One of the most important questions we can ask ourselves is: what should we believe in? In this article, I will be looking at the criteria, we could use to best enable us to make a well informed choice of religion. Presupposed in this is that you have already felt that your life would be better served by having a sense of direction, that an agnostic or atheistic perspective doesn't satisfy. I will leave to another opportunity a discussion of why to have a religion or not, but in the interests of time, I will just cut to the chase here. 

So, you have decided or considered following a religion, but which to choose - there are so many! How can I possibly choose one out of such a range? Let's begin with narrowing down the choices.

    •    A religion with a god or no god?

Seems like a silly choice at first, surely all religions have a god that is believed in? No, not necessarily. In some religions, such as Buddhism there are branches of their religion, which doesn't have a belief in a god. The focus then is on personal enlightenment or development. As part of the practice of these religions, there are meditation rituals which help in centering the individual and finding peace or relaxation. Yoga is an example of one practice, which involves both exercise and meditation. There is a concept of "healthy mind, healthy body" across most religions. There is much scientific research that suggests the health benefits of these rituals, which include lower blood pressure, quicker recovery times from illnesses, better immune systems and many more. Buddhism, based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, deals with the question of human suffering directly, which is an important component in any worthwhile religion, because let's face it, we will all face this in our lives, unless we are very lucky indeed. How does it deal with this question? It teaches that suffering is merely an illusion and is caused by our desires, if we detach ourselves from those desires, then suffering ceases. This has some merit as a concept. Imagine you are stuck in traffic and you need to be somewhere in 10 minutes, you feel frustrated and even perhaps "road rage". Why? Because your desire to be somewhere else is being frustrated by your circumstances. You can do nothing about the traffic, that is out of your control, but what you can do is detach yourself from your desire, through awareness, enlightenment, brought about through meditation. This is a worthwhile concept to have in your religion, but the limitation is that sometimes suffering is such that you can't just wish it a way. What is needed instead is HOPE, hope that one's suffering - that is real and enduring - has some ultimate purpose. Therefore, in choosing one's religion, a religion that offers that consolation would be worth considering and this may require the need for a Supreme Being, a god, to whom this suffering has a meaning or purpose. However, there may be religions that can deliver that HOPE without a reference to a god.   In the Shinto religion, for example, there isn't a clear concept of a "god", but have Kami, which are the spirits that exist in the world. They can vary from the waterfall itself to the spirits of the dead. One benefit of this religion is a respect for ancestors (the spirits of the dead), so you will never be forgotten by your next of kin in this religion. Also, there is a raised awareness of the divine in the ordinary. One negative is that the concept of Kami is too vague and less than satisfactory to base one's life upon.

So, we have considered two well known religions, which can function without a concept of a god (* note: in other branches of Buddhism, Buddhists do have a concept of a god). How do we choose which to go for? Perhaps, under the next heading, we can come to a clearer idea of which to go for: a religion with a concept of God or one without?

    •    Where did the universe come from?

A scientific answer to this age old question would be some form of the theory of the Big Bang. This theory describes WHAT happened at the beginning of the universe - which I will detail momentarily - but doesn't yet quite answer WHY. So, the Big Bang theory states that 13.7 billion years ago, all energy, matter, space, the laws of physics and even time itself came into existence spontaneously. Space expanded exponentially in under a second. Eventually, the energy particles formed atoms, which in turn led to the formation of stars and galaxies. The evidence for this comes in the form of background cosmic radiation and that galaxies are still moving apart. Scientists have come to realize that they are dealing with the existence of a sort of "Goldilocks Universe", because if anything in the laws of physics had been even slightly differently, the Universe as we know it would have been incapable of existence, especially life. In an effort to avoid the conclusion, that there must have been a Divine Architect, Supreme Being or simply God, that created and fine tuned the Universe - since after all, science shouldn't bring God into naturalistic explanations - a hypothesis of "Multi-verses" has been posited. This suggests that there are perhaps an infinite number of Universes, each with their own sets of laws of physics, we just happen to be in the "lucky" one. We certainly are in a lucky universe and on a lucky planet in that we are alive and able to consider this concept right NOW, but is this a satisfactory explanation? If it is, then a religion without a god is probably for you. If not, then a religion with a god or gods is the one for you: that way, you can sleep at night with the assurance that you are not just part of a monumental fluke of existence, that you exist "on purpose" and for a purpose. What that purpose is? Perhaps, one of the Theistic religions will help answer that question for you.  

