Martin Luther on Reason

[Fortuna]

Hi all,

The other day I read a post that someone was offended by my use of the following quote.

Martin Luther: "Reason is the devil's harlot".

They seemed to feel the need to defend reason.

I would like to explore that more on this thread as I believe that there are those who have misunderstood this quote, IMHO. I think it is very important to dig deeper and fully understand a quote by considering context and time. Luther is not referring to mathematical reasoning which is sound, he is referring, I believe to the human condtion and spirit.

Here is what it means to me and what I thought Luther was trying to say:

We can always find a reason to support our decisions, comments, logic, actions, etc. even if they are the wrong reasons. Reason will do whatever a clever person wills it to do, just as, presumably, a harlot would.

We can find reasons why something may not be true in the bible. We can find reasons to allow our anger to surface. We can find reasons not to go to work. We can find reasons for many things. It does not make reason superior to faith nor does it mean that reason is always good or bad. Ultimately, this is why I trust faith more than reason.

By using faith instead of reason we know that the truth is in the bible, we rely upon prayer and God to quell our anger, we can rely upon God to give us a sense of responsibility to go to work, etc.

It can go either way unless we rely upon prayer and obedience to God, reason has a mind of it's own and will do as it pleases according to its owners faith and character.

Does anyone else have any comments to share? I would love to hear what you think?

Blessings, Fortuna

 

[Dannager]

There's a difference between using reason and trying to find a reason for something. There's a difference between being rational and trying to rationalize something. Martin Luther cautioned against the latter in each case, not against the former. Reason and faith are not exclusionary. Each supports one another. Anyone telling you that they are incompatible is attempting to reduce you to something less than a free-thinking individual.

 

[david_x]

whew, thought that was a weird thing to say. makes sense now.

 

[Fortuna]

There's a difference between using reason and trying to find a reason for something. There's a difference between being rational and trying to rationalize something. Martin Luther cautioned against the latter in each case, not against the former. Reason and faith are not exclusionary. Each supports one another. Anyone telling you that they are incompatible is attempting to reduce you to something less than a free-thinking individual.

Hi Dannager!

Yes, reasoning is reasoning and I think the caution is in how it is used and respected.

Faith is not always supported by reason. If someone asks you about the Virgin Birth does reason apply here more than faith?

If someone asks you to using reasoning to explain how people were healed by Jesus, can you rely entirely on reason?


You see, reason can serve even a fool or the faithless , but faith serves only God. I often used reasoning to reject God before I became a Christian. And, did the Age of Reason pull more people toward God or Science? Reason is of the world and worldly efforts, like money, it must be used for God's purposes.

(Matthew 16 The Dishonest Steward). The dishonest steward reasoned after having been fired that to ensure a future position he had to make friends of the rich man's debtors by discounting their debts. His reasoning was clever and he was praised for it, however, he arrived at a solution through dishonest reasoning. One could substitute the word rationale and it would mean the same thing.


The two are not always exclusionary as you have pointed out, however, there are many things in the bible that cannot be reasoned away and on the surface do not seem rational until we dig deeper and form a relationship with the scripture through faith.


Thank you for your input. I appreciate all views on this.


Blessings, Fortuna

 

[Piedpiper123]

Faith is not always supported by reason. If someone asks you about the Virgin Birth does reason apply here more than faith?
If someone asks you to using reasoning to explain how people were healed by Jesus, can you rely entirely on reason?

I sort of agree but reason can go a very long way. Reason, to me, strongly argues for the existance of God (something can't come from nothing etc etc). Reason then says to me that if the God who created everything and breathed life into his creation wanted to enter the world through veirgin birth then for him it would be easier done than said. I think reason is a very good servant.

 

[david_x]

I sort of agree but reason can go a very long way. Reason, to me, strongly argues for the existance of God (something can't come from nothing etc etc). Reason then says to me that if the God who created everything and breathed life into his creation wanted to enter the world through veirgin birth then for him it would be easier done than said. I think reason is a very good servant.

not here to argue but if somthing can't come from nothing than what else works?

 

[Dannager]

Hi Dannager!

Yes, reasoning is reasoning and I think the caution is in how it is used and respected.

Faith is not always supported by reason. If someone asks you about the Virgin Birth does reason apply here more than faith?

Reason has little to do with miraculous events. When one explains that the event took place outside the purview of the natural world, reason ceases to be a factor. It isn't that it is contradictory, but rather that it receives no input on the matter.

If someone asks you to using reasoning to explain how people were healed by Jesus, can you rely entirely on reason?

No, certainly not. I do not advocate relying entirely on reason, for reason does not have much say on the supernatural, and if Christianity is to be accepted we must acknowledge that spirituality exists.

You see, reason can serve even a fool or the faithless , but faith serves only God.

Reason serves God, too.

I often used reasoning to reject God before I became a Christian.

One cannot reason God's existence away. One can use rational thinking to come to the conclusion that God may not exist, but rejecting the belief in the supernatural using rational thinking is a fallacy. It cannot be done.

And, did the Age of Reason pull more people toward God or Science?

Toward science, certainly. The Age of Reason, however, was also partly rebellion against spiritual authority. That is not part of the doctrine of reason.

Reason is of the world and worldly efforts, like money, it must be used for God's purposes.

Reason is used for God's purposes.

(Matthew 16 The Dishonest Steward). The dishonest steward reasoned after having been fired that to ensure a future position he had to make friends of the rich man's debtors by discounting their debts. His reasoning was clever and he was praised for it, however, he arrived at a solution through dishonest reasoning. One could substitute the word rationale and it would mean the same thing.

