Is Reformation the cause of modern Atheism?

[Max]

Jake in the Gustavus Adolphus thread:

"The Reformation began the downfall of religion in the world. You can pin that on Luther, Calvin, and their ilk; then there is the complicity of the two greatest "champions" of the heretic cause in allowing it to continue."

An interesting theory. Discuss.

[bullmoose88]

No. But it did give birth to the use of profilactics.

"No, no. I mean, because we are members of the Protestant Reformed Church, which successfully challenged the autocratic power of the Papacy in the mid-sixteenth century, we can wear little rubber devices to prevent issue...

...That's what being a Protestant's all about. That's why it's the church for me. That's why it's the church for anyone who respects the individual and the individual's right to decide for him or herself. When Martin Luther nailed his protest up to the church door in fifteen-seventeen, he may not have realised the full significance of what he was doing, but four hundred years later, thanks to him, my dear, I can wear whatever I want on my John Thomas...

...and, Protestantism doesn't stop at the simple condom. Oh, no. I can wear French Ticklers if I want...

...but I can go down the road any time I want and walk into Harry's and hold my head up high and say in a loud, steady voice, 'Harry, I want you to sell me a condom. In fact, today, I think I'll have a French Tickler, for I am a Protestant.'"

Protestant, and fiercely proud of it!

[John Dibble]

Doubtful. It is more likely the contradictions between certain parts of modern science and religious texts, such as evolution vs. creationism, being the primary cause. Reformation was one of the main causes for the decline in power of the Roman Catholic Church however.

[Virginian87]

Of course not.  I will post what I wrote in response to Jake in the Gustavus Adolphus thread:

The Reformation began the downfall of religion in the world. You can pin that on Luther, Calvin, and their ilk; then there is the complicity of the two greatest "champions" of the heretic cause in allowing it to continue.

I wouldn't say that the Reformation was the downfall of religion; if anything, it allowed Christianity to adapt to a new age.  Like it or not, the Middle Ages and the Age of Faith were over by the 16th Century; man was discovering new things about the world around him.  The printing press had been invented, so that learning need not be confined to the upper classes; astronomers like Copernicus were beginning to challenge the Ptolemaic view that the universe was geocentric.  The Church stood in the way of these new discoveries because they challenged centuries-old Catholic dogma and threatened the stance of the Church in everyday life.  The Reformation helped the Church realize that it needed to change quickly if was going to survive; hence the Catholic Counter-Reformation occurred.

Luther and Calvin were not heretics.  As a Presbyterian, I follow Calvin's philosophies in church and in my everyday life.  If anything, I believe they purified Christianity by preaching against the excessive pomp of Catholicism and, most importantly, allowing their followers to confess their sins directly to God rather than through a priest. 

Of course, there were some major theological changes as well.  I can't fully argue with you on all of them because I'm not an expert on the theology of all Protestant branches.  One of the most striking differences is that we tend to view the Virgin Mary as a divine woman who gave birth to Our Saviour, but we don't place her on the same level as Jesus himself. 

[ag]

No. Of course not. The Western Church had been heretical since about 1055 (or, if I am to take the Armenian position, since 476), anyway, so the conflicts between the heresiarchs in Rome and in Germany at a later date are of no consequence to the true Christianity .

Seriously, you have to be really very, very Catholic, more Catholic than the Pope, in fact, to propose somethign like this.

[Max]

No. Of course not. The Western Church had been heretical since about 1055 (or, if I am to take the Armenian position, since 476), anyway, so the conflicts between the heresiarchs in Rome and in Germany at a later date are of no consequence to the true Christianity .

Seriously, you have to be really very, very Catholic, more Catholic than the Pope, in fact, to propose somethign like this.

I'm no Catholic and not even very religious, but I think there's something true about what Jake said.

Protestantism leads to a much more rational kind of religion and abolishes the more mystic, emotional kind of religion Catholics practise.
The more emotional and mystic, the more powerful is a religion.

[Jake]

You misstated my position. The Reformation is the cause of the fall of religion, not the cause of the rise of atheism.

The western world has become much less religious in practice, but not so much in name. In other words, the Reformation caused the rise of such religions in name only as BRTD's Lutheran "church". Also, the fall in power of the RCC as Dibble alludes to, directly caused the rise in Enlightenment thought of the 18th century, which has furthered this fall of real religion.

[MODU]

No.  In fact, I think it cleaned up religion in the Western world.  Catholics had added so much to the original teachings in the Bible (no offense to anyone) that the reform movement allowed "christians" to go back to the beginning and study/practice what was originally written.  Of course, all "christian" churches have chosen to add to or take away from the original teachings, but I view some of the new churches as being more in line with the Bible than the historical Catholic church.

[WMS]

No. Of course not. The Western Church had been heretical since about 1055 (or, if I am to take the Armenian position, since 476), anyway, so the conflicts between the heresiarchs in Rome and in Germany at a later date are of no consequence to the true Christianity .

Packs of icon worshippers, the lot of yeh.

[MaC]

I think modern atheism/agnosticism are a result of the enlightment era and science being an authority on knowledge.  As it was shown that subtracting God from the equation is more factual, people stopped believing in other aspects. (ex. God's will is not the cause of an illness, yet there are viruses/bacteria)

As knowledge is furthered, as of more recently there are a larger and larger chunk of these atheist/agnostic types.

Still, argument in favor of God's existence holds more weight than an argument against.  Damn the absolute empiricists that think if you can't sense it it doesn't exist...

[Brandon H]

The Catholic Church was corrupt at the time Luther broke away. Perhaps it was necessary for him to do something drastic to get the Church to clean up its act. Though I am wondering if he may have gone too far.

[ag]

Damn the absolute empiricists that think if you can't sense it it doesn't exist...

Actually, <this> "empirisist's" view is a bit different: if you can't sense it, it is irrelevant whether it exists or not.  If two theories give the same empirical predictions, you are free to pick the one you like more. Thus, existence or non-existence are up to an individual - if you wish, aesthetic -  preference. The question is not well posed and the entire debate is vacuous.