I'm struggling with finding answers to existential questions and I consider it important to have a firm answer on the topic of religion. I cannot believe in something simply because it exists as a claim, I need it to be true.

I have been working for a long time to find answers on the topic of what religion (if any) would be rationally affirmable. It's hard because I lean on skepticism and there are simply so many different religions and stances on religion/irreligion out there. There are countless arguments for every position, and people have defended every position under the sun. There are essentially an infinite number of resources (books, articles, videos, podcasts, etc) and experts on the relevant subjects to consult.

I could spend my whole life on the subject and still come nowhere near close to going through most of what exists, even if I'm just looking at the top 10 religions (or forms of irreligion). It's hard to say when it would be "enough" to justify commitment to a religion, especially if you don't like said religion (I believe if a religion is true, it's not rational to discard it simply because one doesn't like it).

I feel like this process is taking forever and it's taken me months just to grasp the basic arguments for one religion (the one I was grown up with), granted I've become somewhat more effective in the process now. I'm aware a certain degree of faith is required to have any belief at all, even if that belief is atheism, but I mean I don't feel anywhere near the point of rational security. It feels arrogant and self-deluding to think that one knows the subject (peak dunning-kruger) when they really don't.

I've been relying on rationality as a means to truth but it doesn't necessarily seem reliable. There are various rational frameworks, different epistemic standards, and what "makes sense" to one person doesn't necessarily for another. It almost seems as if rationality itself is subjective due to our limited experience, perception, and knowledge; kind of like what constructivism proposes. Philosophers disagree on axioms, many are radical skeptics or sophists, and many reject the LNC (without which knowledge regarding objective rational claims on religion may not be feasible). Propositional logic has it's own contentious areas, and modal logic (and any other) have their inconsistencies and flaws which puts into question their reliability. It seems that certain knowledge of truth on the matter is incredibly convoluted and improbable.

Hence why I'm mostly inclined towards agnosticism as a stance, just because I really have no clue on the topic. I'm not sure how to have an actually productive analaysis that produces results of reasonable veracity that can be affirmed with conviction.

FOMO (by being wrong) -> Aimless perfectionism -> Perpetual uncertainty, anxiety, and indecision is where I'm at