Morality: I have deep-rooted feelings of morality, but am aware intellectually that these can (eventually) be explained by evolutionary socio-biology. I feel that there is no 'logical requirement' that morality be anchored in the existence of some 'absolute objective entity'; for those in whom morality is deeply rooted it is primary to any explanation or basis. Nevertheless I believe there is some such 'extra-natural' basis; this is not meant as necessarily 'supernatural' since although it is presently outside of what is commonly accepted as nature, I am comfortable with the notion that it may eventually be subsumed within it. This will not be possible though until mind is encompassed within 'the natural'. Of course I am aware that this belief of mine can be explained by evolutionary socio-biology. However since socio-biology does not encompass mind, I believe it is missing the essence; this belief too can of course be explained by socio-biology. [Self-reference and Godelian and paradoxical statements are unavoidable in connection with mind.]
Free will: I have a basic sense of free will, but am aware that the type of 'freedom' I believe in is logically impossible to define and perhaps physically impossible according to present understandings of nature, and there are neurophysiological experiments which indicate primacy of brain decision over 'free-willed' choices. However, from the perspective of the primacy of mind, the challenges to free will arising from logic and nature are not problematic. If free will exists then it is to my belief the most fundamental aspect of nature (at least of all that have so far been discovered); for example quantum physics is a special limited (inherently-random) case of the indeterminism underlying free will.
Cosmology Any philosophy or scientific theory of everything which does not accord primacy to mind – however successful it may be in explaining various phenomena - are in my belief missing the essence. A cosmology which ignores mind (or treats it as an epiphenomenon in a materialist universe) necessarily ignores 'true' free will, and so necessarily misses the essential point about the universe. Of course evolutionary socio-biology can explain the enormous egocentrism behind such a statement.
Religion is a manifestation of the psychological reaction of some to the primacy of mind in a seemingly-materialist universe. Some pronouncements of religions ring true to me, some mystical experiences seem to get closer to the essence than do scientific materialistic statements (one of which will be the explanation for why I feel this way).
Judaism: It does not seem totally convincing that everything that is taught in the name of Judaism is necessarily true. However, being Jewish somehow rings true to me, and the Land of Israel seems really where I ought to be. Of course one does not even need evolutionary socio-biology to explain why I would feel this way. Living a Jewish life (as I am used to defining it) is meaningful, and there is something meaningful also in the collective, including through time (the historical, the Jewish people through the ages). To me the main aspect of Jewish life which is problematic is the persecution Jews always seem to be subjected to, whether in ancient time, in modern times such as in Europe for centuries culminating in WWII, or now in the guise of anti-Israel polemic. However, I believe this is a pathology of the anti-Jew rather than a flaw in Judaism per se, though of course if being Jewish were non-viable due to pathologies of other humans then it would be flawed as a way of life; however being Jewish is not for the most part actually non-viable. An aspect of Judaism which could be problematic is parochialism/nationalism, however since Judaism does not necessarily claim that all other religions are untrue for their adherents, it is not incompatible to believe in Judaism as well as to accept the fact that others find real truth in their religions; since Judaism recognizes the roles of other nations in history and their geographical rights (for example, the rights of Yishmael and Esav) it is not irredeemably chauvinistic.