[TinyTree]

Originally Posted by subversion Why does religion have to be such a sticky issue?

Because for many people it ties in with their feelings about what is worthwhile, what is worth living for, and dying for. When these things differ, there frequently can be conflict.

Originally Posted by subversion Religion is just a metaphor, that's all it is. We should be able to take what we need from religion and leave what we don't.

Now you are espousing a particular view of the interpretation of religion. Some people will disagree with this, and then you will have conflict with them, especially if it is over something which they value dearly.

Originally Posted by subversion Is there a good reason that we can not be righteous?

Because when faced with unemployment, starvation, or death frequently many people will turn away from righteous action in the interest of self preservation. Fundamentally, this fear drives many human motives, and is probably the primary reason for the failure of righteous behavior.

Originally Posted by subversion Don't you think we should be able to consider the TOE righteous without having to be religious?

I am interested in seeing how your TOE describes ideal human behavior (if it addresses this) and what it says to do in various hard to deal with, real life situations. I once worked on a theoretic moral framework for behavior (invested a couple months in it anyway). I found it extremely difficult to come up with a completely self consistent set of guidelines for moral behavior which encompassed successful living in a world where there is a mixture of lyers, cheats, thieves, and genuine compassion all mixed together.

I suspect you have not been "bringing home your own bacon" and thus have not been faced with the genuine moral ambiguities which arise in the give and take of surviving in our society. Once you have faced a week of no food then I think your tone may be more tempered.

Originally Posted by subversion By realizing that religion is not science, must we destroy such great ideas as rightfullness and optimism? I think rightness and optimism are concepts with a good scientific basis.

This is an interesting idea, but fraught with complexity. Let us take a simple example: I have a friend who has multiple sclerosis. There is medicine which costs $600 a month above what insurance pays which will help her symptoms dramatically. How should she come up with this money? Are you going to give it to her? Should all her friends rotate on a monthly basis and give her the money? Should she live at a lower standard of living and move into a dangerous part of town to be able to pay for this? What do you think?

And then, what about the millions of people starving in places where there is food being shipped, but the distribution does not exist due to local political factions taking control of the distribution for political purposes? What is the correct solution here?