    •    Does it have a Divine origin or is it simply a man-made theistic religion?

Perhaps, you have already decided on a non-theistic religion ( a religion without belief in a god), or leaning that way, why should you read any further? Some of the questions I will next be exploring will help you question that choice further, so stick around. How can we ever hope to answer a question posed like the above? How could we know if a religion came from God or not. One way is to at least eliminate from our choices those that are simply non-contenders, then, we can perhaps decide which have the more credible likelihood of Divine origin. The underlying reason for doing this is the assumption that if God exists, having created a marvelous and functioning universe, He (using the generic sense here) would surely want us to know the truth at some point and meet us halfway.

There have been religions and religious rituals as long as human beings have walked the earth, how can we tell which are simply made up and which are based on the experience of the Divine? I would eliminate from our choices the various religions, which have a multitude of fantastical and functional gods, such as the Roman and Greek gods. Why? Because they are simply and obviously anthropomorphic projections. First, they are made to resemble us and have human frailties or are based on other things in existence in the world, such as, animals. Hinduism has literally millions of such gods, some of which are hybrids of humans and animals, for example, Ganesh. These religions display the immense capacity of the human imagination, but one could not draw any other conclusion about, for example, the story of Sita's rescue by Rama than that it is purely a mythological story. That isn't to say that the stories contained don't have useful social messages about love and community, but in terms of their suggesting a realistic story of God, I don't consider them to have any merit. Also, with Hinduism the religion's origins are shrouded in mystery, there isn't just one Holy book or one specific founder, but it has been added upon for over 4000 years. One can also see how the birth of babies with deformities would have led to the idea that these children were incarnated gods, from which the idea of the multi-limbed Shiva originated more than likely.

If God has entered the human realm and shared the truth with us, we would expect this story to have been preserved from being reduced to mere mythology. Let's consider in passing the various cults that arise periodically, especially over the past 200 years, such as the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. They have the benefit of being recent and so less prone to be mythologized. There is one obvious drawback to these types of religions in that, irrespective of their claims to Divine origin, they do tend to push their adherents away from their families and communities, sometimes with the added dimension of monetary exploitation. I would suggest these are not good signs of any religion, because a true religion should build community, not destroy it and it shouldn't be done for less than worthwhile motives, ie material reward.

Another religion that claims a Divine origin is Islam. (We will discuss this religion later also, under some of the other criteria.) Islam has as its founder Muhammad, who having gone to pray and meditate in a cave in the year 610 CE, was said to have experienced a vision of the angel Jibreel (Gabriel). It is said that he was given a message from God through the angel, which he recited and memorized. Later, his followers wrote his entire Divine message down in what became known as the Qur'an. This has going for it that Muslims have been very vigilant not to allow the Qur'an to get changed over the years from its original message, though no sure guarantees of that can ever been given, unless the first copy was preserved somewhere. What is less satisfying about its claim to Divine origin is its historical setting. Prior to its appearance, there were lots of heated debates over the idea of the Trinity and the Oneness of God. It seems suspicious to me that this was a key part of the message. Also, the Qur'an contains many ideas borrowed from a Judaeo-Christian background and it is known that Muhammad had a Christian uncle (indeed a bishop) and Jewish acquaintances. It is claimed that he was illiterate, which may well be true, and the Qur'an's reworking of stories found in the Bible do appear like the work of someone with a badly informed knowledge of those stories. Likewise, there does appear to be some attempt at melding Jewish and Christian stories together to the point of mythological invention, for example, a claim that Jesus had a stand-in, instead of dying on the cross (which sounds like an obvious amalgamation of the crucifixion and Abraham/Isaac stories). One last difficulty with it is that the whole message depends on the veracity of one witness, Muhammad, which poses both questions of its reliability, but on the other hand, it does solve the "Chinese Whispers" problem.    

Another religion worth considering is Christianity. The central message of Christianity is that the living God sent His Son into the world to teach us the truth and to set us free. Its central claim too is that its very founder was "God made Man". Therefore, as far as this criteria would go, it passes that test, it is of Divine origin. But how can we be sure?  The first Christians were convinced of its truth to the point of being willing to die for this belief, such as in the case of its two principle adherents, Peter and Paul. Also, many people mentioned in the Gospels were alive as witnesses, when the Gospels were written. The witnesses claimed to have seen miracles (a sign of its Divine origin) and chief of these, the resurrected Christ. There is also a wealth of historical evidence (70 documents) of the real existence of a man called Jesus, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate (who also has historical evidence), which rules out his existence been a lie or a fiction (whatever we might think of His Divinity). There is also regular accounts to this day of people experiencing miracles or religious experiences in connection to this religion. But, also apart from this as Leo Tolstoy would say in his book "The Kingdom is within you", that the real proof is in the very teaching of Christ, which is verifiably true and unlike anything that has come before or since.  
 
