Does Lutheranism lead to Atheism?

[LeBrok]

Has the communist legacy more influence than the religious legacy?
Lutheranism was prominent in both East Germany and Estonia. According to this study, Estonia is the least religious country in Europehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14635021.
In return, Poland, also a former Soviet satellite state, is one of the most religious country in Europe. Here the Catholic legacy is higher than the communist one.

Poland was most "free" all communist block counties. Churches were not closed, there was a freedom of religion (after Stalin death), and catholic church was a nucleus of anti-communist and pro-independent movement. It explains at least part of the picture.

[spongetaro]

What English revolution? The Glorious Revolution? That didn't happen until James II upset the Anglican Tories. It was an allied overthrow, not a Puritan victory.

Also, I think calling the American Revolution "led by Puritans" is a bit of an oversimplification. It was more of a Southern/Northern allied victory, and only New Englanders had a strong Puritan background. The South did start to get a Puritan influence over the course of the war and beyond it, though, as their traditional Anglicanism became unpopular, and they began to be converted to the Puritan-influenced Baptist religion. But even then, it's interesting that the most Puritan area of the country (New England) has become one of the less religious over time.

So I almost see the opposite pattern. Religious conservativism (in this case, Anglicans and traditional-Anglicans-becoming-Baptists) tends to lead to greater religious practice in the future than religious reformism and radicalism (in this case, Puritans, "true" Baptists, Quakers, etc.). It's not really inherent in the religion itself--different Lutherans have different patterns, different Baptists have different patterns, etc.--I think it's more of a product of how different groups use the same religion. It's just that closely-related groups with similar ideas tend to share the same religion (largely because culture influences religion so much and similar cultures tend to unite around things like religion), so you get a lot of correlation.

I've also read about how religious reformism and radicalism bred Mormonism. I think "conversion" to atheism is a comparable process in terms of who is most susceptible. The most likely convert is one from a culture that encourages questioning, glorifies religious conversion, and has a diversity of sects within reach.

Thanks. Could it be that the most "Puritans" areas where the most progressives in terms of ideas, hence the loss of religious influence. Religion seems to be the least strong in the most Powerful political and economical states (West Coast, New England).

As for the English revolution, I was obviously talking about the first one led by Cromwell.

[sparkey]

As for the English revolution, I was obviously talking about the first one led by Cromwell.

OK, but that one didn't last, it was overturned by the Restoration. Although, now that you bring it up, that's an interesting thought experiment. If the Commonwealth had lasted and the Church of England had become permanently officially Calvinist, would modern England be more or less religious? If my argument is right, it would probably be less religious (although that may be hampered by the general conservatism inherent in English culture).

[hope]

[QUOTE=spongetaro;396417]Most of the migrants that came to the USA after the Independance war only went for Wealth and I 'm not sure that they carried the "god" gene

Yes, but dont forget that many more emigrated before the War of Independence. Between 1717 and approx 1770 around 250,000 went from Ulster alone, mostly Presbyterians and I`m pretty sure they carried as you like to call it the "God " gene.

[spongetaro]

Yes, but dont forget that many more emigrated before the War of Independence. Between 1717 and approx 1770 around 250,000 went from Ulster alone, mostly Presbyterians and I`m pretty sure they carried as you like to call it the "God " gene.

The descendants of those migrants must be found in the East coast which is not the most religious part of the USA.

[sparkey]

The descendants of those migrants must be found in the East coast which is not the most religious part of the USA.

Descendants of Scots-Irish Presbyterians are actually most highly concentrated in Appalachia, which is quite religious. Although, they also notably spread to the Pacific Northwest significantly, which is is one of the least religious areas of the US. See Scots-Irish maps, but keep in mind that many of their descendants also simply identify as "American."

[hope]

Descendants of Scots-Irish Presbyterians are actually most highly concentrated in Appalachia, which is quite religious. Although, they also notably spread to the Pacific Northwest significantly, which is is one of the least religious areas of the US. See Scots-Irish maps, but keep in mind that many of their descendants also simply identify as "American."

I read, I think it was "Irish Protestants and the Bible Belt" by Barry Vane (?) that many of them now fill the ranks of Baptists and Methodists in the Southern states. Though whether this is true or not I cannot say.