You are not using the word "reason" as it is being used elsewhere in this thread. I speak of it in the philosophical sense, specifically with regard to the rational school of thought. You are using it here in the colloquial sense, as the verb "to reason". The meanings behind the two are very different.

The two are not always exclusionary as you have pointed out, however, there are many things in the bible that cannot be reasoned away and on the surface do not seem rational until we dig deeper and form a relationship with the scripture through faith.

No, on the contrary there are things that will never seem rational no matter how strong of a relationship you have with God. Such things do not fall under the scope of rational examination, but nor do they contradict it.

 

[Dannager]

I sort of agree but reason can go a very long way. Reason, to me, strongly argues for the existance of God (something can't come from nothing etc etc).

You would be incorrect here. Ignoring the fact that reason does not argue one way or the other for God's existence (since the scope of rational thought is confined to the natural), you cannot use the argument "something cannot come from nothing" to support God's existence. If something cannot come from nothing, then where did God come from? Of course, the counter is to say that God has always existed, but then what's to say that the universe hasn't always existed?

 

[david_x]

Toward science, certainly. The Age of Reason, however, was also partly rebellion against spiritual authority. That is not part of the doctrine of reason.

Against all authority actually, man was finally able to think for himself.

You would be incorrect here. Ignoring the fact that reason does not argue one way or the other for God's existence (since the scope of rational thought is confined to the natural), you cannot use the argument "something cannot come from nothing" to support God's existence. If something cannot come from nothing, then where did God come from? Of course, the counter is to say that God has always existed, but then what's to say that the universe hasn't always existed?

God is not physical the universe is. God could have always exhisted, we know the earth could not have.

 

[Dannager]

Against all authority actually, man was finally able to think for himself.

Yes, perhaps.

God is not physical the universe is.

So?

God could have always exhisted

Could he?

we know the earth could not have.

Oh, yes, certainly the earth could not have. The earth is only a couple billion years old. The universe is far older. Why couldn't the universe have always existed?

 

[david_x]

Oh, yes, certainly the earth could not have. The earth is only a couple billion years old. The universe is far older. Why couldn't the universe have always existed?

Sorry I meant the universe.

(Putting my statements in question form makes it seem like your stalling.)

 

[Dannager]

(Putting my statements in question form makes it seem like your stalling.)

No, I'm honestly interested in why you feel that the universe couldn't always have existed if you have no problem with God having always existed.

 

[david_x]

No, I'm honestly interested in why you feel that the universe couldn't always have existed if you have no problem with God having always existed.

I said the world is phisical there are ways to measure it, has a limit. God is not physical there is no way of measuring him, he has no limit.

 

[Dannager]

I said the world is phisical there are ways to measure it, has a limit. God is not physical there is no way of measuring him, he has no limit.

The universe is physical, yes, but as far as I know it is not certain in any way that it has not simply always existed. What you're doing is giving God special properties that say he's immune to causality, while not giving those same special properties to the universe. Do you have a reason for this, beyond saying that God is spiritual?

 

[david_x]

Physical things have to be made they can't just come from nothing.

Nothing is certain just highly probable.

 

[Dannager]

Physical things have to be made they can't just come from nothing.

Why is this the case? And, perhaps more to the point, why are spiritual things not subject to this rule?

 

[david_x]

Why is this the case?

How many physical things have you seen come out of nothing? Spiritual on the otherhand, that stuff comes from nothing all the time.

 

[Dannager]

How many physical things have you seen come out of nothing?

None. How many times have you seen God create the universe?

None. So we're on equal footing here.

You need to explain why you have made the determination that the physical universe has a beginning, and why things that are spiritual do not.

 

[david_x]

You need to explain why you have made the determination that the physical universe has a beginning, and why things that are spiritual do not.

Come on their just basic properties of each, can't believe i hafta explain that.

None. How many times have you seen God create the universe?

None. So we're on equal footing here.

I didn't say i had seen anything from nothing And you didn't answer my second question.

 

[Piedpiper123]

You would be incorrect here. Ignoring the fact that reason does not argue one way or the other for God's existence (since the scope of rational thought is confined to the natural), you cannot use the argument "something cannot come from nothing" to support God's existence. If something cannot come from nothing, then where did God come from? Of course, the counter is to say that God has always existed, but then what's to say that the universe hasn't always existed?

Thanks for your reply Dannager.

I'm not sure that I'm incorrect in saying that reason helps me. For me I know it does for the reasons i gave earlier and many more besides.

When I read the Bible I see many appeals to reason. Jesus told unbelievers to consider his miracles: the point being that Jesus might just be who he claimed to be if he healed people miraculously.

Romans 1: 20 Seems to me also to be an appeal to reason. God's nature and qualities are seen and understood by creation, is Paul's point. But how can that be understood with out reason?

If someone tells me "Jesus died for you so that you can be saved". How can I even start to begin to understand it without reason?

I'm sure reason has a part to play in everyones spiritual life.

Perhaps we are using the word in a different way.

When I said something cannot come from nothing I should have been more careful with my words. What I meant was that for me the universe had to have an outside cause (which many call God) because reason and basic thinking says to many people that something cannot come out of nothing without a cause.

God is not a created thing and is outside of time so he/she/it does not need to have a cause. Everything that had a beginning has a cause.

When I prayed as a non-Christian my prayers were regularly answered. Reason said to me that perhaps there is a God as these answers are more than coincidence.

When I consider order in the universe and how there is so much harmony in nature - e.g. this kind of plant cant live without this kind of bee - reason tells me that this cannot all be an accident.

When I considered some OT prophesies which were fulfilled in Jesus reason told me that this book, the Bible, is no ordinary book.

These are some of the ways that reason helped me on the Way.

These things for me were sufficient proof that there is a God.