So, on this criteria, I would suggest that among the world religions the one that stands out is Christianity. But there are many forms of Christian Churches, how can I possibly choose among them? In the next criterion, I will look at the issue of authority. This is the key to choosing among them - which one has Christ's authority as his Church? But also, for those not decided that Christianity is the religion to choose, the question is key: is there a central authority in this religion? Why should that matter? Without a central authority, there is no guarantor of what its key beliefs and practice are and also, it becomes simply a subjective enterprise with no aspirations to Truth itself.

    •    Is there a central authority in this religion?

In many religions, there are leaders or teachers who fulfill the role of a central authority, that of guiding the faithful. In Hinduism, there are gurus, which lead different groups in their own version of Hinduism. However, there is no one overall authority, which is perhaps why there are splinters in that religion. In Judaism, which has many different branches reflecting its internal debates about tradition vs change, tend to have Councils of Synagogues, which lead their own branch of Judaism. In Islam, with the ending of the Caliphate in 1924, there is no longer any central authority, which can say definitively what is acceptable or unacceptable in the religion, for example, the issue of head covering for women. In Christianity, there are different views of authority. In the Church of England, there is figuratively a central authority, the Archbishop of Canterbury, but in reality it is the Anglican Synod that decides matters. In many of the Protestant Churches, such as, the Baptist Church, the Churches operate effectively autonomously. There is local leadership, but limited central authority or leadership. This creates problems when it comes to interpretation of the Bible and collective doctrine. There has been in effect, a greater and greater splintering of Protestant churches to the point that there are literally hundreds of different Protestant Churches. In the Orthodox Christian Churches, the Patriarchs govern different districts in the Christian world and act with one voice as a Synod. Also, they see their authority as coming to them through the Apostolic Succession from the first Apostles of Christ. In the Catholic Church, authority is shared out in among the priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals and Pope, whose origin stems from the Apostolic Succession, as in the Orthodox Church. The Pope holds the ultimate central authority, based on Jesus' words to Peter "I call you, Peter, on this rock, I will build my Church... What you bind on earth will be considered bound in heaven, and what you loose on earth will be considered loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:13-20). The Catholic Church decides many of the important issues as a collective unit, via the College of Bishops and the Pope, through Councils.

In the next criteria, I will consider whether the religion answers fundamental questions, the nature of its moral code, its relationship with reason, whether it has a clear set of beliefs, its attitude to freedom and violence, does it do any good in the world and whether it builds community or not.  





 

So the next criterion that I will look at is, does the religion answer fundamental questions? I will necessarily only have space to take a scan of the world religions, and any deeper look would require a more in depth study and evaluation.

• Does the religion answer fundamental questions?

For somebody considering a religion this may indeed be the bottom line, does this religion make life clearer to me and answer some of the fundamental questions that I face as a human being? Let's begin by asking, what are these fundamental questions? While these can be formulated in many ways, they are Why am I here? For what purpose? What is the meaning of life? Where am I going to or what is there after death? In surveying the world religions, I will mention some of the anomalies or insights that religions have in answering these questions.

Why am I here? The 3 main monotheistic religions (Judaism, Islam and Christianity) offer a similar answer, we are here, because God has created us. He has given us a soul and promises us an eternal life of bliss, if we accept the responsibilities of this life. Hinduism suggests we have been reincarnated from a previous life, that there is a soul or Atman, that is recycled, as it were, until it finally joins the Divine Being of God, life is a game of snakes and ladders, you go up next life's ladder if you are good or down the next life's snake if you are bad. If you have a bad life now, you deserve it, its Karma, you were bad in a previous life and vice versa. A major problem with this is the practicalities of having a larger human population now than ever before, where did the extra Atmans come from? Ah, but some Atmans go into animals or plants. Another, is that it encourages a fatalistic of human life, there is no social mobility, accept your place in life - think of the treatment of the Untouchables in India. Then, there is the claim that the Hindu holy men or women join in Brahman after they die, yet some holy people are said to be reincarnations of earlier holy people - you can't have it both ways, they are with Brahman or they are reincarnated.