[LeBrok]

Most of the migrants that came to the USA after the Independance war only went for Wealth and I 'm not sure that they carried the "god" gene. In my mind, the main reason why USA remain a religious country is that religion is deep rooted in the American values ("In God we trust"...).

I would say most of emigrants to America came for wealth even before Independence, and still coming. It doesn't mean that freedom of religion didn't and still plays a role in making decision where to emigrate. Even more in cases of european Jews before WW2, or even some Muslim and christian minorities around the world these days. We are not talking about black and white here, and the differences are only statistical, in shades of grey. If it comes to religion, there is a bigger difference between many european countries than between USA and England, even though America is considered very religious, it still fades in comparison with Poland or Iran.

religion is deep rooted in the American values

I think you meant it vice versa?
If we go far back, all european countries were strongly rooted in Christianity. The difference is that some europeans managed to reform Christianity to fit there character and their way of life, and some, mostly south and east, is so conservative that can't change much and suffers split personality. For example in Poland catholic dogma is strongest, but use of birth control and abortion is as popular as anywhere else. Women can do any job but being a priest. Yet, voices to reform the church are almost nonexistent.
Maybe they are not pragmatic enough?

[Gray Fox]

I read, I think it was "Irish Protestants and the Bible Belt" by Barry Vane, that many of them now fill the ranks of Baptists and Methodists in the Southern states. Though whether this is true or not I cannot say.

Yes, the vast majority of "Irish Presbyterians" are now of those affiliations. The main reason for this is these denominations did not require a formaly educated minister, which was difficult to obtain in the Appalachian region of the U.S. due to the relative isolation of the area.

My own family were Ulster Presbyterians to begin with, but as time went on they gradually took up the Baptist and Methodist religions. I have to agree and disagree with the view that this area is highly religious. I really don't believe this area is any more religious than your average US town (I myself would identify as an Agnostic bordering on line with Atheism). I think the image of the gun-totting, bible thumpin hillbilly is an exagerrated stereotype that is generally accepted as fact and perpetuated by the media for whatever number of reasons. As with any area you have your normal, extreme and minority groups each represented according to how the rest of the country views them. Unfortunately, Appalachia has probably one of the worst reputations I've seen for an area.

My own home town of Somerset, Kentucky is about to vote to decide whether the city should go wet. This has been turned down numerous times, but the source of this thinking is not as much about the religious scene going against it as it as about the bootleggers and out of town liquour stores lobbying to keep the town dry for financial purposes. Essentially the Churches voting against and putting our propaganda are receiving support and money from the bootleggers/out of towners. If you ask the average person on the street the thinking is almost unanimously in favor of legalising the sale and distribution of alcohol. Its mostly the older/elitist groups who are against it and again this is more to do with money than idealogy.

We're just as corrupt and greedy as the rest of the world! Its just our teeth and book-learnin ain't quite up to par with the rest of the country!

[hope]

Yes, the vast majority of "Irish Presbyterians" are now of those affiliations. The main reason for this is these denominations did not require a formaly educated minister, which was difficult to obtain in the Appalachian region of the U.S. due to the relative isolation of the area

Yes Gray Fox, that is exactly what I read..that it took longer to educate and ordain a Presbyterian minister than it did either Baptist or Methodist and due to the shortage of Presbyterian ministers for an ever growing congregation the Baptist and Methodist ministers stepped in to do the honours. ( I could be wrong but I don`t see the Calvinists going along with this!)
;
;


We're just as corrupt and greedy as the rest of the world! Its just our teeth and book-learnin ain't quite up to par with the rest of the country!

LOL :)

[Christiaan]

I've noticed a correlation in Europe between predominantly Lutheran countries and countries with strong Atheism rates.
According to this link:http://www.infobarrel.com/25_Most_At...s_in_the_World, you find 6 Lutheran countries (Estonia, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Sweden) among the top ten Atheist countries in the World. Germany is 11th on the list, and I've read that Atheists are mostly found in the east where Lutheranism used to prevail.

There are so many other factors that explains this phenomenon.

