Also, my partner R, always thinks it's funny that religious people, of nearly any stripe, will agree that some primitive religions are just wacky. Believing the earth is a turtle and stuff like that. Why is it perfectly acceptable to agree that believing the earth is a turtle is wacky, but not ok for Wojtek to say what he says? I'd never thought about it quite that way, but there ya have it. It's an interesting question. It's accepting the idea that, otoh, people "progress" in their belief structure and come to have more sophisticated view of religion and yet getting upset with people, like Carrol, who claim that people will probably move beyond religion to a point where religion isn't really important to anyone and people will think of it as a curious pastime.
Obviously there an explanation for this distinction, but I'm not sure what it is. Anyone want to take a stab at it?
===========================
This is an important insight and should be given a good deal of attention.
I'm tired and probably won't make much sense but I'll have a go...
When you factor out binary, believe this or you're doomed criteria (for example, the insistence of born again Christians that people who don't accept the divinity of Christ...and further, "Jesus as their personal savior" are destined to spend eternity in hell -- feeling naught but red hot coals and drinking naught but red hot cola) you do find a hierarchy in people's minds of beliefs that are, at the very least, grudgingly worthy of respect and others on the opposite end of the dial that are just plain stupid or "primitive" as you wrote.
I think the distinction, though I'll freely admit to not having any hard data at hand, is how sophisticated the psychological analysis at the heart of the belief-system is. The three major faiths of the book: Judaism, Islam and Christianity -- do contain throughout their traditions a treasure trove of insight into how our minds work.
This is also true of Buddhism and Hinduism.
Perhaps something along the lines of the Turtle at the foundation of the Earth story you mentioned can be considered less sophisticated because instead of describing the cause and effect nature of your pain, frustrations and joys (even if done from within a tight conceptual frame that limits your explanatory options), the Turtle story just gives you a pre-scientific explanation for an element of the exterior world (in this case the Earth's existence).
Perhaps we can say that more "primitive" religions are concerned about elements and forces -- lightning, the sun's movement across the sky, the stars, and so on -- and not so much with our inner states, the amendment of how destructive behaviors and the achievement of a state of bliss.
The transition from a worship of Thor, for example, to a worship of Christ might have marked (besides the sometimes heavy handed efforts of missionaries) a movement away from a fear of /wonder at yet-to-be-analyzed natural events and towards a concern with our emotional well being.
Which is what all of the world's enduring religious traditions have in common.
What may define some retrogressive branches of North American Christianity as 'primitive' is their insistence upon strict enforcement of creation stories -- that is to say, their relentless focus on making sure the Old Testament, "Turtle" baggage of their faith is upheld while showing little interest in the New Testament's philosophical musings.
We might be able to create a useful distinction between types of Christianity by dividing the 'Turtle' story focused slice from the more broadly curious.
.d.
-- http://monroelab.net/ <<<<<>>>>> groove to my groove