Jains, which owes some of its beliefs to Hinduism, believes that we are here to live a harmless life. They believe all animals and plants contain living spirits, as a result they are strictly vegetarian and avoid even stepping on insects. Jains don't have a clear idea of why we are here, but we are reincarnated. There is no belief in God, if God created the world -they say- where was he before creation? If God is perfect, then where did the will to create the world come from? 

What is the purpose or meaning of life? Among many of the Eastern religions it is to escape the cycle of reincarnation and to achieve nirvana or oneness with God. In Islam, our purpose is to worship and submit to God, who is our Creator and Judge. In Christianity, God is seen as the One who knows us best and loves us a Father does. Our goal is to not simply to submit ourselves in a servile way to God, but to fulfill his will, not because we must (and we do), but because we want to out of love. It is all about what is in the heart rather than just doing doing the right thing. Ultimately, God's will fulfills us and achieves a glory. In Christianity, to come closer to God is connected to coming closer to neighbour - so the meaning of life is to love and serve one another, as friends. In Judaism, from which Christianity comes from, there are similar sentiments about loving God and neighbour, indeed the commands to do these are stored in Tefillin. The focus is on obeying God's commands.

What happens after we die? I have already described what Hindus and Jains believe about this. All of the monotheistic religions, believe there is life after death, that there is first a judgement of one's life by God and a consequence of this, Heaven (Paradise is the word used in Islam) or Hell. Much of this is pretty similar, though the Islamic picture of heaven is more Earth-like, Christianity simply states that we can't even imagine it, as it will be so different, though it has often used imagery of clouds, gates and angels. What is quite unique among all of these is the Plan B option found in the Catholic Church, which is for those not quite good enough (yet) for heaven, not bad enough for hell. While it is an often derided concept, it seems to me ultimately more merciful than allowing weak, failures like me to be lost! It does have its origins in ancient Jewish thought, but survived in the Catholic Church and Orthodox Christians too also believe that the situation of the dead can be helped by prayers for them on earth. One of the problems with a literal interpretation of the Bible is that the word Purgatory is not found there. Some Protestant Christians consequently don't believe in Purgatory. This can lead to claims, such as "I was saved 3 years ago". This to me is needed in the absence of purgatory to reassure the believer that they won't be lost after death, ie go to hell. However, I have seen this leads to a certain arrogance or presumption, "I am alright, I'm saved already", which isn't helpful to spiritual progress. Also, it may lead to a judgement of others, as the world is divided among the Saved and Unsaved, and forced conversions become a temptation. We see this also in Islam, where some Muslims refer to non-Muslims disparagingly as "infidels". For this reason, I think a religion that offers second, third and forth (!) chances is important. 

•  Does the religion have a good moral code?

People often decide whether to decide to join or leave a religion based on the perceived behaviour of its followers. This is a problematic way of looking at a religion. Firstly, a religion has no ultimately power to control its followers, it can at best inspire the faithful to be good. Secondly, sometimes a religion may result in outstanding holiness in a few and negligible results among the masses. Certainly, poor behaviour may be seen to stem directly from its flawed moral teaching, so this is why I will review the moral teaching of the world religions. This is a huge area, but I will give my impression of that reality and leave you to make up your own mind.

I am impressed by a great number of world religions, who each in their own way encourage the building up of communities, especially supporting families. However, in terms of a religion that stands out as offering a moral vision for the world, it is Christianity in general and the Catholic Church in particular. It has spent 2000 years developing and sharing its moral teaching with the world, that has led to vast improvements in life. Where before the poor were looked down upon, now even non-Christian countries see the poor, not as just mouths to feed, but as people with dignity and value. This has been done through the leading example of a huge number - big and small - of religious charities, who sought to care for the need of the destitute, long before governments in the 20th century started to sit up and take notice. It has also consistently spoken out for the downtrodden. Women and children through the teaching of the Church were given equal rights, or rather had their innate rights recognized, and this was also guaranteed through baptism, where "all are equal in Christ", as St Paul would say. In the area of work, the Church taught that all work has dignity, as Jesus the Son of God was a carpenter, previously seen as a servile job. In the 19th and 20th centuries, the Popes began to expand its social teaching to include the rights of workers and the moral duties of employers. Also, the Church introduced the idea of sanctions and dialogue, instead of war. It taught if war is necessary it must be fully justified and this "Just War" theory is the basis of the UN's security council, which has no doubt prevented many wars from happening had it not been developed. The Church increasingly is leading the way in moving from war all together, instead it promotes dialogue to resolve conflicts and nonviolent resistance to evil. It also called for the abolition of the death penalty and abortion. The Church is often criticized for its teaching on sexual morality, but when the Christian world practiced it, marriages lasted, children by and large had stable upbringings and adultery was a rarity. Overall, it has a well worked out morality on all aspects of human life - it doesn't buy the line, that somethings are excluded from moral action or that morality is merely a subjective or private affair.   

