3 ms·

“Reformation” is not a synonym for “secularization.” A common misunderstanding is that Europe was highly religious prior to the reformation and then the reforma

“Reformation” is not a synonym for “secularization.” A common misunderstanding is that Europe was highly religious prior to the reformation and then the reformation tempered that religiosity. This is not true. Both the Protestant Reformation and Catholic Reformation heightened religiosity for a very long time.

ggm 5y ago
Yes. This is absolutely true. But a legacy of the reformation was the fracturing of protestantism into multiple competing strands, many of which rehearsed more and more atheistic principles as they diverged from the 39 articles, at least in the english speaking world. By the time we arrive at quakers, we're a long way down the path to utilitarianism and a pretty overt statement of the lack of need of a deity to live a good live. But this is not the reformation, or the counter-reformation, its the enlightenment. I suppose my point was more about the enlightenment than anything else. Which is definedly NOT about the reformation, but stems from it: I would argue there is no good evidence of a counterfactual of an enlightenment like the one we have emerging in a world without protestantism in its current form. I should add this is not a direct 'anti-scientism' accusation to the catholic church: The church was extremely receptive to scientific method and proof methods. It wasn't so into the democratic tendency that came with it. So I believe without the liberation inherent in the reformation (the liberation from widely held belief in the authority of the state and the church) we'd not be where we are. The taking of oaths was a significant component of why people were outside the state process, and faith, inherent in the 39 articles: you couldn't swear alliegence to the crown of england without explicitly accepting its authority in religion. Neither catholics nor dissenters liked this. Perhaps this is the perpetuation of the belief in the importance of an Oath, from medieval times? (this was the blockage on catholic participation in government which persisted for years after the enlightenment had begun)
- UncleMeat 5y ago
  > But a legacy of the reformation was the fracturing of protestantism into multiple competing strands, many of which rehearsed more and more atheistic principles as they diverged from the 39 articles, at least in the english speaking world. This is wildly different than what I'd wager most scholars would say. And I think limiting yourself to the english speaking world is such an enormous change in scope that it becomes almost meaningless to refer to it as "The Reformation." I'm not a historian, but my wife is. Her era is a little before the Reformation but she teaches a course on it. Religiosity both among protestants and catholics in both personal and institutional life increased for ages following the Protestant and Catholic Reformations. I do not believe that this is a controversial statement among scholars. The Quakers cannot be taken to be representative of Christendom in Europe. They were the weirdos (as seen by the bulk of Europe) who fled to the New World in no small part because of the religious violence and persecution they faced in Europe. > I would argue there is no good evidence of a counterfactual of an enlightenment like the one we have emerging in a world without protestantism in its current form. Professional historians tend to hate counterfactual arguments because they cannot actually be attacked with evidence. This is the realm of lay speculation. "The enlightenment as the victory of secular reasoning over religiosity" is also a statement that I think most scholars would have trouble with, but I'm less familiar with the field here since none of my historian friends actually work in this time frame in europe.
  - ggm 5y ago
    All very fair. Much for me to think about. I'd rather shift my thinking than try to maintain the indefensible.

ggm 5y ago

Yes. This is absolutely true. But a legacy of the reformation was the fracturing of protestantism into multiple competing strands, many of which rehearsed more and more atheistic principles as they diverged from the 39 articles, at least in the english speaking world. By the time we arrive at quakers, we're a long way down the path to utilitarianism and a pretty overt statement of the lack of need of a deity to live a good live. But this is not the reformation, or the counter-reformation, its the enlightenment. I suppose my point was more about the enlightenment than anything else. Which is definedly NOT about the reformation, but stems from it: I would argue there is no good evidence of a counterfactual of an enlightenment like the one we have emerging in a world without protestantism in its current form. I should add this is not a direct 'anti-scientism' accusation to the catholic church: The church was extremely receptive to scientific method and proof methods. It wasn't so into the democratic tendency that came with it. So I believe without the liberation inherent in the reformation (the liberation from widely held belief in the authority of the state and the church) we'd not be where we are. The taking of oaths was a significant component of why people were outside the state process, and faith, inherent in the 39 articles: you couldn't swear alliegence to the crown of england without explicitly accepting its authority in religion. Neither catholics nor dissenters liked this. Perhaps this is the perpetuation of the belief in the importance of an Oath, from medieval times? (this was the blockage on catholic participation in government which persisted for years after the enlightenment had begun)

UncleMeat 5y ago
> But a legacy of the reformation was the fracturing of protestantism into multiple competing strands, many of which rehearsed more and more atheistic principles as they diverged from the 39 articles, at least in the english speaking world. This is wildly different than what I'd wager most scholars would say. And I think limiting yourself to the english speaking world is such an enormous change in scope that it becomes almost meaningless to refer to it as "The Reformation." I'm not a historian, but my wife is. Her era is a little before the Reformation but she teaches a course on it. Religiosity both among protestants and catholics in both personal and institutional life increased for ages following the Protestant and Catholic Reformations. I do not believe that this is a controversial statement among scholars. The Quakers cannot be taken to be representative of Christendom in Europe. They were the weirdos (as seen by the bulk of Europe) who fled to the New World in no small part because of the religious violence and persecution they faced in Europe. > I would argue there is no good evidence of a counterfactual of an enlightenment like the one we have emerging in a world without protestantism in its current form. Professional historians tend to hate counterfactual arguments because they cannot actually be attacked with evidence. This is the realm of lay speculation. "The enlightenment as the victory of secular reasoning over religiosity" is also a statement that I think most scholars would have trouble with, but I'm less familiar with the field here since none of my historian friends actually work in this time frame in europe.
- ggm 5y ago
  All very fair. Much for me to think about. I'd rather shift my thinking than try to maintain the indefensible.