Was the Reformation necessary for the Enlightenment?

[DMB]

This question falls into a sort of hole in the middle of History, Religion and Philosophy. Because essentially both the Reformation and the Enlightenment seem to me to have marked ways of looking at the world and our place in it, I felt in the end that this question ought to be in Philosophy.

An obvious dismissal of the question could be the fact that many of the great Enlightenment thinkers were from Catholic countries. But that would not mean that they weren't influenced by the ideas that came out of the Reformation.

[Ray Moscow]

I think they have similar causes and are somewhat inter-related. I'm not sure the Reformation was a necessary predecessor to the Englightenment, though.

[Celsus]

Which part of the Reformation are you refering to? I'd hardly put Luther's 95 Theses as something that inspired the Enlightenment, the trends go much further back, I mean Da Vinci predates Luther to some extent.

[Alex]

Isn't the European Renaissance (14th-16th centuries) a more likely source for ideas that influenced the Enlightenment than the Reformation?

[DMB]

I think it is far too simplistic to locate either the Reformation or the Enlightenment at moments in time. Elements of the Reformation predate Luther. It was more a process that slowly gathered momentum. And I would have thought that the Reformation was in any case influenced by and intertwined with the Renaissance.

[Celsus]

I think it is far too simplistic to locate either the Reformation or the Enlightenment at moments in time. Elements of the Reformation predate Luther. It was more a process that slowly gathered momentum. And I would have thought that the Reformation was in any case influenced by and intertwined with the Renaissance.
But which ones are you referring to? Wycliffe's? Gutenberg's? If the definition of the Reformation movement is too general then the answer to the question in the OP would be an obvious "no" because there were numerous 'attempts' to "reform" the Catholic church, of which the Enlightenment's rise coincides with only one particular period, but sufficient trends of the Enlightenment predate this particular reform period. One could define the Reformation in broad enough terms that it necessarily caused the Enlightenment but that would not prove anything other than that one used an overly broad definition to prove their point but that is then problematic in other analyses of the medieval period. The flip side could equally be asked: Would the Reformation have been possible without the Enlightenment?

Causation is notoriously tricky to establish in history generally (like: "Did the Soviet-Nazi Non-Aggression Pact allow Western Europe to fall so easily?" seems simple at first but exceedingly difficult to defend in practice because it is predicated on numerous assumptions about the behaviour of actors whose actions would be unable to be sufficiently determined in the absence of the pact).

[munnki]

Nothing is required for this enlightenment, however, except freedom; and the freedom in question is the least harmful of all, namely, the freedom to use reason publicly in all matters. But on all sides I hear: "Do not argue!" The officer says, "Do not argue, drill!" The tax man says, "Do not argue, pay!" The pastor says, "Do not argue, believe!" (Only one ruler in the World says, "Argue as much as you want and about what you want, but obey!") In this we have examples of pervasive restrictions on freedom. But which restriction hinders enlightenment and which does not, but instead actually advances it? I reply: The public use of one's reason must always be free, and it alone can bring about enlightenment among mankind; the private use of reason may, however, often be very narrowly restricted, without otherwise hindering the progress of enlightenment. By the public use of one's own reason I understand the use that anyone as a scholar makes of reason before the entire literate world. I call the private use of reason that which a person may make in a civic post or office that has been entrusted to him.

Immanuel Kant - What Is Enlightenment

[Danhalen]

This question falls into a sort of hole in the middle of History, Religion and Philosophy. Because essentially both the Reformation and the Enlightenment seem to me to have marked ways of looking at the world and our place in it, I felt in the end that this question ought to be in Philosophy.

An obvious dismissal of the question could be the fact that many of the great Enlightenment thinkers were from Catholic countries. But that would not mean that they weren't influenced by the ideas that came out of the Reformation.I think the Reformation was absolutely necessary for the Enlightenment to begin. With the Reformation came the idea that the Church did not hold all the cards in the deck of Truth. If the clergy were no longer the sole arbiters of Truth, then there had to be some other way of finding certainty. The quest for certainty outside of the Church is what allowed philosophers to seek truth in human reason rather than Church dogma.

[Celsus]

I think the Reformation was absolutely necessary for the Enlightenment to begin. With the Reformation came the idea that the Church did not hold all the cards in the deck of Truth. If the clergy were no longer the sole arbiters of Truth, then there had to be some other way of finding certainty. The quest for certainty outside of the Church is what allowed philosophers to seek truth in human reason rather than Church dogma.
And you think no one would have been able to determine these things from the likes of Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, Bacon, Spinoza etc?

[David B]

I think the Reformation was absolutely necessary for the Enlightenment to begin. With the Reformation came the idea that the Church did not hold all the cards in the deck of Truth. If the clergy were no longer the sole arbiters of Truth, then there had to be some other way of finding certainty. The quest for certainty outside of the Church is what allowed philosophers to seek truth in human reason rather than Church dogma.

Logically, does not this work as well the other way round?

As -

'I think the Enlightenment was absolutely necessary for the Reformation to begin. With the Enlightenment came the idea that the Church did not hold all the cards in the deck of Truth. If the clergy were no longer the sole arbiters of Truth, then there had to be some other way of finding certainty. The quest for certainty outside of the Church is what allowed theologians like Luther to seek truth in human reason acting on other interpretations of Scripture rather than Church dogma.'

I say - why 'either-or', why not 'both-and'?

