So the author says Weber's claim that protestant theology leads to good work ethic is 'marshmellow soft' without once refuting any actual point Weber makes abou

So the author says Weber's claim that protestant theology leads to good work ethic is 'marshmellow soft' without once refuting any actual point Weber makes about said theology. He instead makes the equally vague claim that religious texts can be interpreted in any way. This is naive for two reasons: 1. It implies that theological texts can't give any clearly definable meaning. This means that the Quran and the New Testament are essentially equivalent in terms of their impact on society. He needs to present me more evidence than he did in backing up this very strong claim. 2. It implies that there is a single predominant factor in explaining group behavior. This is a fallacy of the single cause. Sure, group-think plays a part. However, it would be very hasty to say that theology doesn't play a part as well in forming that group-think in the first place. The Puritans had a view of theology very very different from the Catholics. They believed that their salvation was fundamentally God's choice (Calvinism) instead of their own (Arminianism). You might make the point that this refutes point 1. above, except that this 'theology' didn't come out of thin air, it came from a very literal reading of the New Testament (Romans 8:29-30 for example). This theology - particularly the doctrine of total depravity coupled with predestination - has practical implications on how one would craft the _policy_ of new institutions. This in turn necessarily trickles down into freedoms, human rights, and finally economics. The burden of proof is on the author of this article to explain how this set of beliefs (let alone Weber) are not hugely impactful on traditional western values.