Claim. Major world religions persist over centuries because each gets a portion of the truth right; their differences map partly onto differences in human temperament and life-stage, so different traditions resonate with different communities and seekers.
Elaboration. A religion that captured nothing true about reality, the human person, or the moral life would not survive across generations under conditions of free transmission. The continued vitality of Christianity, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, and others is itself weak evidence that each is tracking something — even if no one of them is tracking the whole.
Empirically, the partials cluster around temperament. Communities with strong familial-honor structures find Confucian framings about role, ritual, and ancestral piety immediately legible. Introspective seekers preoccupied with the mind’s self-deception find Buddhist meditative analysis directly useful. People for whom the deepest question is whom can I trust find personal-theist Christianity answering the right question. The same person at different life-stages may find different traditions more illuminating.
This is not relativism. The position is that the partials are real and that some framework can integrate them — see uc-philosophy-reconciles-partial-truths-of-world-religions. UC’s claim is asymmetric: it integrates the partials without validating the traditions as equally complete. A unified framework can honor that a tradition got something right without conceding that the tradition got everything right, or that all traditions are interchangeable.
The temperament-fit observation also clarifies why a single liturgical worship-form is not theologically required: if traditions answer different question-clusters for different temperaments, plural forms scaffolding one worship-core is the expected pattern, not an embarrassment.