A dynamic situation in which the Enlightenment and the Reformation to some degree fed off each other?

David

[Danhalen]

And you think no one would have been able to determine these things from the likes of Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, Bacon, Spinoza etc?Nope, but I do think that Kepler et al. helped to inspire the Reformation, which in turn led to the Enlightenment.

[Danhalen]

Logically, does not this work as well the other way round?

As -

'I think the Enlightenment was absolutely necessary for the Reformation to begin. With the Enlightenment came the idea that the Church did not hold all the cards in the deck of Truth. If the clergy were no longer the sole arbiters of Truth, then there had to be some other way of finding certainty. The quest for certainty outside of the Church is what allowed theologians like Luther to seek truth in human reason acting on other interpretations of Scripture rather than Church dogma.'

I say - why 'either-or', why not 'both-and'?

A dynamic situation in which the Enlightenment and the Reformation to some degree fed off each other?I don't take the argument I made as biconditional. I take it as conditional. So no, I don't think it logically works the other way around.

While the events of the past are not so easily disentangled into some clearly linear progression, I think it is clear that the Reformation began prior to the Enlightenment. The ideas embodied in the Reformation seeded the Enlightenment. Consider the paradigm Enlightenment thinker: David Hume. Would Hume have been allowed to publish his works, which are clearly antithetical to Catholic doctrine (God is not necessary for anything in Hume's works), had the reformation never occurred?

I do think it is clear that the Enlightenment pushed the Reformation further and deeper in scope than it could have reached on its own. Perhaps a feedback loop works as analogy: the Reformation creates (some of) the groundwork necessary for the Enlightenment, and the Enlightenment creates more fertile ground for the Reformation to expand.

[Celsus]

And you think no one would have been able to determine these things from the likes of Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, Bacon, Spinoza etc?Nope, but I do think that Kepler et al. helped to inspire the Reformation, which in turn led to the Enlightenment.
That theory seems to lack parsimony. If one takes any of the major Enlightenment thinkers (classically Paine, Rousseau, Kant, Hume, etc), you will find almost no influence of Reformers of whatever age (Luther, Henry VIII, Erasmus, More, Wycliffe, Calvin, Zwingli) in their works. Calvin is even singled out for special vindictive by Voltaire (and here's something I learnt from Wikipedia: Calvin argued with Servetus, a heretic of some sort, over doctrine to such an extent that he refused to reply to Servetus, and later had him arrested and burnt at the stake, hardly an antiestablishmentarian he).
While the events of the past are not so easily disentangled into some clearly linear progression, I think it is clear that the Reformation began prior to the Enlightenment. The ideas embodied in the Reformation seeded the Enlightenment.
I'd say the ideas embodied in early rationalists especially Bacon, Ockham and Spinoza, combined with the early scientific clashes with the Church (Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton), provide sufficient grounds for the development of the Enlightenment. The key point is the rapid expansion of knowledge into areas that the Church had no special claim over (Machiavelli and Hobbes being important in this regard), and how the departure from acceptance of received wisdom and a critical attitude developed.

Consider the paradigm Enlightenment thinker: David Hume. Would Hume have been allowed to publish his works, which are clearly antithetical to Catholic doctrine (God is not necessary for anything in Hume's works), had the reformation never occurred?
The structural question of whether someone could contravene the Church suggests the Church was monolithic in control but it was not. Henry VIII's break was possible because of England's distance and self-autonomy, Luther's survival was possible because he was given refuge from German princes already wary of the Church's influence. And ironically, Henry VIII was the one who refuted Luther's 95 Theses and was called a defender of the faith by the Vatican. These trends and structures predate the Reformation, would you then say the War of the Roses was necessary for the Enlightenment?
I do think it is clear that the Enlightenment pushed the Reformation further and deeper in scope than it could have reached on its own. Perhaps a feedback loop works as analogy: the Reformation creates (some of) the groundwork necessary for the Enlightenment, and the Enlightenment creates more fertile ground for the Reformation to expand.
The erosion of subjects in which the Church traditionally had authority was multi-faceted, even from the time of the printing press through the Enlightenment and then the development of science and so on. The Reformation was a combination of both political and theological pressure, where politically the Church couldn't reach, there was little effects (e.g. Henry VIII's break), but where they could reach (e.g. French Huguenots), the effects were far more devastating. Theology was only a small part in the story.

[Danhalen]

And you think no one would have been able to determine these things from the likes of Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, Bacon, Spinoza etc?Nope, but I do think that Kepler et al. helped to inspire the Reformation, which in turn led to the Enlightenment.
That theory seems to lack parsimony. If one takes any of the major Enlightenment thinkers (classically Paine, Rousseau, Kant, Hume, etc), you will find almost no influence of Reformers of whatever age (Luther, Henry VIII, Erasmus, More, Wycliffe, Calvin, Zwingli) in their works. Calvin is even singled out for special vindictive by Voltaire (and here's something I learnt from Wikipedia: Calvin argued with Servetus, a heretic of some sort, over doctrine to such an extent that he refused to reply to Servetus, and later had him arrested and burnt at the stake, hardly an antiestablishmentarian he).I am not arguing that Enlightenment thinkers are Reformationists. I am arguing that the Reformation played a critical role in the formation of the conditions which led to the Enlightenment.

