>>Can someone give up a definition for the L (I assume it's level) of
religions?<<
You would have to ask Mike. He is the one that came up with it and we still
don't know what he meant. I have some notion that L1 had something to do with
a nation-specific religion. Unforturnately I don't know that I follow there,
because religion predates nation-state memes by quite a bit, but I am sure
Mike will return to clear this up.
>>Given the general disdain this group (infected population) has for
religion, I'm interested to see which aspects influence the numerical rating
scheme.<<
I think you confuse non-adherance with disdain. This is just the language I
speak. There are a few religionists in our midst as well (Marie are you still
out there?), and many contributors here prefer to call themselves agnostic. I
myself call myself atheist, and your suggestion that I must have disdain for
religion is probably more of a reaction to the unfortunate stigma of the word
"atheist" than any real attitude on my part. "Atheist" does not mean "all
religions and religious people are stupid and worthless."
On the contrary, to me religions are highly evolved cultural artifacts. They
have the benefit of thousands of years of cultural evolution. They deserve
some respect on this count and certainly are appropriate subjects for the
study of cultural evolution. Many of them are even good to be followed. But
they do not exist for our benefit, and it is important to remember this. They
exist for their own benefit, and where that collides with us, we are the ones
that must prevail.
Furthermore, they have only proved their survival and usefulness for a few
thousand years. This is but the blink of an eye. I think we must begin to
craft ethical systems that will work for us for millions of years. To begin
to do that, I think it is important for us to begin to understand how we got
through those first few thousand. So no, I don't advocate disdain for
religion.
To begin a real study of religion, however respectful, there must be at least
some non-adhereants involved, otherwise the study will definitely be swept up
into the subject matter. Religions have evolved to convert and motivate
humans to their purposes, not for the purposes of studying religion as a
cultural artifact.
-Jake