Maverick - Nice post. I believe it is only from a thorough examination of as many viewpoints as possible that we can truly make an educated judgement. It was actually my early religious education (6 years of CCD and 3 years of Catholic high school) that eventually led me away from the Catholic tradition I was first raised in. It amazed me that when I questioned teachings of the bible I was given answers like "God works in mysterious ways" and "you must first have faith in the Lord". These aren't acceptable answers for the scientifically educated mind when there are clearly contradictions between the bible and science.

I consider religion to be merely a teaching tool for the masses. I believe the bible, as well as many religious texts throughout history, has many valuable lessons, which are open to interpretation. You don't need to believe every word, literally, in order to gain from the wisdom of many generations.

Please tell me how morality can exist without religion? If you do not believe in a higher power, why be moral?
I'll tell you how. Buddhism. As I eluded to in an earlier post, Buddhism isn't really a religion, but rather a philosophy. Buddha is paid respect as a human being who gained enlightenment beyond any other human, but should not be considered a "God". He taught human beings about morality, without even a mention of a "higher power" or a "creator". Buddhists follow a similar set of principles, or "precepts" that exist in every religion, such as the Christian's "10 Commandments".

Why be moral? Because it benefits mankind. Duh. It's one of the factors that has allowed human beings as a species to thrive far beyond other animals. That and opposable thumbs, of course.

And yes, I went there. We truly are just another animal. Biologically, we just happen to be the most well adapted, mentally and physically. Our brains are the most developed, and our bodies have a couple of simple advantages. But I don't see why (outside of the fact that the "bible says so") such a strong distinction must be made between us and the other creatures on this planet.

And lets not forget, the bible was written by humans, and translated through several languages over the course of over 2000 years. It is a mistake not to recognize that it has been reinterpretted over and over again, and likely bears little resemblance to the original text.

There was an old joke that goes something like this. A priest goes to work at the Vatican after many years of faithful service. One day he begins studying some of the old original texts from which the bible was written. One day he's heard sobbing from the Vatican library so another priest goes to ask him what's wrong. He looks up from his tears and proclaims, "it says CELEBRATE, not CELEBATE"!!

Instinctive morality? Perhaps to some extent our basic instincts govern our morality. We have many of the same instincts as animals (to eat, to reproduce, to fight, to communicate), but much of our behavior is learned. We have learned to repress some of our instincts because of things we've been taught. Animals too, particularly other higher, communal species, exercise restraint due to learned behavior. Does a dog not have some thoughts about consequences when he wants to jump up on the table and eat the piece of steak, but opts not to because he knows his owner will become very upset with him? His instinct makes him drool and stare at the delicious meal, but if he's been trained well enough, he won't jump for it, even in the absense of authority. So my question is, are we truly moral, or have we just been taught to avoid undesirable consequences? Certainly the fear of ETERNAL LIFE IN HELL wouldn't affect our behavior, would it?

By the way SlowPro - sometimes those old "crazy" guys really have some interesting stories to tell. He sounds like a guy we could learn a thing or two from.

Kerry vs. Bush - wow, back to the original topic again? I think whoever gets into office is potentially dangerous, just in different ways. Bush certainly hasn't chosen the safest, easiest path for our nation. But the safe, easy answer isn't always the right one. Sometimes you need to be proactive when you are the leader of the most powerful nation in the free world. Kerry may have chosen to get us out of Iraq as quickly as possible, but I believe that given the state of the world right now, that would be a very, very bad move. The most dangerous thing about Kerry though, is nobody knows what the heck he would have done. He's way too inconsistant, and I think the nation recognized this when the majority voted for Bush. At least with Bush, we know what to expect, and we know he won't ever back to down from terrorists.

Ok, I've said way more than my two cents. Time to go do something productive.