Does Protestantism lead to atheism?

[BornInMarch]

As a non-Catholic I have found your comments very interesting. You have raised some very interesting and legitimate concerns within the realm of Protestantism, some of which I have never been familiar with. And I want to state that I appreciate your tone, you have a different approach than so many who want to just slap a Protestant face.

I’ll admit I used to be in the face-slapping group a few years ago, but as I got older I did research and came to understand some of the nuances in The Reformation.

Ultimately I think The Protestant Reformation was good for The Catholic Church and for Christianity as a whole.
It helped The Catholic Church by acting as a wake-up call, prompting The Counter-Reformation and forcing the Church to examine major problems it was previously ignoring. Even the anti-catholic persecutions (such as the Irish Genocide and the wrongful execution of St. Moore and St. Fisher) still provided The Church with fresh martyrs to look up to.
It helped Christianity as a whole because, due to coinciding with The Age of Discovery, The Protestant Reformation caused a missionary-race and resulted in Protestant and Catholic missionaries racing to be the first ones to preach to a new frontier where they otherwise might have been slower to do so.

Yes, the Catholic system should be able to weed out the undesirable and corrupt candidates for the priesthood but is that the reality of the situation wIthin the Church?

It certainly tries to and is getting better at it constantly. While a perfect system is impossible for humans to create, an imperfect system is better than none in most cases. Even Police Departments aren’t always able to root out corruption, but few would actually wish for a world without cops.

I believe you had good intentions in your last paragraph however it is this statement that I actually have issues with. I feel a huge problem within Christianity whether in Protestant or Catholic dimension is the assumption that the Church will make us safe. I am afraid that is a subtle untruth that many accept as truth.

You have a point; bad people will always find some cracks to slip through. Sometimes bad people are really good at hiding in plane sight, and sometimes someone who started out good ends up losing their way and doing things they shouldn’t (such as stealing funds for personal gain).

 

[Wannano]

I’ll admit I used to be in the face-slapping group a few years ago, but as I got older I did research and came to understand some of the nuances in The Reformation.

Ultimately I think The Protestant Reformation was good for The Catholic Church and for Christianity as a whole.
It helped The Catholic Church by acting as a wake-up call, prompting The Counter-Reformation and forcing the Church to examine major problems it was previously ignoring. Even the anti-catholic persecutions (such as the Irish Genocide and the wrongful execution of St. Moore and St. Fisher) still provided The Church with fresh martyrs to look up to.
It helped Christianity as a whole because, due to coinciding with The Age of Discovery, The Protestant Reformation caused a missionary-race and resulted in Protestant and Catholic missionaries racing to be the first ones to preach to a new frontier where they otherwise might have been slower to do so.

It certainly tries to and is getting better at it constantly. While a perfect system is impossible for humans to create, an imperfect system is better than none in most cases. Even Police Departments aren’t always able to root out corruption, but few would actually wish for a world without cops.

You have a point; bad people will always find some cracks to slip through. Sometimes bad people are really good at hiding in plane sight, and sometimes someone who started out good ends up losing their way and doing things they shouldn’t (such as stealing funds for personal gain).

Thank you for your kind response. I wasn’t really clear about my thoughts re your last paragraph. I was thinking more of the spiritually “safe” aspect. In both the Catholic and Protestant circles I believe there are many people who feel they are spiritually safe because they belong to a certain church or because they attend church regularly or because they keep all the rules of their Church. It is one thing to know all about Jesus and quite another to know Him.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

If I could chime in on consubstantiation versus transubstantion with regards to which one might be more likely to lead one to atheism, this atheist does think transubstantiation is a harder concept to accept than consubstantiation.

Consubstantion / Sacramental union has really just two hurdles to overcome: That there is a godly essence than can permeate an object and that a ceremony can imbue such an essence.

Transubstantion has a few more hurdles beyond that. Whenever I discuss this matter with Catholics I always ask two questions: 1) How can we know if the substance of an object changes apart from its accidents? 2) Beside the blessing of the Eucharist what other time can an object’s substance not match its accidents? Without going into a debate on that, since we’re talking about beliefs that might lead one away from Christianity, transubstantiation feels more jerry-rigged / cobbled-together than does consubstantiation.