Islam has its own moral code, some of which tallies with Christianity. In some areas, however, it is in need of revision and development. For example, according to the Qur'an, domestic violence is recommended as a last resort for a disobedient wife. Also, the death penalty is the punishment for adultery. (In Christianity in contrast, adultery is seen as a sin, that can be forgiven) In some Muslim countries, hands are cut off for stealing, whereas Christianity would see these forms of punishment as immoral. Again, Christianity allows a person to be married to one person, whereas in Islam, a Muslim man can marry up to 4 wives. The experience of women in Islam is there one set of rules for them and another for men, whereas the same rules applies to all. Islam has yet to clarify what its position in relation to violence is, particularly in the name of God. Christianity teaches that to commit violence in the name of God is blasphemous and has learned through its history the folly of thinking otherwise, for example, during the Crusades - indeed it has learned through experience what Christ had taught it from the start "Put away your sword where it belongs, those who live by the sword will die by the sword". (Matthew 26:52)  

• What is its relationship to reason?

Religions are all about beliefs. Its followers hold to a faith. But what is a religion's relationship to reason? In other words, is the religion a rational one or does it expect a suspension of reason? I will explore briefly my impressions of some of the World Religions. Some religions are irrational in the sense, that adherents maintain beliefs despite evidence to the contrary. In my view, any religion worth following must at least be rational. For example, claiming that Islam is a peaceful religion, while at the same time, issuing a Fatwa on anyone that criticizes it is irrational - there is an obvious contradiction there. Likewise, the concept of food being Kosher (Judaism) or Halal (Islam) - because it has been prepared in the right way or that only certain foods can be eaten is irrational. There is no good rational reason for this, with the exception of being humane in the killing of an animal. In Jainism, people sweep the floor so as to avoid stepping on insects, to me that is an irrational belief, as the reality is that it virtually impossible to avoid and it is is a mistaken over-valuing of other life forms. Personally, I prefer hamburgers without cheese, just for taste reasons, but I would find it quite irrational, if not ludicrous, to suggest it was morally wrong or against God's will. Another form of irrationality, found in some religions, is the belief that something is wrong for me, but not wrong for you, ie moral relativism. This has taken hold in some Christian Churches, but the Catholic Church holds that morality must have an objective basis for it be true. It also despite emphasizing the importance of faith, encourages an understanding of one's faith - a faith that is rational (not rationalistic). Another form of irrationality is "spiritualizing the natural" or more commonly known simply as Superstition, for example, believing  that a crow flying across the sky is a good or bad omen (as the Romans did) or that always jumping to the conclusion that there is a supernatural explanation to an occurrence. Pagan religions are full of superstitious beliefs about crystals and rocks having supernatural energies - all of this pure unproven nonsense. For this reason, I wouldn't consider any New Age or Pagan religions as a contender for this reason. Also, I would discount "Spiritualism" for similar reasons and also because in its attempt to contact the dead, it encourages an unhealthy interest in unknown forces.        

  

• Does it have a clear set of beliefs?

I suppose very few religions if any have a clear set of beliefs, usually a religion's beliefs take a bit of work to get your head around as it were. Ideally, following on from the previous criterion of rationality, a religion should be capable of making some sense of and its collective beliefs agreed upon and shared by its adherents. The fact that there are so many factions, cults or branches in most religions suggests that beliefs aren't always clear or agreed upon by all. Judaism requires a considerable degree of work to get to know its over 600 rules and even more to determine what these all mean. There are about 7 subdivisions, which different Jews belong to (Conservative, Liberal, Reform, Orthodox, Humanistic, Modern Orthodoxy and Reconstructionist). 

