It is the rules of logic and the scientific method that have allowed human beings to progress beyond the stage at which we were stuck for many centuries. Religion didn't pull us out of that stage - science and logic did, both of which provide ways to DISCIPLINE our thinking in order to avoid the very errors to which we are all susceptible - and which religion does nothing to control.
This is just barely worth responding to for the reason that, quite beyond the fact that it is nothing but pure prejudice, the idea that science and logic created Akkad, or Sumer, or Egypt, or Handel's Messiah, or Eliot's poetry, or the Analects of Confucius, or the Tao De Ching, or Beethoven's ninth symphony, or the Beatitudes, or any of the great art, literature, music, and great ideas that are really at the base of that which "pulled us out" of some hypothetical "stage" you claim "we were at" at some point is utterly fatuous.
If material progress is your only concern, then science and technology are as important as you claim, but science and technology own much of their own progress and development to religion and religious people. Science and technology flourished in ancient Greece, in ancient Muslim lands, and many of the earliest scientists were devout Christians, as devout as those who burned them at the stake.
I disagree that it was logic and scientific method that, in and of themselves, put us where we are today. Science and logic are intellectual tools used to discover and then apply the laws of nature (technology) to human progress. But the environment in which these tools became as useful as they have become is far more important than the tools themselves. That environment is the one created by principles extracted from the great religions, In particular Christianity, and in particular, the concepts of unalienable rights, equality under the law, the rule of law, and the framework of Judeo/Christian moral/ethical concepts without which science and technology need give us nothing more than what Nazism and Communism gave us during the 20th century.
All of the above were understood to have emanated from "nature and nature's God" and from a sense of the existence of an ultimate and overarching authority and ground of all human values and rules of conduct in human relationships. Without those, there would be no science and technology at all because no human recivilization would ever have developed beyond that of 10th century Viking culture.
Your childlike faith in "rationality" and its capabilities are as naïve and simplistic as is your knowledge of comparative religion and the history of science.