While the events of the past are not so easily disentangled into some clearly linear progression, I think it is clear that the Reformation began prior to the Enlightenment. The ideas embodied in the Reformation seeded the Enlightenment.
I'd say the ideas embodied in early rationalists especially Bacon, Ockham and Spinoza, combined with the early scientific clashes with the Church (Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton), provide sufficient grounds for the development of the Enlightenment. The key point is the rapid expansion of knowledge into areas that the Church had no special claim over (Machiavelli and Hobbes being important in this regard), and how the departure from acceptance of received wisdom and a critical attitude developed.The role that the Reformation plays in this arena is to show that there are areas in which the Church has no special claim. Prior to the Reformation, the Church had claim to all knowledge. Even in the areas of knowledge in which the Church had no real claim, the Reformation helped to clear space for authority beyond the Church that could claim said knowledge. This, in turn, cleared space for the Enlightenment.

Consider the paradigm Enlightenment thinker: David Hume. Would Hume have been allowed to publish his works, which are clearly antithetical to Catholic doctrine (God is not necessary for anything in Hume's works), had the reformation never occurred?The structural question of whether someone could contravene the Church suggests the Church was monolithic in control but it was not. Henry VIII's break was possible because of England's distance and self-autonomy, Luther's survival was possible because he was given refuge from German princes already wary of the Church's influence. And ironically, Henry VIII was the one who refuted Luther's 95 Theses and was called a defender of the faith by the Vatican. These trends and structures predate the Reformation, would you then say the War of the Roses was necessary for the Enlightenment?Of course the trends which produced the Reformation were in place prior to the Reformation. So what? Of course the Church had already witnessed a loss of control prior to the Protestant Reformation. So what? I would argue that any historical event which undermined the central authority of the Church and the divine right of nobility to rule is crucial in contributing to the ideas which led to the Reformation and then the Enlightenment.

I do think it is clear that the Enlightenment pushed the Reformation further and deeper in scope than it could have reached on its own. Perhaps a feedback loop works as analogy: the Reformation creates (some of) the groundwork necessary for the Enlightenment, and the Enlightenment creates more fertile ground for the Reformation to expand.
The erosion of subjects in which the Church traditionally had authority was multi-faceted, even from the time of the printing press through the Enlightenment and then the development of science and so on. The Reformation was a combination of both political and theological pressure, where politically the Church couldn't reach, there was little effects (e.g. Henry VIII's break), but where they could reach (e.g. French Huguenots), the effects were far more devastating. Theology was only a small part in the story.I never argued that theology was the majority of the story. My argument is simply that the Protestant Reformation was one of the first eras of history when people began to think independently from the Church en masse. The Enlightenment is simply the culmination of such critical thinking.

[Alex]

Whatever its remote or immediate antecedents, the Reformation appeared in 16th century Europe as an essentially religious movement that challenged the authority, doctrine, and liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church and precipitated the rise of Lutheranism, Calvinism, and the Protestant churches.

The changes in the English church during the so-called "reformation Parliament" of 1529-36 (controlled by Henry VIII) were political rather than religious in character. They were intended to unite the religious and secular sources of authority within a single sovereign power. The foundation of what we regard as the established Church of England was managed by Archbishop Cranmer and took place during the brief reign of Edward VII. The project was finished, more or less, by the Elizabethan settlement.

I think the rise of scientific thought (empiricism) in the 16th and 17th centuries contributed far more to the Enlightenment than the religious controversies of the Reformation. The renewal in studying ancient thinkers which took place in what we call the Renaissance, is another consideration in explaining the enlightened belief that rational inquiry leads to objective truth.

[Celsus]

And you think no one would have been able to determine these things from the likes of Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, Bacon, Spinoza etc?Nope, but I do think that Kepler et al. helped to inspire the Reformation, which in turn led to the Enlightenment.
That theory seems to lack parsimony. If one takes any of the major Enlightenment thinkers (classically Paine, Rousseau, Kant, Hume, etc), you will find almost no influence of Reformers of whatever age (Luther, Henry VIII, Erasmus, More, Wycliffe, Calvin, Zwingli) in their works. Calvin is even singled out for special vindictive by Voltaire (and here's something I learnt from Wikipedia: Calvin argued with Servetus, a heretic of some sort, over doctrine to such an extent that he refused to reply to Servetus, and later had him arrested and burnt at the stake, hardly an antiestablishmentarian he).I am not arguing that Enlightenment thinkers are Reformationists. I am arguing that the Reformation played a critical role in the formation of the conditions which led to the Enlightenment.
I recognise what you say, but your original claim that "Kepler et al. helped to inspire the Reformation, which in turn led to the Enlightenment" was in need of elaboration. I read the line "led to the Enlightenment" as being inspired the same way Kepler et al inspired them, which a cursory glance into the Enlightenment thinkers works suggest otherwise.

