Does lack of religious hold on a society = progress?

[Gravity]

I.e. first we believe in the supernatural, which is a primitive belief, a naieve reaching to something else bigger than us which we cannot understand.

Then the next stage of society (like western society as we speak) develops and we see the decline and the diversity of relgion and belief, and increasing secularism. So do you think this is progressive and teleological?

If it is, we could see the western clash with the middle east andwith religious fundamentalism as a more primitive society clashing with a society (The west) that has had the means to evolve beyond it.

Beyond, is such a judgemental word. But Auguste Comte believed society went through certain stages until it reached a rational state.

[SILVERWOLF_87]

Religion is fine and well (although I follow no religion nor do I want to), but when a religion starts to spawn religious fundamentalists and evangelists, that's when the real problems arise.

[BlackBillBlake]

I.e. first we believe in the supernatural, which is a primitive belief, a naieve reaching to something else bigger than us which we cannot understand.

Then the next stage of society (like western society as we speak) develops and we see the decline and the diversity of relgion and belief, and increasing secularism. So do you think this is progressive and teleological?

If it is, we could see the western clash with the middle east andwith religious fundamentalism as a more primitive society clashing with a society (The west) that has had the means to evolve beyond it.

Beyond, is such a judgemental word. But Auguste Comte believed society went through certain stages until it reached a rational state.
I think this raises what are some of the most pressing questions we face at present.
My own view is that yes, the old religions are holding us back. All the progress we've seen in the last 200 odd years in terms of human rights, social equalisation etc have come because of the move towards secularism.

In terms of the clash with fundamentalism I'm not sure it's quite so cut and dried as your post might suggest. In the USA for instance, their are many fundamentalists who are little better then their islamic counterparts, and the increasing influence of the religious right in America is quite disturbing and backward. Yet this is in a nation whose constitution is among the most liberal in the world.
In the UK the influence of religion is mainly a kind of pernicious political correctness, where we are supposed to show 'respect' for the views of others, even if they believe for instance, as many muslims do, in punishment by mutilation etc. Luckily, I don't think there's much chance of religion of any brand gaining much influence here. Christianity is really getting very marginalized these days - but still, it persists.

Even this week, there is controversy over the UK's new child adoption lawss. Under the new proposals, it will be illegal for an adoption agency to refuse to place a child with a gay couple who meet the other criteria. This has provoked an outcry, mainly from the catholics, who want to be exempt. Blair and one or two others wanted to grant this concession, but I'm glad to say that the rest of the govt. didn't agree, and so the new legislation will go ahead. No doubt many catholics will persist in their homophobic attitudes, but they will be more and more seen as a minority and somewhat marginal group. And they won't have the support of the law.
A small victory then for reason against superstition, prejudice and hate.

I think Voltaire was probably right when he said that we will only see peace when 'the last priest has been strangled with the entrails of the last politician'.

At present it's still in the balance - I don't think we've yet reached a state of universal reason. Only when religions are relegated to have as much status and political influence as any other hobby people have, is there any chance for reason to prevail.

[BlackBillBlake]

Religion is fine and well (although I follow no religion nor do I want to), but when a religion starts to spawn religious fundamentalists and evangelists, that's when the real problems arise.
But the 4 supposed authors of the gospels were evangelists! - so right from the start, it was always basically the same.
The growth of fundamentalism seems to be a modern (or better, post-modern)disease - it's no co-incidence that it's arisen in both islam and c/anity at the same historical time. It's like the last savage fight back of a cornered and wounded beast - best to finsh it off as quick as possible.

[yyyesiam2]

it seems that religion may not have been spawned from a lack of understanding of life in a conceptual sense, but a lack of understanding of actual experiences that didn't fit into the previous structure we had built about the world around us. so, from the start, it was spawned by our own prejudices about these experiences and was never truly "from god", but from our own interpretations entirely-which may have been divinely inspired, but not divinely directed. if we are to move into a truly divine plane of existance, this path would seem to move in an opposing direction to organized religion.

[themnax]

progress is another of those terms seldom carefully or thoughfully defined in practice and use. so much so, that when i hear or read the term being invoked, i am often at a nearly total loss, unless i can tease one out of the context in which it is referenced, just quite what is being intended by it.

are you perhpase refering to the evolution of tecnology. or of human understanding. or some slightly ambiguous medling of the two. or perhapse chainges and churnings which are of little or even often negative value?

it is in our nature to innovate certainly. and it tends to be the nature of fanatacism of all sorts to oppose nature and our nature of doing so.

but what in the hell is "progress" REALLY?

is it an easing of the challanges of survival and gratification?

that is what i believe it would take for such a term to be meaningful.

=^^=
.../\...