That's... a lot of handwaving. Going through this: > lack of tribalism/clans The government structure of European states was hereditary. A clan would lay clai

That's... a lot of handwaving. Going through this: > lack of tribalism/clans The government structure of European states was hereditary. A clan would lay claim to a region and support/fight other clans in their claims. > a 'mechanistic'/logical/Aristotelian view of reality I don't know that this is true? For example, where does the soul exist in a mechanistic view of reality? > a 'general' of separation spiritual and civil powers This is a better description of China than Europe. Churches were authority figures, held land, and vied with monarchs and nobles for political power. You'll need to be much more specific as to what you mean. > Fast forward 100+ years and the scientific/technological advances made through curious minds allowed by a different worldview allowed the Europeans to develop more efficient (product output per energy input) economies and then walk all over the rest of the planet. What do you mean "walk all over the rest of the planet"? Europeans were limited to small coastal trading posts until the late 19th century. When you look at a 18th century map and see "all of central America belongs to Spain", that doesn't mean that Spain could project power over all of it. It was an aspirational "we own this" combined with "other powers best not try to take this from us". It didn't mean that they had meaningful control or ownership of the region. > The Indians and Chinese were arguable equally (if not more) advanced in the 1600s, but by the 1700s and later they were 'primitive' in comparison to the Europeans. Can you define what you mean by "advanced" and "primitive"? How would one measure that?