The role that the Reformation plays in this arena is to show that there are areas in which the Church has no special claim.
Didn't Kepler and Copernicus already demonstrate this much earlier? Or Bacon? Or Avicenna? Why is the Reformation specifically to be singled out for special influence, when in the intellectual contest, the subject was specifically theology and doctrinal difference, while in the Enlightenment, rationality and empiricism are the key vectors?
Prior to the Reformation, the Church had claim to all knowledge.
I think this is where you founder.
Even in the areas of knowledge in which the Church had no real claim, the Reformation helped to clear space for authority beyond the Church that could claim said knowledge. This, in turn, cleared space for the Enlightenment.
If anything, your theory would suggest the Great Schism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Schism) to be more important than the Reformation. If you study Galileo, you will find that he regularly hid among Italian Houses who would shield him from the Church, a story nearly exactly the same as Luther's among German princes. These themselves are an old tale of principalities resisting control of the Holy Roman Empire, which began almost as soon as the Holy Roman Empire was formed.
Of course the trends which produced the Reformation were in place prior to the Reformation. So what? Of course the Church had already witnessed a loss of control prior to the Protestant Reformation. So what? I would argue that any historical event which undermined the central authority of the Church and the divine right of nobility to rule is crucial in contributing to the ideas which led to the Reformation and then the Enlightenment.
Well the answer to 'so what?' is that you can't demonstrate them as necessary conditions as such. The problem is that there were multiple events that challenged the authority of the Church (and kings), including the Western/Orthodox split (and earlier disputes like Iconoclasm, that rested between two poles of power), Magna Carta, the Great Schism already mentioned, etc. The absolute authority of the Vatican was only 'singular' for a very brief period between the collapse of the Byzantine empire and lack of a centre for the Orthodox and the first Western contests of its power. As I suggested, Luther's Reformation should not be mistaken to be anything like Henry VIII's, given Henry's refutation of Luther. This is what I said right at the start of the thread about redefining things so vaguely and all-encompassing ("any historical event which undermined the central authority of the Church") as to become meaningless. Henry VIII was a power struggle, Luther a theological/accountability dispute. The history of struggle for power goes back into our pre-history.

I never argued that theology was the majority of the story. My argument is simply that the Protestant Reformation was one of the first eras of history when people began to think independently from the Church en masse. The Enlightenment is simply the culmination of such critical thinking.
For people that purportedly were thinking independently, they certainly left only the vanishing traces of their leaders' writing, hardly a period of mass independent thinking - they were just swallowing from a different speaker like Calvin (as the Servetus example shows, he was not averse to using authority to destroy rivals either). I'd say it was simply a power struggle with mobilisations that were depicted as struggles against orthodoxy, not necessarily that people were starting to think independently en masse. I think that the Enlightenment, based very narrowly among the upper classes, was itself a key in influencing what the 'masses' thought - that would begin much later with the advent of public schooling and increased literacy during the Industrial Revolution.

[David B]

Looking for the roots of both the Reformation and the Enlightenment, some people have suggested that they had more to do with the acts of rats and fleas than with the acts of men.

In Western Europe, the sudden shortage of cheap labour provided an incentive for landlords to compete for peasants with wages and freedoms, an innovation that, some argue, represents the roots of capitalism, and the resulting social upheaval "caused" the Renaissance, and even the Reformation. In many ways the Black Death and its aftermath improved the situation of surviving peasants, notably by the end of the 15th century....

...The Black Death led to cynicism toward religious officials who could not keep their promises of curing plague victims and banishing the disease. No one, the Church included, was able to cure or accurately explain the reasons for the plague outbreaks. One theory of transmission was that it spread through air, and was referred to as miasma, or 'bad air'. This increased doubt in the clergy's abilities. Extreme alienation with the Church culminated in either support for different religious groups such as the flagellants, which from their late 13th century beginnings grew tremendously during the opening years of the Black Death, and later to a pursuit of pleasure and hedonism. It was a common belief at the time that the plague was due to God's wrath, caused by the sins of mankind; In response, the flagellants travelled from town to town, whipping themselves in an effort to mimic the sufferings of Jesus prior to his crucifixion. Originating in Germany, several miraculous tales emerged from their efforts, such as a child being revived from the dead, and a talking cow. These stories further fuelled the belief that the flagellants were more effective than church leaders. It may have been that the flagellants' later involvement in hedonism was an effort to accelerate or absorb God's wrath, to shorten the time with which others suffered. More likely, the focus of attention and popularity of their cause contributed to a sense that the world itself was ending, and that their individual actions were of no consequence.

Unfortunately, the flagellants may have more likely contributed to the actual spreading of the disease, rather than its cure. Presumably, there were towns that the flagellants visited or passed through which were largely unaffected by the plague until that point, only to be infected by fleas carried either by the flagellant's followers, or the flagellants themselves. This is a common ironic theme in how individuals at the time dealt with the plague—that in nearly all cases, the methods employed to defend against the plague encouraged its spread.

The Black Death hit the monasteries very hard because of their proximity with the sick, who sought refuge there, so that there was a severe shortage of clergy after the epidemic cycle. This resulted in a mass influx of hastily-trained and inexperienced clergy members, many of whom knew little of the discipline and rigor of the veterans they replaced. This led to abuses by the clergy in years afterwards and a further deterioration of the position of the Church in the eyes of the people.

David

[Danhalen]

Perhaps it has been my use of the term 'necessary' that is causing the fuss here. I concede that 'necessary' (in the logical sense) is too strong of a word. What I meant is simply that the events prior to the Enlightenment shaped the Enlightenment. I know there are several factors which led to the Enlightenment. I think it is dishonest to suggest that the Reformation had no role in the way the Enlightenment took shape. Regardless of the religious nature of the Reformation it was the first time that common people were shown that the Church was not the complete authority on everything. Prior to the Reformation, the only place anyone could turn to for an education in the academics was the Church.