In fairness, here is a piece of Catholic thought that as an atheist I feel is less likely to lead people towards atheism as opposed to some non-Catholic Christian thought: Invincible ignorance. One problem I find that doubters have for Christianity is the idea that if it is the capital-T Truth than why did it originate in a localized area while those outside that area spent numerous decades never knowing this alleged truth. On top of that Christianity as a whole teaches that only through Jesus is one saved. Some strands of non-Catholic Christianity take this quite literally (e.g. the non-Catholic denomination I am most familiar with, Calvary Chapel, teaches that) which seems awfully cruel to those many, many, many people who would be sent to Hell for not knowing what they could not have known. With the concept of invincible ignorance there is at least a sense of fairness that is less likely to sour someone to Christianity.

 

[Peter_J]

Consubstantiation doesn’t necessarily hold to something that’s any “easier” to believe than Transubstantiation.

If I might “butt in”: I don’t agree with you, but I also doubt we would come to agree about this. Whether one thing is easier to believe than another is very subjective.

Also, that doesn’t necessarily tell you which one is true. For example, there are Protestant views – e.g. Calvin’s predestination – which I consider both hard to believe and untrue.

 

[BornInMarch]

Thank you for your kind response. I wasn’t really clear about my thoughts re your last paragraph. I was thinking more of the spiritually “safe” aspect. In both the Catholic and Protestant circles I believe there are many people who feel they are spiritually safe because they belong to a certain church or because they attend church regularly or because they keep all the rules of their Church. It is one thing to know all about Jesus and quite another to know Him.

Also true.

Going to Church regularly and keeping the rules certainly help, but only if you actually believe in the religion behind it.

I guess “safer” is a better word.

Christianity is a religion of community; even Monks and others who retreat from the world still live in a community of sorts. Even Christian Hermits still regularly get visited by people seeking their wisdom. Churches provide community for people to share their faith and discuss it and learn by example.

That’s much harder to do just by reading a bible in your home and sleeping in on Sundays.

 

[Wannano]

Also true.

Going to Church regularly and keeping the rules certainly help, but only if you actually believe in the religion behind it.

I guess “safer” is a better word.

Christianity is a religion of community; even Monks and others who retreat from the world still live in a community of sorts. Even Christian Hermits still regularly get visited by people seeking their wisdom. Churches provide community for people to share their faith and discuss it and learn by example.

That’s much harder to do just by reading a bible in your home and sleeping in on Sundays.

I totally agree with you that Christianity is a religion of community. It seems like God brought mankind into existence for the purpose of having relationship with Him. He has given each of us the choice to respond to Him either positively or negatively. He delights in the positive response of His children when they want to walk in obedience and desire to please Him in all our activities and decisions. To me church is meant to be a voluntary communal response to the positive relationship and by sharing, caring and walking together through all that life and choices can throw at us we become stronger in our own convictions. We can follow church rules but if our own heart isnt in it and we are following someone else’s directives without having a person al relationship with God it becomes "religion "…?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I totally agree with you that Christianity is a religion of community. It seems like God brought mankind into existence for the purpose of having relationship with Him. He has given each of us the choice to respond to Him either positively or negatively. He delights in the positive response of His children when they want to walk in obedience and desire to please Him in all our activities and decisions. To me church is meant to be a voluntary communal response to the positive relationship and by sharing, caring and walking together through all that life and choices can throw at us we become stronger in our own convictions. We can follow church rules but if our own heart isnt in it and we are following someone else’s directives without having a person al relationship with God it becomes "religion "…?

Hi again.

But doesn’t Paul say we are not to forsake the assembly? Hebrews 10:25 Seems like many worship at ST. Mattress nowadays and Churches are closing their doors because people just dont attend anymore.

And Jesus was not anti-establishment. He told people to listen to the religious leaders of that day but not to follow their poor example. Matthew 23:3

And He established His own Church with authority MATT 18:17/John 20:21-23

Matthew 28:20New International Version (NIV)

20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

I agree we should have joy in our hearts when serving the Lord. But we also shouldn’t try and separate the Lord from His Church, when He wouldn’t do such a thing Acts 9:4

 

[Wannano]

Hi again.

But doesn’t Paul say we are not to forsake the assembly? Hebrews 10:25 Seems like many worship at ST. Mattress nowadays and Churches are closing their doors because people just dont attend anymore.

And Jesus was not anti-establishment. He told people to listen to the religious leaders of that day but not to follow their poor example. Matthew 23:3

And He established His own Church with authority MATT 18:17/John 20:21-23

I agree we should have joy in our hearts when serving the Lord. But we also shouldn’t try and separate the Lord from His Church, when He wouldn’t do such a thing Acts 9:4

I hope no one thinks I am trying to separate the Lord from His church.

