Dota #fundie occidentinvicta.com

**If you are comparing Christianity to Hinduism, I’m sure you can make a very good case for the superiority of Christian morality and the affects on civilisation. India is an easy target for this kind of analysis since its such a big, corrupt, impoverished, divided mess right now and is going to be for quite some time.**

You don’t have to point to India at all. When Arthur Danto critiqued Hinduism he did so without leveling a single accusation against Indian society. Deconstructing Hinduism can easily reveal it’s flawed philosophical center.

**Christianity may have had a significant influence on the development of science, capitalism, western morality, human rights and democracy but now we have those things, they have taken on a life of their own and they can be adopted by non-christian countries.**

It’s funny because Danto makes the very same argument in Mysticism and Morality but then contradicts it by rejecting Hume’s Fact/value dichotomy (to the best of my understanding). Moral beliefs are predicated on factual beliefs. The protestant work ethic that transformed a wilderness into 2 first world nations was predicated on the factual beliefs that there is a God and that imitating this God is the supreme end. If God laboured to create the world, and if man is made in the image of God, then man imitates God by creating as well. If God realized his godhood via the act of creation, so too does man realize this humanity via creation and thus leaves his indelible stamp upon nature.

The European settlers certainly believed all this and were able to accomplish in 500 years what the aboriginals could not in 10,000 years (excluding the Mayans who were advanced).

But this Protestant work ethic crumbles if belief in the God that inspired it crumbles. Witness this in the low levels of job satisfaction rampant across the west. Witness how millennials disdain manual labour and measure the worth of work solely on the metric of remuneration. Christianity is still relevant today.

quick edit: In philosophy, “factual beliefs” are different from their counterparts in the domain of science. In the latter, they must be verified empirically whereas in the former they are merely true/false statements about the universe that needn’t be verified empirically.

28 comments

Confused?

So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!

To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register. Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.