It seems to me that the major reason for rejecting the Reformation as a cause of the Enlightenment is the religious nature of the Reformation. I am not referring to the religious nature of the Reformation as a cause of the Enlightenment. I am referring to one more demonstration of the impotence of the Church that the Reformation revealed. Prior to the Reformation, there was no doubt as to the divine rights of kings. Prior to the reformation, only the clergy were allowed to read and interpret scripture. Prior to the reformation, there was only one intermediary between governments: the Church. Prior to the Reformation, you were either Catholic or a heretic and worthy of death. This all changed after the Reformation. Yes, there were events that led to this point. Yes, those events could have led to the Enlightenment without the Reformation (hence 'necessity' is too strong of a term). But I believe the secular consequences of the religious movements that constitute the Reformation led directly to the Enlightenment. Again, it probably would have happened anyway, but it happened the way it did.

David B,
I fully accept that the plague played a more central role in the development of the Enlightenment than the Reformation. It was the most devastating blow to the appearance of the power of the Church. I simply think the Reformation washed away the last vestiges of this illusion.

[Alex]

What this thread is tending to show is that whatever someone wants to say about the causes and/or effects of an historical event can be qualified ad infinitum.

Revisionist history is revised and that revision is then subject to further revision.....

Soon it becomes apparent that you can't say anything definitive about the past, and nobody is satisfied with your admittedly imperfect point of view.

[Danhalen]

I wouldn't say either side of the debate is revisionist. I'd say they're from different perspectives. Furthermore, I don't think any of what's been stated by either side is controversial. Peer reviewed articles can be found defending either point of view.

[Celsus]

Perhaps it has been my use of the term 'necessary' that is causing the fuss here. I concede that 'necessary' (in the logical sense) is too strong of a word. What I meant is simply that the events prior to the Enlightenment shaped the Enlightenment. I know there are several factors which led to the Enlightenment. I think it is dishonest to suggest that the Reformation had no role in the way the Enlightenment took shape. Regardless of the religious nature of the Reformation it was the first time that common people were shown that the Church was not the complete authority on everything. Prior to the Reformation, the only place anyone could turn to for an education in the academics was the Church.
Nobody, I'd think, will say it played no role at all (proving a negative is even more diabolical than proving causation). But the connection is not as clear as you might think. Education outside the Church was certainly possible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_universities_in_continuous_operatio n) prior to the Reformation... how old do you think the University of Bologna is? Or Sorbonne? Or Oxford and Cambridge?
It seems to me that the major reason for rejecting the Reformation as a cause of the Enlightenment is the religious nature of the Reformation. I am not referring to the religious nature of the Reformation as a cause of the Enlightenment. I am referring to one more demonstration of the impotence of the Church that the Reformation revealed. Prior to the Reformation, there was no doubt as to the divine rights of kings.
You've never heard of Magna Carta?
Prior to the reformation, only the clergy were allowed to read and interpret scripture.
Do you consider Wycliffe part of the reformation? If so how long is your "Reformation" you speak of?
Prior to the reformation, there was only one intermediary between governments: the Church. Prior to the Reformation, you were either Catholic or a heretic and worthy of death.
You forgot the entire Eastern Church. Or Syriac, Coptic, Thomasian, etc. denominations. And Jews. What you have is basically a line where as far as the Catholic Church could reach, one had to nominally profess oneself as Christian, but that suggests a power demarcation rather than anything else. And given the waxing and waning fortunes of the Holy Roman Empire and Papal authority, principalities were the perfect refuge employed by heretics, Reformers, cynics, critical philosophers, rebels, etc. (NB: The only difference between a heretic and a Reformer was Reformers started a movement powerful enough to define themselves as something other than heretics. What I'm trying to imply is that there is a long history of anti-establishment figures, but it was only victors, e.g. Protestants, Rationalists/Empiricists who got to write histories that remembered their past and played up their influence)
This all changed after the Reformation. Yes, there were events that led to this point. Yes, those events could have led to the Enlightenment without the Reformation (hence 'necessity' is too strong of a term). But I believe the secular consequences of the religious movements that constitute the Reformation led directly to the Enlightenment. Again, it probably would have happened anyway, but it happened the way it did.
Where do you place Spinoza?

[DMB]

I really started this thread to ask the question rather than claim that I have a good argument. What I had in mind chimes with some of Danhalen's posts in that I was wondering about the creation of a political and intellectual climate.

I am sure that one could argue very successfully that it was printing that led to almost everything, in gradually democratising the sources of information and literacy and facilitating arguments that involved more and more people.

I think BTW that one can write off Henry VIII as a Protestant. Essentially what he did was to replace the authority of the pope by the authority of the king. The dissolution of the monasteries started as both an attempt to stem monastic corruption and a property grab. He did authorise an English translation of the bible but later regretted it and he became increasingly anti-Protestant as his reign progressed.

If you look at what happened in the seventeenth century, there were periods and places where people felt able to take up their own idiosyncratic ideas on religion. Of course, these were usually suppressed by the powers that be, but the sparks were there. If you look at just one political event, the English Revolution (often treated as two, the Civil Wars and the Glorious Revolution of1688), this had quite important consequences. The Gllorious Revolution would not have happened at all, had not the Catholic/Protestant split already existed. And it is important because it established a limited form of monarchy. We know that Voltaire was influenced by what he saw in England during his exile (see Lettres Philosophiques).

[Celsus]

Ok, so here's a question: Why did Wycliffe's reforms not lead to substantial changes, whereas Luther/Henry VIII/Calvin (all emerge at the same time, which suggests something else about what structures permitted them to emerge), despite being significantly different, lead to a broad 'Protestant' movement?

