In nearly all civilizations and cultures, both ancient and modern, human beings have created religions or faith systems and within the context of these societies, these are seen as the “correct religion”. These systems of belief have always held great importance and those of one belief often believe that their chosen religion is the only one that is right or the correct religion. For many centuries people have died and killed others as a result of their firm belief that there is only one “true” religion—one right way of thinking about the myriad of topics involved with religious belief such as what happens after death, what is morally correct, and how death itself should be perceived. In fact, because of the complex nature of world religions, there are very few that compliment one another, let alone agree upon the fact that there is a common useful or equally beneficial purpose. Most religions tend to work against other religions and this, of course, creates the equally complex question of which one of them is right but how can one define what is the correct religion? Are all of them right because they advocate necessary moral certainties or guiding principals? Are there any moral certainties or truly “correct” religion and set of guiding rules world civilization should collectively obey out of a religiously-based sense of moral/ethical/spiritual righteousness? It is worth tackling the question of why and how it can be claimed that there is only one correct religion when religion and spiritual belief is something based entirely on feeling or faith as opposed to proof or a genuine empirical knowing. If viewed outside the context of world history, this is an innocuous philosophical question in itself but in terms of world events, modern and otherwise, the belief that there is only one true religion (and what it is) is a bloody, heated, tangled subject to explore.
Part of the reason this is such a staggering paradox is that religious belief is so incredibly important to all societies on Earth and many of these cultures, civilizations, and individuals have said with complete certainty that their religion is the only one that is right. The paradox of the correct religion is that there is no way of proving that any one of them is correct and faith, one of slipperiest concepts of all, is the only real substance of the claim. Unfortunately, faith is something different to all people and the value or meaning of it does not bear equal weight across cultures or groups. When considering whether or not there can be a true religion or one that is seen as the most correct religion amidst the cacophony (from antiquity to the present) of different voices claiming knowledge of a divine truth, one question inevitably leads to another. In the end, however, the only truth we all can agree upon is that no one really knows since no one can truly know. Putting the sticky topic of faith aside, the question of how there can be a “correct” religion amidst so much speculation seems, from an objective standpoint at least, to be a useless, if not ridiculous query. Still, for hundreds upon hundreds of years, various civilizations and cultures have claimed, vehemently, if not violently, that their religion is right and all others are wrong. In short, the root of the question is, at its simplest level, 1) How can there be one true or correct religion when 1) there is no one who knows for certain who god is, what god is, or if there even is a god at all—let alone whether or not this “god” is sentient, watching, or caring about the squabbles of mortals. 2) even without so many uncertainties about the figurehead or “god” behind many religions, it should be understood that nearly all cultures have a god or religion that is directly related to some localized aspect of their culture or greater environment. When one considers these two facts (which are only a small fraction or the even larger questions that naturally arise from such a debate) it is inconceivable to think that we can ever find a true and correct religion and thus it seems like the most reasonable course of action to give up on battling the question and resort to a worldwide culture of private faith or belief that does not attempt to spread or proselytize.
The most profound question within the question of how societies or individuals can claim knowledge of the correct religion that all should follow is how this knowledge about the right path was wrought. Throughout history, this question has been answered in the form of creations and myths surrounding religions, all of these trying to claim direct interaction with a god or higher being. Christianity has its prophets and its Jesus, for example, serving the purpose of “proving” divine communication but then again other religions with vastly different belief systems have their own prophets and figureheads as well. These emissaries for the divine being(s) all say many similar but also many different things but all are serving the same function—they exist to serve as evidence for the correctness of a religious belief. Again, from a truly objective standpoint, these events or people or their interaction with deities does not hold…there is nothing proven. There has never been one event that has allowed all cultures and societies to agree that there is a god that looks like x, wants us to believe y, and is visible, important, and agreeable to all. In short, all parties, all of whom claim to have knowledge of a true path, are all functioning off the same slippery notion of faith, thus it would seem that all claims to an understanding of the true religion are equally right and equally wrong, thus it seems, canceling one another out and proving none the victor. In sum, the question of whether or not there is a true religion, despite the prominence placed on it throughout history until the present day, should not be a question since it is based on something that is not known. The paradox is, these beliefs are necessary and persist throughout history and do provide societies with guidance and thus serve an important function. The biggest and most ethereal paradox, however, is that of having a faith so strong in something one cannot see or prove that it is feasible to die for something that might not exist or to claim superiority of one belief over another. These events continue to happen and thus unraveling why and what these events are based on is a necessary and important, if not completely perplexing task. Why is something that no one can see, understand in the same way, communicate with, or generally agreed upon granted such importance? How can there be any agreement and is one necessary beyond the reasons of ending wars and faith-derived strife that have always existed?
Aside from the matter of many claims without a standard basis of comparison to determine a religion “winner” among the thousands of world faiths, the second, related but narrower matter to consider is that most cultures adopt religions based on their unique circumstances. For instance, the ancient Sumarians and other primitive cultures believed in an unpredictable god who punished and rewarded without warning. Many Sumarians, if alive today to contend, would argue that this was far more correct in terms of religion than modern Christianity. This is because the environment of these ancient people was often unpredictable with good harvests followed by grief and famine. It is natural that such a religion would seem “correct” because this god fit the environment and daily reality of these people. However, for modern man, particularly in the West, this might not seem as feasible as a forgiving god who listened to troubles because our culture is about understanding—we no longer worry about harvests and sudden unexpected droughts or famine. In other words, all religions seem right to those who believe them because these religions hold a significance that might not be respected, understood, or valued in the same way as it would be in a vastly different environment, culture, or society. This brings out yet another paradox; is it true that all religions are right because they are so often the best suited to those groups who believe them? The paradox is that if this is the case, all religions, no matter how diverse or seemingly opposed to one another they may seem, are all correct, just in a more confined sense. In addition, If this is true, it could be argued that every religion is a right or correct religion (without delving into the equally complex matter of what makes a belief system “right” at all) because it is beneficial to those who have faith in it.
In sum, the first paradox of this question is how can it be claimed that there can be a correct religion when there is nothing about one faith system (stressing the word faith in the most objective of senses, here) that makes it more bulletproof than another? The second paradox which stems from the first is whether or not the question itself is not valid because all belief systems function for centralized societies, cultures, or groups and thus all are the best religions because they serve such a localized purpose. The third paradox of the correct religion, which is, in some ways independent and interdependent on both of the previous paradoxes, is why this is a question (which religion is right) when the answer hinges on such ethereal and slippery concepts as culture and faith. There are few answers and those that do actually emerge are dependent on the individual offering the answer. Perhaps the only answer that does exist is that no one knows and thus faith and religions should not vie with one another for authenticity or correctness, but should rather exist on the understanding that they are all serving some function to the societies or individuals who created them, for better or worse.