In general it is also an attitude of Northern Europeans in general to be sceptical about their religious institutions. We trust our governments more than we do our spiritual leaders.

A major factor in protestant countries is that these allowed competition of different views and allowed a relatively open debate regarding Christianity since the reformation. I'm not saying that protestants didn't suppress other religions during this period, because they did, it was simply less restrictive compared to catholic countries were officially only one view was excepted. In that respect the French revolution was a kind of delayed secular reformation which restricted the power of the catholic church and its wealth. Something that the protestant countries already did achieve during the reformation before.

Another factor is probably education in general. Uneducated people tend to be more relying on religious believes than others. Again this has something to do with tolerating pluralism of alternative ideas. If you not encouraged to think freely, you will probably stick to the dogma's of any ideology.

And finally wealth might also be a factor that explains this lack of spiritual need. The more you feel secure in and in control of your live the less you will feel to rely on something spiritual.

[Keegah]

Most of the migrants that came to the USA after the Independance war only went for Wealth and I 'm not sure that they carried the "god" gene. In my mind, the main reason why USA remain a religious country is that religion is deep rooted in the American values ("In God we trust"...).

Worth noting that "In God we Trust" is a fairly recent motto, and it was adopted with no small amount of controversy. Controversy that continues to this day.

When you talk about a country as huge as the United States, and one that is occupied by many, many different ethnic groups, you have to be careful making blanket statements about it. As Sparkey has been showing, some of the US is deeply religious - not all. Primarily the South, but there are also bastions in the North.

When you look at certain ethnic or cultural groups in the US, I wager that you'd see that they've been secularizing at roughly the same rate as the Scandinavian nations. Others have been going much more slowly, or not going at all. These are distinct groups, and need to be examined separately in any analysis of religion in America.

[sparkey]

I have to agree and disagree with the view that this area is highly religious. I really don't believe this area is any more religious than your average US town (I myself would identify as an Agnostic bordering on line with Atheism). I think the image of the gun-totting, bible thumpin hillbilly is an exagerrated stereotype that is generally accepted as fact and perpetuated by the media for whatever number of reasons. As with any area you have your normal, extreme and minority groups each represented according to how the rest of the country views them. Unfortunately, Appalachia has probably one of the worst reputations I've seen for an area.

Actually, you're getting at an important point. The Scots-Irish folkway isn't the most religious, despite its reputation. Look again at the map I linked earlier and note how nonreligious people are more frequent in very Scots-Irish West Virginia compared to the more traditionally-Anglican-becoming-Baptist lowland South. I'd put the religious conservatism of the Scots-Irish as intermediate between the Anglican-becoming-Baptists and the traditionally Puritan folkway. As we've seen with other populations, that gets reflected in their modern religiousness.

My own home town of Somerset, Kentucky is about to vote to decide whether the city should go wet.

Hey, you're from Somerset. I have a lot of ancestors who passed through near there... specifically eastern Pulaski County, around Whetstone, Ula, Bent, Stab, etc. I didn't end up with much Scots-Irish from that side of my family though, as most had instead been descendants the early Chesapeake indentured servant folkway ("Anglicans-becoming-Baptists") who moved West over time. It's not too much of an aberration to descend from non-Scots-Irish Kentuckians, contrary to popular scholarship, which "gives" all of Kentucky to the Scots-Irish... the Pennyroyal and the Knobs in particular have a traditionally rather mixed population, at least compared to the more truly mountainous regions. Actually, my direct patriline passed through Pulaski County, and they came from a Swiss Mennonite background. Anyway, if you've ever been to any of the cemeteries in eastern Pulaski County, you've likely walked by one of my ancestors.

[Gray Fox]

Coulnd't agree more. Much of Kentucky is a rather mixed-bag of different Colonial ethnicities. Specifically Indentured English, Palatine German/Swiss of various incarnations and Scots-Irish. Many of my own lines from Kentucky such as my Surber (Swiss-German), Bradshaw (Indentured-English), Fields (Indentured-English), Wall (Norman-Irish?) and Hargis (Norman, supposedly of Danish background) Baugh (Originally Bach and of German ancestry) are obviously not of Ulster extraction. Though many of these lines do have some degree of Ulster inter-marriage.