Solipsism

At the end of the day, the ability to not be fucked with is a very useful skill to have, but seems to invariably lead to an abuse of power. For instance, I know that at least speaking up to the present, my main motivation for philosophy, economics, and learning generally has been less "curiosity" and more a desire to extricate myself from a real hell. And insofar as realism holds, it's simply beyond my power and outside any real rational expectation to become a tyrant, and that this fact derives chiefly from a sort of weakness, a lack of possessing the means to become an effective tyrant. So you might say that a great deal of the appeal of Christianity is as a "slave morality" rather than a real will to power, that it appeals to the proletariat primarily because they are weak.

Truth be told, I don't think other philosophies really offer a better solution to the problem of disparity. Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc. are a lot worse for wear when you look at mean standard of living. Even if we were to fast-forward into the modern age and consider Atheism and its ties to a strictly empirical, strictly scientific worldview, I don't think the general gain in happiness, knowledge, intelligence, etc. is any better in a system other than Christianity. This of course would be a highly controversial claim that I won't defend completely here. On the other hand, one of the key points of my paper is the thesis that Christianity was probably the cognitive construct that enabled, physically, economically, socially, etc. the development of Western science and empiricism. This is a bold claim on the face of it, but is strictly speaking highly probable from the perspective of quantum psychology and the corporate architecture of mind; mental, informational, computational reality.

Stephen King wrote somewhere, probably in Salem's Lot, that Christianity was the force that finally lifted humanity from lying face down in the dust. I think that's basically and fundamentally true. If we'd developed the fruits of Western science and empiricism before Christianity's reformative influence opposing an essentially damning human nature, we'd probably be fucked. We'd be living in The Matrix or in the world of Terminator, or something like that (CHARLES, NOOOOO). I'm not saying Christianity is perfect or was perfect or has undergone anything like a really ideal evolution from its inception unto the modern age. But in terms of shear economic prosperity, growth in human happiness, increase in knowledge, intelligence and complexity, not to mention longevity of the human species, Christianity probably has at least as good a track record as science (balancing for outliers and perversions on both sides). And that furthermore, even if science did through a great deal of unnecessitated and therefore "avoidable" enlightenment yield the same or greater improvements in human character when compared with Christianity -- and this is something there is considerable reason to doubt -- that even if this were so, and even if Christianity was not the workhorse than enabled the conception of Western science and empiricism in its nascent form -- even if all these things were not so, Christianity nevertheless provided the necessary moral and ethical developments for science to create prosperity rather than dystopia. In a nutshell this is why from a quantum immortality perspective science could not have arisen without the high working-ceiling provided by Christianity (and the corporate architecture of mind and quantum-level events, and perhaps other events also, being influenced by cognizing observers is the answer to 'how' science was brought about). Thus, although this seems like a dreary way to conclude, I think the relative accomplishments of science and Christianity have to be weighed in a relative perspective; Christianity was operating and evolving from something like a 12-worker start, where by the time science emerged the culture in which it occurred was already mining from two fully saturated bases.

I think the dream is that we'll find ourselves living in a continuous, "public" reality where all serious and meaningful concerns are well-understood so that there's no grounds for economic, sexual, or reproductive dominions and that the burning need for isolated, narcissistic power and therefore "Diablo dollars" will largely be a thing of the past. I think we're gradually moving toward this future, and that in large part the remaining positive influence of Christianity is the momentum that will carry us to the goal (if we are to get there). This isn't to say that I discount the positive influence of other world religions or the work of scientists and atheists. There is certainly momentum carried from other major world religions, although it is difficult to say how much of it is positive. Truth be told, it's likely that atheists and scientists will do as much as Christians in the contemporary setting, but there is also an element of tragedy in the extent Christianity is ridiculed and misunderstood. I don't necessarily say this from any deep-seated faith in Christianity, historically or present, only that I think time will, or at least ought to reveal Christianity as a much stronger force for good than is popularly conceived.