Have seen countless of threads that discuss this & RAW vs JPEGs and similar where there is no right answer.. cos it's a mater of perspective.
Something works for you & something works for someone else, so how how that say who's right?
I have a UV filter on all my lenses. maybe it really is protecting my lens, maybe it isn't... but it gives me some satisfaction.. like a placebo effect.
But why i feel i need it more is cos the concept of Insurance for cameras, or even households for that matter doesn't exist here.
Talking about the strength of filters vs lens can be absurd cos the quality of the glass on a lens is extremely good.
What cracks or scratches a lens filter may not even have a feather touch effect on the lens.
So even replicating the same on either lens or the filter is meaningless cos to arrive at the same end result, the circumstances may have to different.. simply cos the strength of either is different.
We had a similar discussion about the quality of images with & without a filter, so i tired it & though there was no discernible difference to my eye, there was a very minor difference between the 2, with the one without filters being a little brighter.
Now one can say that the settings may have changed in between the 2 pics ever so slightly, cos of my incapabilities or atmospheric conditions or cos it was raining in Africa when i shot them.
Long story short, if you don't like filters & think they ruin your pics, take it off and go shoot some pics..
If you like filters, put them on and go shoot some pics!