[Danhalen]

Nobody, I'd think, will say it played no role at all (proving a negative is even more diabolical than proving causation). But the connection is not as clear as you might think. Education outside the Church was certainly possible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_universities_in_continuous_operatio n) prior to the Reformation... how old do you think the University of Bologna is? Or Sorbonne? Or Oxford and Cambridge?The University of Bologna is most "...historically notable for its teaching of canon... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Bologna)." This hardly suggests a purely secular academy.

Sorbonne "...came to be the centre of theological studies and 'Sorbonne' was frequently used as a synonym for the Paris Faculty of Theology... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorbonne)." Furthermore, at the height of the French Enlightenment "[t]he Collège de Sorbonne was suppressed during the French revolution... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorbonne)." This hardly suggests a purely secular academy.

As for Oxford: "[w]ith the Reformation and the breaking of ties with the Roman Catholic Church, the method of teaching at the university was transformed from the medieval Scholastic method to Renaissance education... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Oxford)." It seems that the Reformation had a profound impact on how education was practiced. Perhaps this inspired some brilliant Enlightenment thinkers to come up with their ideas.

Then, of course, there is Cambridge. Cambridge received "...a bull in 1233 from Pope Gregory IX that gave graduates from Cambridge the right to teach everywhere in Christendom. After Cambridge was described as a studium generale in a letter by Pope Nicholas IV in 1290, and confirmed as such in a bull by Pope John XXII in 1318... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Cambridge)." I find it odd that the Catholic Church would bestow a secular institution with its blessings.
It seems to me that the major reason for rejecting the Reformation as a cause of the Enlightenment is the religious nature of the Reformation. I am not referring to the religious nature of the Reformation as a cause of the Enlightenment. I am referring to one more demonstration of the impotence of the Church that the Reformation revealed. Prior to the Reformation, there was no doubt as to the divine rights of kings.
You've never heard of Magna Carta?Where, in the Magna Carta, is it stated that kings are not granted the legitimacy and authority to rule from God?
Prior to the reformation, only the clergy were allowed to read and interpret scripture.
Do you consider Wycliffe part of the reformation? If so how long is your "Reformation" you speak of?Wycliffe helped to seed the Reformation. He was not allowed to do what he did, and so the point remains.
Prior to the reformation, there was only one intermediary between governments: the Church. Prior to the Reformation, you were either Catholic or a heretic and worthy of death.
You forgot the entire Eastern Church. Or Syriac, Coptic, Thomasian, etc. denominations. And Jews. What you have is basically a line where as far as the Catholic Church could reach, one had to nominally profess oneself as Christian, but that suggests a power demarcation rather than anything else. And given the waxing and waning fortunes of the Holy Roman Empire and Papal authority, principalities were the perfect refuge employed by heretics, Reformers, cynics, critical philosophers, rebels, etc. (NB: The only difference between a heretic and a Reformer was Reformers started a movement powerful enough to define themselves as something other than heretics. What I'm trying to imply is that there is a long history of anti-establishment figures, but it was only victors, e.g. Protestants, Rationalists/Empiricists who got to write histories that remembered their past and played up their influence)I have forgotten nothing, and I agree with your assessment. Your point does nothing to dissuade the notion that the Reformation was a more organized attack on the central authority of the Church which allowed the point of view that people outside of the Church were free to interpret scripture for themselves. Yes, other people and movements had done the same before with less success. Therefore it was impossible for them to write the histories we read of today. I would never argue that those other people played no part in laying the groundwork for the Enlightenment. I am simply arguing that the Reformation played an equal part.
This all changed after the Reformation. Yes, there were events that led to this point. Yes, those events could have led to the Enlightenment without the Reformation (hence 'necessity' is too strong of a term). But I believe the secular consequences of the religious movements that constitute the Reformation led directly to the Enlightenment. Again, it probably would have happened anyway, but it happened the way it did.
Where do you place Spinoza?Spinoza is on the overlap of the Reformation and Enlightenment periods. If push came to shove, and I had to place him, I'd put him in the early Enlightenment camp.

[Danhalen]

Ok, so here's a question: Why did Wycliffe's reforms not lead to substantial changes, whereas Luther/Henry VIII/Calvin (all emerge at the same time, which suggests something else about what structures permitted them to emerge), despite being significantly different, lead to a broad 'Protestant' movement?I would argue that Wycliffe's teachings and writings had a profound effect on many people which helped to create the conditions necessary for the formal Reformation to begin. His reforms, in my opinion, did lead to substantial changes (albeit indirectly).

[Celsus]

The University of Bologna is most "...historically notable for its teaching of canon... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Bologna)." This hardly suggests a purely secular academy.

Sorbonne "...came to be the centre of theological studies and 'Sorbonne' was frequently used as a synonym for the Paris Faculty of Theology... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorbonne)." Furthermore, at the height of the French Enlightenment "[t]he Collège de Sorbonne was suppressed during the French revolution... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorbonne)." This hardly suggests a purely secular academy.

As for Oxford: "[w]ith the Reformation and the breaking of ties with the Roman Catholic Church, the method of teaching at the university was transformed from the medieval Scholastic method to Renaissance education... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Oxford)." It seems that the Reformation had a profound impact on how education was practiced. Perhaps this inspired some brilliant Enlightenment thinkers to come up with their ideas.