 

[mackbrislawn]

I hope no one thinks I am trying to separate the Lord from His church.

That’s right. It cannot be done, because it is only through the Church that we know about the Lord.

 

[mackbrislawn]

If I could chime in on consubstantiation versus transubstantion with regards to which one might be more likely to lead one to atheism, this atheist does think transubstantiation is a harder concept to accept than consubstantiation.

Consubstantion / Sacramental union has really just two hurdles to overcome: That there is a godly essence than can permeate an object and that a ceremony can imbue such an essence.

Transubstantion has a few more hurdles beyond that. Whenever I discuss this matter with Catholics I always ask two questions: 1) How can we know if the substance of an object changes apart from its accidents? 2) Beside the blessing of the Eucharist what other time can an object’s substance not match its accidents? Without going into a debate on that, since we’re talking about beliefs that might lead one away from Christianity, transubstantiation feels more jerry-rigged / cobbled-together than does consubstantiation.

In fairness, here is a piece of Catholic thought that as an atheist I feel is less likely to lead people towards atheism as opposed to some non-Catholic Christian thought: Invincible ignorance. One problem I find that doubters have for Christianity is the idea that if it is the capital-T Truth than why did it originate in a localized area while those outside that area spent numerous decades never knowing this alleged truth. On top of that Christianity as a whole teaches that only through Jesus is one saved. Some strands of non-Catholic Christianity take this quite literally (e.g. the non-Catholic denomination I am most familiar with, Calvary Chapel, teaches that) which seems awfully cruel to those many, many, many people who would be sent to Hell for not knowing what they could not have known. With the concept of invincible ignorance there is at least a sense of fairness that is less likely to sour someone to Christianity.

Excellent. I think you have made the point very well! I too think transubstantiation has more hurdles, and is more difficult to accept from a logical, natural-man point of view. Consubstantiation, or whatever it should be called, even though it still holds to Christ’s presence, is nevertheless a step away. A small step, but a beginning. It sets the precedence of doubting, and then changing, whatever teaching one may have been previously taught. We see that happening from the Reformation onwards.

The next step was for Calvin to consider the bread and wine completely symbolic, with no real presence of Christ, except just spiritual in a person’s head. Being symbolic fits in with his theology of predestination. Catholics, and I presume Lutherans and Episcopalians, feel that the Eucharist helps strengthen one spiritually, to help keep them in a state of grace. But if one is predestined anyway, there is no such thing as being kept in a state of grace. So the Eucharist has to be just symbolic, not really doing anything.

The topic is does Protestantism lead to atheism. I don’t know, although there is a habit beginning with the Reformation of reductionism, until with the modern liberals, even scripture, the mainstay of Protestants, is doubted and reduced to non-inspired. Is the consequence atheism?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

The topic is does Protestantism lead to atheism. I don’t know, although there is a habit beginning with the Reformation of reductionism, until with the modern liberals, even scripture, the mainstay of Protestants, is doubted and reduced to non-inspired. Is the consequence atheism?

I had posted the following in post 107 of this thread, but I probably should have reposted it (or something similar) in my more recent post as well:

Protestantism (and other forms of non-Catholic Christianity) and Catholicism and more similar than dissimilar. I personally don’t think one or the other is more or less likely to lead one toward atheism, at least by any significant amount.

While I noted that transubstantiation may cause more problems for belief than consubstantiation, and that Christianity without the understanding of invincible ignorance would also cause problems, I stand by my original statement that these differences themselves won’t significantly lead one toward atheism.

But if we look at it from a different persepective the points where Catholicism, Protestantism, and non-Catholic non-Protestant thought differ can in their own way give one impetus toward atheism. It’s in the way that these different subsections of Christianity explain these differences and how similar these explanations can be yet deriving at different results. The best way I can explain this is to listen to call-in shows with some aimed at Catholics and some aimed at non-Catholics. When compared and contrasted this way it can and does give at least some people the impression that a third possibility is there. It’s why I always say the increase in atheism today owes in large part to immediate media, especially the internet. By default today as opposed to times past religious positions are met with opposing positions which are readily available. A person with questions can go to sites like CAF for Catholic questions, and other sites for non-Catholic Christian questions, information on Islam, Judaism, atheism, and so many others.

So to get back to the topic at hand, I personally don’t think that belonging to a particular
subsection of Christianity is more likely to push one towards atheism than any other, but the fact that the information about these various Christian divisions are out there can at least some of the time give one pause and at least consider atheism.