How humanity thinks

The following is a list that shows the steps in the evolution of systems of thinking/decision making/evaluating reality (how it works and what is true/false).

1 instinct, no logic

2 basic unorganized, possibly relatively baseless superstitions

3 organized belief systems / faiths / religions

4 mix of superstition and logic

5 complex metaphysical principles mixed with modern rationalism

6 modernist logic, scientific method, &c.

with each step, a system/way of thinking better at filtering out choices which are least likely to produce the desired result comes into being.

1.) Is the above list for the evolution of systems of thought and decision making, correct? Certainly, even in ancient times, Greek and Persian philosophers practiced ways of thinking that resembled modernist logic. But is that because they just evolved through the systems of thought faster than other civilizations? Or is it because they somehow made the leap from step one to step 4, (for example)?

2.) What are the foundations of all these systems thought / decision making (ultimately trial and error, perhaps?)?

3.) Have we perfected a method of evaluating reality in modernist thinking? Is it at least the most perfect one that humans will be capable of?

4.) Certainly, even modernist thinking doesn't always produce the desired result. Is this because humans are imperfect, or because modernist logic is not the perfect system for humans?

5.) If there is to be further evolution in the ways in which modern man makes decisions, what will the next step(s) be?

feel free to use modernist logic to answer these questions, even if it provides a bias towards favoring modernist logic.

Religion depends on but does not substitute for a system of reasoning. You might say it's a system evolved from reasoning about axioms of superstition. Conflating the two makes your supposed series of steps useless.
The Greek were both religious and philosophers of science and logic.

>>3
then why does religion often substitute for mechanistic logic?
why is it that people who do better on tests which depend on modernist logic to get the correct answer, are often less religious?

>>4
It would appear that you fail to question your own assumptions, which beautifully shows off some of their inherent flaws.

why is it that people who do better on tests which depend on modernist logic to get the correct answer, are often less religious?
correlation does not imply causation. you seem to have maybe overlooked this in your reasoning. also, saging the top thread.