Then, of course, there is Cambridge. Cambridge received "...a bull in 1233 from Pope Gregory IX that gave graduates from Cambridge the right to teach everywhere in Christendom. After Cambridge was described as a studium generale in a letter by Pope Nicholas IV in 1290, and confirmed as such in a bull by Pope John XXII in 1318... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Cambridge)." I find it odd that the Catholic Church would bestow a secular institution with its blessings.
You are committing an anachronism. There was no such thing as a "secular" institution in those days, and of course one of the chief employments for early students would have been the Church (others became writers, lawyers or doctors perhaps), hence an emphasis on theology (just like today's universities emphasise engineering or finance or business management). But they were private, that is, run outside of the Church authority. Remember, your claim is that "Prior to the Reformation, the only place anyone could turn to for an education in the academics was the Church." This is absolutely not the case. Wycliffe taught at Oxford (where he undoubtedly picked up the influence of predecessors like Roger Bacon and William of Ockham) even after being threatened with excommunication. Calvin trained at Sorbonne, Bourges and Orleans. Erasmus at Sorbonne. Luther at University of Erfurt (haha this is great per wikipedia: "which he later described as a beerhouse and whorehouse"). Zwingli at Basel, one of the chief centres of humanism which led to the revival of the study of Classics.
Prior to the Reformation, there was no doubt as to the divine rights of kings.
You've never heard of Magna Carta?Where, in the Magna Carta, is it stated that kings are not granted the legitimacy and authority to rule from God?
Re-read your claim above carefully. The Magna Carta, fundamentally a social contract between the king and other nobility, demonstrated the limits of power and social origins of that power. It is not in its rhetoric, but its very existence, that contests divine right, replaced by rights subject to limitations and responsibilities. Machiavelli, notably, based his arguments on Classics [that had begun to be rediscovered and expounded at the very universities we're talking about (outside the Church)] and observed that if power can be grabbed and then managed, that itself is a critique of the 'divine' nature it supposedly holds.
I have forgotten nothing, and I agree with your assessment. Your point does nothing to dissuade the notion that the Reformation was a more organized attack on the central authority of the Church which allowed the point of view that people outside of the Church were free to interpret scripture for themselves. Yes, other people and movements had done the same before with less success. Therefore it was impossible for them to write the histories we read of today. I would never argue that those other people played no part in laying the groundwork for the Enlightenment. I am simply arguing that the Reformation played an equal part.
I'd suggest the Reformation as a subset of the conditions that were also part of the Renaissance (notably, the Italian Renaissance overlaps Wycliffe - but political conditions in England were not the same as those in Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Wars), where contestations between Italian states developed competing systems of patronage). This is what I was trying to hint at when pointing out the simultaneous arrival of Calvin, Luther, Henry VIII and other diverse figures. As someone already pointed out, the revival of the study of Classics, many rescued from the Ottomans/Arabs, in an arena of burgeoning universities, that is (as I already mentioned) the expansion of knowledge in areas the Church had no traditional hold of, seem to me much more important vectors. To give special dispensation to the Reformation strikes me as strange, because in ecclesiastical matters, the Church retained a much tighter grip on authority, but in philosophical/early scientific matters, overexertion of its authority and humiliating defeats spurred critical thinking.
Spinoza is on the overlap of the Reformation and Enlightenment periods. If push came to shove, and I had to place him, I'd put him in the early Enlightenment camp.
What I was actually trying to ask was how does he fit into your schema that "secular consequences of the religious movements that constitute the Reformation led directly to the Enlightenment"? As a heretic Jew, he had no influence from Reformers (it was not his fight, he was actually welcomed into Christendom) but is a key thinker leading up the Enlightenment.
I would argue that Wycliffe's teachings and writings had a profound effect on many people which helped to create the conditions necessary for the formal Reformation to begin. His reforms, in my opinion, did lead to substantial changes (albeit indirectly).
Odd then, that no one would pick him up till 200 years later?

[Danhalen]

You are committing an anachronism. There was no such thing as a "secular" institution in those days, and of course one of the chief employments for early students would have been the Church (others became writers, lawyers or doctors perhaps), hence an emphasis on theology (just like today's universities emphasise engineering or finance or business management). But they were private, that is, run outside of the Church authority. Remember, your claim is that "Prior to the Reformation, the only place anyone could turn to for an education in the academics was the Church." This is absolutely not the case.Then let me modify my claim. Prior to the Reformation, it would have been nearly impossible to create a university without the approval of the Church. Furthermore, any university which did not receive an endorsement from the Church would not have been useful to study at because the Church's endorsement was akin to accreditation. Lastly, I will claim that operating a university in opposition to the authority of the Church would have been nigh impossible prior to the Reformation.

Wycliffe taught at Oxford (where he undoubtedly picked up the influence of predecessors like Roger Bacon and William of Ockham) even after being threatened with excommunication. Calvin trained at Sorbonne, Bourges and Orleans. Erasmus at Sorbonne. Luther at University of Erfurt (haha this is great per wikipedia: "which he later described as a beerhouse and whorehouse"). Zwingli at Basel, one of the chief centres of humanism which led to the revival of the study of Classics.The same universities also produced masses of staunch advocates of Church doctrine.

