large extent. However, I do not concur with his justifications. His observation of ‘the presence of religion in every country and culture’ is not backed up by evidence and as such, I do not find this argument convincing. Furthermore, he tried to appeal to his readers’ experience of viewing ‘exceptional’ religious events on television and practicing daily religious rituals to prove that religion is inherent in all humans. I find this claim implausible. The presence of religious events in mass media does not mean that religion is ‘universal’. The media covers many more issues other than religious events, for example conflicts, politics, and finance. It is far-fetched to conclude that these issues are also ‘universal’, and their existences in our lives are ‘part of being human’. Moreover, the mass media is often guilty of sensationalizing trivial events. It cannot be used as a suitable guide to determine the significance...