Not all religions can be correct

IMHO
No religon can be correct.
The concept of God almost inherently implies something beyond human perception, comprehension, thought and language.
What is required of you, to do justice, love kindness and walk in Humility.
Through a glass darkly is the best we can do.
The ethical basis of all the great religious traditions is love and compassion.
How Chrsitians get from the message about love god and love one another to the crusades, relgious wars and the inquisition is beyond me.
Truth is not available to man in philosophy or relligon. Truth is a concept as abstract and unattainable as God.

If you declare that truth in unnattainable then what is the motivation for philosophy? Surely coming to know the truth about life is one of the hallmarks of wisdom? What about the sages and seers? Do they know something that the common man doesn't know? If they don't know, then is the whole history of philosophy one of deceit?

Not all of philosophy. Some like Heraclitus and Daoism suggested that the universe is ever changing (in flux) and we are all creating - for our amusement, for our learning, for our evolution. We continue to learn more and more, and I personally love the process of learning - e.g. dancing, music playing, art, philosophy, science, writing, gardening, conversation, etc. It is all growth and new enjoyments.

I think, however, problems may arise, when one puts all of one's eggs in one's basket. I think people should try many things in their life.

Rich

Some positions more closely approximate the truth than others. One tries to come as close to the truth as possible. Perhaps the meaning is in the quest, the journey not arrival at a predetermined destination. The fact that reason and perception have limits does not mean we should not apply them in trying to understand the world.

Let us defer to Socrates;

"I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing."

"I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance."

Wisdom isn't about knowledge, it's about making do without it.

"Better to travel than to arrive", eh? Actually that, or something like it, was the original motto of Apple Computer. But if there is no truth, per se, then you can only posit approximations of something which in itself can never be known, so its an approximation of an unknown. In which case it is impossible to know if it is even a valid approximation.

Consider the Buddhist notion of truth. In the Buddhist view, the Buddha has arrived at a certain knowledge of the cause of suffering and the end of suffering. The Suttas record in many places the sayings like 'done is what has to be done, the burden is cast aside, the fever of life is no more, the farther shore is reached', and so on. There is no equivocation or vagueness in it. It is unequivocal, definite, and certain, and has been verified by countless members of the Buddhist sangha since the initial 'turning of the wheel of dharma' in Sarnath 2,500 years ago.

Does this mean that all other religions are false? No, and this is not stated anywhere in the Buddhist canons. Does it mean that by believing this alone, the truth has been found? No, because the essence of the teaching is in learning, practising and applying it and realising the truth of it for oneself. But, at least in this case, it is being said that the truth has been ascertained, stated, and demonstrated; and not just the truth of this or that hypothesis or proposition, but a great truth about humanity as a whole. The teaching is presented on the basis of ehi-passako - 'come and see'. Anyone interested is able to verify it or test it in their own experience. Take or it or leave it, but it makes definite truth claims. Moderns are very uncomfortable with truth claims.

The assertion that there is no truth is not the same as the assertion that the truth is beyond human grasp. A certain degree of humility and skepticism is desirable in all truth assertions and claims. I would agree with Hume, Kant and Popper about the limits of human knowledge and the limits of reason and any form of sensory perception. Ultimate reality and thus ultimate knowledge lies beyond our grasp. That is not to say that all truth claims are of equal value. Truth claims should still be evaluated by correspondence, coherence and some degree of consensus.

OK, point taken. Actually your original assertion was that 'no religion can be correct'. This is, I admit, not the same as the assertion 'truth is beyond human grasp'. However does it amount to the assertion "no religious cognition is valid"? Are you in fact arguing that there are no religious truths? You say that "some are better approximations". But again, how do you judge something a better or worse approximation if none of them provide or approach truth? Also, Kant, Popper and Hume may be very appropriate and worthy of study in the academy, but people look to religious teachings for guidance in the perplexities of everyday life. They may provide guidelines for how to deal with truth in the abstract, but what about finding out what really matters and how to deal with people in your actual life? This is a different realm to academic study of philosophy, interesting though it may be.

You may have come to a point when you believe by your journey so far that this statement is correct.I would say no religion is correct.It does not mean you wont change your mind or you have stopped asking questions.