The situation historically also varies very greatly from anything approaching contemporary society. Belief in the supernatural is likely to have provided suppo

The situation historically also varies very greatly from anything approaching contemporary society. Belief in the supernatural is likely to have provided support for the concept that the world is knowable, predictable, and has underlying rules which can be discovered. With complete lack of a shared foundation of knowledge, these ideas are likely not intuitive. Without a relatively large body of knowledge, it would be very difficult to support such ideas. When they sought answers to "why" with regards to their questions (as the human brain has been shown to require) even when they had no language, the belief that there is something directing the world was inevitable. This belief was limiting, however. Or, rather, it would probably be better to say that the details of the implementation of these beliefs, provided serious limitations to the expansion of rational explanations of things which had traditionally been explained as consequences of the supernatural worlds influence over the material one. The Enlightenment and Descartes' view of a mind/body dualism (even though we now know this is an incorrect idea) made it possible to relegate religion to 'spiritual' matters and place the material world, including answers to the question 'why?', under the microscope of reason. The benefits of this wedge driven between religious beliefs and rational conclusions were tremendous to society and enabled tolerance and cooperation amongst individuals with varying sets of beliefs. Unfortunately, the Enlightenment did not spread to all parts of the world, and many of its underpinning ideas seem to be dying out in the places where it did catch on. Even those who benefited greatly from the ideals of the Enlightenment fail to appreciate them because (paradoxically it might seem) it enabled society to develop and expand so that it provides enormous protection to everyone, whether they accept rational thought as the means to explain the world or not. This removes the primary element that made the Enlightenment possible - respect for knowledge and intellectual capabilities. Because it is mostly safe to discard rational thought entirely in modern society and accept a supernatural explanation for the state of the world, and because knowledge of the 'bad old days' is not disseminated adequately, there is no impetus for the average person to take up the arduous burden of intellectualism and subject their beliefs to rationality. Consider medical technology and techniques, for example. Even as short as 4 generations ago, children grew up with death, disfigurement, and disease all around them. It was more common than not that upon starting a new school year, they found that some of their classmates from the prior year had died, and that some of the remaining children had acquired lifelong disabilities. Because this experience is missing, and because we do not deliver the knowledge of the conditions properly, the average person is rarely, if ever, put in a position to contemplate disease and appreciate the stunning advances that rational inspection of the subject has brought us. Belief that health is consequent to their faith in their religion is not met with any increased danger to the person (in most cases). Had someone accepted such a belief in the past, and spurned doctors or those investigating medicine rationally in favor of a faith healer, their life would be put in significant danger. Upon considering the situation, it would be very likely for them to realize that those partaking of the system based on rational thought were reaping tremendous protection from disease. Even if they did not change their faith, it would engender a belief that intellectualism had merit. It would put them in a position to accept the ideas of the Enlightenment and perhaps give over more of their beliefs about how the world works and how that is to be determined, etc. As the idea that a rational approach to the world is beneficial, and that those with rational knowledge can offer benefit to society, civilization moves forward. These ideas have been waning, however, and I fear that a violent confrontation between the parts of the world which never experienced the Enlightenment and those that did will result in the enlightened society turning back to belief in the supernatural. Such a state is far more common in human history than not. Democratic government, value of freedom, and many of the ideas we take for granted can not stand in a theocratic society because their foundations are not subscribed to by the populous. Democratic government is based, primarily, on the belief that human beings are rational, that they can garner correct ideas about the world, and that they deserve the respect of determining their own governance. Their speculation, I believe, has just as much chance to be correct as mine in this matter. Simply because an idea is objectively false does not mean that its acceptance is necessarily a harm to society. Nor does it necessarily mean that those kinds of ideas will have the same usefulness at different points in the evolution of the shared level of knowledge and beliefs in a society. Sorry for the long post, but this subject has been on my mind a great deal lately and is a major source of concern for me.