Prior to the Reformation, there was no doubt as to the divine rights of kings.
You've never heard of Magna Carta?Where, in the Magna Carta, is it stated that kings are not granted the legitimacy and authority to rule from God?
Re-read your claim above carefully. The Magna Carta, fundamentally a social contract between the king and other nobility, demonstrated the limits of power and social origins of that power. It is not in its rhetoric, but its very existence, that contests divine right, replaced by rights subject to limitations and responsibilities. Machiavelli, notably, based his arguments on Classics [that had begun to be rediscovered and expounded at the very universities we're talking about (outside the Church)] and observed that if power can be grabbed and then managed, that itself is a critique of the 'divine' nature it supposedly holds.Machiavelli's observations, concerning the Magna Carta, escaped the view of most people. I'm sure the Magna Carta itself was an unknown document to most people. I am not dismissing the importance of the document. I am simply pointing out that the Reformation brought the question of the legitimacy of divine right to a much larger audience than either the Magna Carta or Machiavelli. Further, that there are limits on the power of the king through a social contract does not entail that the kings authority is not legitimized by God. I do believe that the Magna Carta is one more factor in history that led to both the Reformation and the Enlightenment.

I have forgotten nothing, and I agree with your assessment. Your point does nothing to dissuade the notion that the Reformation was a more organized attack on the central authority of the Church which allowed the point of view that people outside of the Church were free to interpret scripture for themselves. Yes, other people and movements had done the same before with less success. Therefore it was impossible for them to write the histories we read of today. I would never argue that those other people played no part in laying the groundwork for the Enlightenment. I am simply arguing that the Reformation played an equal part.
I'd suggest the Reformation as a subset of the conditions that were also part of the Renaissance (notably, the Italian Renaissance overlaps Wycliffe - but political conditions in England were not the same as those in Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Wars), where contestations between Italian states developed competing systems of patronage). This is what I was trying to hint at when pointing out the simultaneous arrival of Calvin, Luther, Henry VIII and other diverse figures. As someone already pointed out, the revival of the study of Classics, many rescued from the Ottomans/Arabs, in an arena of burgeoning universities, that is (as I already mentioned) the expansion of knowledge in areas the Church had no traditional hold of, seem to me much more important vectors. To give special dispensation to the Reformation strikes me as strange, because in ecclesiastical matters, the Church retained a much tighter grip on authority, but in philosophical/early scientific matters, overexertion of its authority and humiliating defeats spurred critical thinking.I'm not giving special dispensation to the Reformation. I simply believe that all of the conditions leading up to the Enlightenment were critical to the way the Enlightenment was expressed. The Reformation was one of the myriad of conditions. All of the factors, taken together, clear the greatest ground for the Enlightenment to unfold as it did. Take away any of the conditions and things would have most likely turned out differently.

Spinoza is on the overlap of the Reformation and Enlightenment periods. If push came to shove, and I had to place him, I'd put him in the early Enlightenment camp.
What I was actually trying to ask was how does he fit into your schema that "secular consequences of the religious movements that constitute the Reformation led directly to the Enlightenment"? As a heretic Jew, he had no influence from Reformers (it was not his fight, he was actually welcomed into Christendom) but is a key thinker leading up the Enlightenment.I'm highly incredulous of any claim that Spinoza would not have been influenced by the Reformation simply because he was a Jew. I'm not a woman, but I was profoundly affected by the feminist movements of the mid seventies through the late eighties. Despite having no quarter in the Reformation or Counter-reformation, Spinoza, traveling amongst the Christian intelligentsia of his time, must have been influenced by the power struggle he was witnessing. I can't back that up. It's just not possible for me to imagine that Spinoza was not a product of his time.

I would argue that Wycliffe's teachings and writings had a profound effect on many people which helped to create the conditions necessary for the formal Reformation to begin. His reforms, in my opinion, did lead to substantial changes (albeit indirectly).Odd then, that no one would pick him up till 200 years later?It's not odd at all. It takes time for ideas to gain momentum. The ideas of the Reformation did not come from a vacuum. They floated around academic and theological discussions until they landed in the right minds. It's not as if Luther simply woke up one day and had a spontaneous moral conversion. Just like Locke didn't come up with his argument against the divine right of kings to rule from a vacuum (I'm sure he read Machiavelli).

[FUGUE-DE-BACH]

Isn't the European Renaissance (14th-16th centuries) a more likely source for ideas that influenced the Enlightenment than the Reformation?The enlightenment is indeed the continuation of the Renaissance, both being the general trend in European culture towards philosophical neopaganism. The reformation initially was anti renaissance, and by itself would have prevented the enlightenment, but it aided the movement by breaking the hold of a single world view.

[BWE]

I think the enlightenment required the sextant, algebra and the telescope and that's about it. :)

[Rie]

Henry Tudor created his 'enlightened' new religion for self serving purposes.
The Catholic religion continued to hold sway amongst illiterate and poverty stricken people.
Luther et alii tried to break the hold of the Catholic Church but never has there been till now any real dent in the facade of piety that was the Church and became the Vatican.
Reform? I don't believe so, but just an attempt at more honesty and reality in forms of faith in God etc.

[No Robots]

The recovery from medievalism is the recovery of the twin strands of its origin: authentic Homeric culture and authentic Mosaic culture. This is the project of, respectively, the Renaissance and the Reformation. This movement achieves its apotheosis with the work of Spinoza, who thereby serves as the founder of modern European culture. The Enlightenment is the response to Spinoza.

[Clivedurdle]

Authentic mosaic culture? A figure of fiction?

But I think the Renaissance caused the reformation and the Enlightenment.

It was a return to the Socratic emphasis on reality and beauty, in contrast to platonic idealism - is a golden shield beautiful?