> But a legacy of the reformation was the fracturing of protestantism into multiple competing strands, many of which rehearsed more and more atheistic principle

> 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.