In Islam, there are 3 principle sects, Shia, Sunni and Sufi. There is wide difference of beliefs among them, and even in the same sect, there are different understandings of how to practice the religion from place to place. One obvious example is what does dressing modestly require? Islam does have a clear set of common beliefs, known as the 5 pillars of Islam, but once you go beyond that it becomes increasingly complicated. It is not easy to find a clear explanation of passages in the Qur'an, for example, the passage in the Qur'an about hitting your wife, you may get as many explanations as scholars you ask. This is an unsatisfactory situation and stems from the lack of a central governing body or Caliphate (as mentioned earlier). The situation is similar among Protestant Churches, who also lack a central authority and while claiming they simply interpret the Bible for themselves, it is usually, based on some traditional interpretation going back centuries ago, for example, the interpretation of the book of Revelations as a judgement on other Churches, such as, Babylon being the Vatican and the Anti-Christ being the Pope. The problem with all of this is that it is too subjective, in order to have a clear set of beliefs, it requires the existence of a central governing body or authority. Some Christian Churches do have clear sets of beliefs, which are contained in their Catechisms, to name but a few, the Anglican Church, the Orthodox Church, the Lutheran Churches and the Catholic Church. These are useful ways to clarify differences and also to foster bridges across denominations, for example, a few years ago, there was an agreement between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church on the role of grace for salvation.

• What is its attitude to freedom and violence?

Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism stand out as religions that abhor violence. There are of course always exceptions to that rule, especially when nationalism gets caught up with religion, but generally speaking these religions have encouraged peace, taught a stoic acceptance of suffering and the resistance to desires that lead to suffering, especially violent desires. One famous proponent of nonviolent resistance to evil was Mahatma Gandhi, who was a Hindu. The inspiration for this political and religious philosophy stemmed from reading the work of Leo Tolstoy, an Orthodox Christian (some might say a rather unorthodox follower of Orthodoxy). He in turn was inspired by a number of American Christians, many of them Quakers, Shakers and Mennonites. Christianity has a varied history with violence: for the first few centuries it was mainly on the receiving end of it and taught nonviolent resistance to evil (turn the other cheek), then under St Augustine - while not abolishing the higher virtue of nonviolent resistance - it taught the circumstances where war was permissible, the beginnings of the Just War theory (later to be developed further by St Aquinus and Hugo Grotius). Sometimes in its history it has used violence, such as in the Inquisition and the Crusades, but this is best seen as a turning away from its core values of peace and non-violence. Since at least, the beginning of the 20th century, the Catholic Church has moved away from support for military action and supported greater use of international law and use of non-violent means for tackling aggressors. Islam has also had a troubled history with violence, even in the days of Muhammad, war was seen as a legitimate means to expand the religious kingdom of Islam. Coercion in terms of religion has also played and still plays an important part in Islam. Conquered lands were compelled to convert to Islam (or revert to Islam, as the belief is that everyone is at birth a Muslim), those who refused were killed, persecuted or made to pay higher taxes. Social stigma is also a strong force in Muslim societies, which make difficult to change one's religion. Freedom is seen as secondary to the first duty of submission to Allah. Islam has yet to clarify its position on violence, especially in the name of God. Coercion in matters of religion is explicitly forbidden in the Christian religion, especially in the Catholic Church, probably partly due to the scandals caused by the Spanish Inquisition. In the Vatican II declaration on religious freedom, it states, "A sense of the dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man, and the demand is increasingly made that men should act on their own judgement, enjoying and making use of a responsible freedom, not driven by coercion but motivated by a sense of duty."

•     Does it do any good in the world?

Buddhist monasteries in the past didn't have the concept of charitable work - the focus had been on meditation and enlightenment. More recently, they have seen the work of Christian missionaries and have been challenged by their example to help the poor outside of their monasteries. Buddhism has done much good on a personal level to help people to overcome suffering through meditation and to find inner peace.

Islam teaches that all Muslims should give 2.5 % of their disposable income to help fellow Muslims, who are poor. This duty is known as Zakat and is highly commendable. My only concern with it is that charity should not be only given to those who share your religion, but to all who are in need, for surely, we are all God's children?

Jainism's concern to live harmless lives that doesn't hurt a living thing sets a good example for all people to follow. Personally, I like eating meat and I think most people while recognizing the need to be humane to animals,  would also think it a mistake to anthropomorphize them or to be overly scrupulous. 
 
Christianity's contribution to the good of the world has been immense - while its failings have tarnished that good work, it hasn't wiped it out. I have already spoken already of the various ways, Christians have contributed to the world, so I direct you to my earlier comments on the first page.

I hope that my advice has helped to clarify a choice of religion for you, ultimately you must follow the light of your own conscience once you have fully informed it.