Martin Luther on Reason

[Dannager]

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

You do, because these basic properties need to have a reason for existing. Why do you ascribe these basic properties to the spiritual and physical?

I didn't say i had seen anything from nothing

Neither did I.

And you didn't answer my second question.

I didn't see a second question.

 

[Dannager]

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.

Yes, I will agree with you here.

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.

If God is not a created thing, why does the universe need to be a created thing? My question to you is, why do you feel that the universe had to have a beginning when God does not?

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.

Certainly, it's not. We see many instances of very different organisms evolving together in symbiosis. It doesn't require divine intervention, though. Reason should be telling you, in this case, that supernatural action isn't necessary to show you these things.

 

[Piedpiper123]

If God is not a created thing, why does the universe need to be a created thing? My question to you is, why do you feel that the universe had to have a beginning when God does not?

Based on the widespread belief of scientists that the universe had a beginning. I realise that this is not a universal belief and I also realise that I could be wrong but so many of our beliefs are based on judgments we make on less than perfect evidence. However, since I became a Christian I also have the Bible to guide me and my understanding of it is that it teaches that the universe had a beginning.

Certainly, it's not. We see many instances of very different organisms evolving together in symbiosis. It doesn't require divine intervention, though. Reason should be telling you, in this case, that supernatural action isn't necessary to show you these things.

Here again we differ in opinions. I have not seen any evidence that would convince me that the natural world I see around me evolved. When I see symbiosis for me is has the fingerprint of a wise creator.

 

[Dannager]

Based on the widespread belief of scientists that the universe had a beginning.

Not quite. Scientific consensus is that the current incarnation of our universe had a beginning - that is to say, the Big Bang happened and the universe began to expand to its current state. We have no clue what it was like prior to the Big Bang. The universe may have contracted to the size seen at the Big Bang, and then expanded and contracted many times. It's therefore plausible that the universe has always existed in a series of contractions and expansions.

To boot, the dimension of time didn't exist prior to the Big Bang, so it can be technically said that the universe has always existed, since as long as there has been time, there has been a universe.

I realise that this is not a universal belief and I also realise that I could be wrong but so many of our beliefs are based on judgments we make on less than perfect evidence. However, since I became a Christian I also have the Bible to guide me and my understanding of it is that it teaches that the universe had a beginning.

An interesting belief. It remains to be seen if it turns out to be true. Either way, though, this thread concerns the use of reason, and since you used reason to justify your belief in God you cannot in turn use that same belief in God to justify reason.

Here again we differ in opinions. I have not seen any evidence that would convince me that the natural world I see around me evolved. When I see symbiosis for me is has the fingerprint of a wise creator.

I have seen countless mounds of evidence, and the thin arguments that the ID movement uses to defend their position are quickly dismantled by scientists. Perhaps you would consider coming to the Origins Theology board to discuss it?

 

[david_x]

Sorry thought I had this in question form:

Spiritual on the otherhand, that stuff comes from nothing all the time.

Were does faith and hope and love come from?

Why do you ascribe these basic properties to the spiritual and physical?

Physical things can not be destroyed or brought from nothing except by the hand of an omnipitent God. Spiritual things are above decay. Ex: God has been the same God for as long as anyone can remember and for as long as anyone will last.

 

[BigNorsk]

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

Well I think you can find that idea really woven throughout Luther's theology. It's being content with the position from scripture. Not filling in a system of theology such as is common in reformed theology. Luther said if you are saved it is because of God's grace, if you are condemned it is because you rejected God.

That creates kind of a logical problem, but it's intimately scriptural. So instead of rationalizing it away and chosing either to say God chose the damned or that people saved themselves, he adopted the position from scripture without feeling the need to reconcile those two things.

For that very reason while Lutheran theology is fully scriptural, it's not so systematic. A real attempt is made to accept what the Bible says.

And as has been pointed out, Luther really wasn't against reasoning, he was against reasoning as the source of dogma or doctrine.

He got to see a lot of it's effects. Calvin just couldn't figure out how Christ's body could be any more than in one discrete place just like our bodies. So Calvin rejected the presence of our Lord in sacramental union with the elements even though they are clearly called the body and blood of our Lord. Calvin rejected it because he could not reason how it could be. Luther accepted despite problems in understanding for the simple reason that it was the teaching of scripture. He did not want to get into the how or why or go to excess like the dogma of transubstantiation. Luther was content, indeed insisted on leaving the doctrine on Communion at what scripture revealed.

That's just one example.

Marv

 

[Piedpiper123]

An interesting belief. It remains to be seen if it turns out to be true. Either way, though, this thread concerns the use of reason, and since you used reason to justify your belief in God you cannot in turn use that same belief in God to justify reason.

Actually I can say this. I was explaining how reason helped lead me to faith in God and then how the Bible added to the evidence. I did not say anything about God justifying reason (not sure where you got that idea from). It is not a circular argument of any kind.

Thanks for replying though. I will check out the origins board.

 

[Dannager]

Were does faith and hope and love come from?

In what sense?

Physical things can not be destroyed or brought from nothing except by the hand of an omnipitent God.

Assuming you're right, what does this have to do with the possibility of the universe always existing? It doesn't need to be "brought from nothing" by an omnipotent God if it was always there.

Spiritual things are above decay.

Why do you say this? What are you basing this idea on?

 

[Dannager]

Actually I can say this. I was explaining how reason helped lead me to faith in God and then how the Bible added to the evidence. I did not say anything about God justifying reason (not sure where you got that idea from). It is not a circular argument of any kind.

In my experience, it is usually the Bible that serves as the evidence being evaluated through reason. I'm not sure I've ever heard of reason and the Bible being used to evaluate God's existence. An interesting thought.

 

[david_x]

In what sense?

Hope is a seed that blossoms from nothing else but its own energy. Nothing physical can do that.

Assuming you're right, what does this have to do with the possibility of the universe always existing? It doesn't need to be "brought from nothing" by an omnipotent God if it was always there.

The universe is in decay, it does not move tword a more perfect form that is just a law of the universe. a fact if you would.

Why do you say this? What are you basing this idea on?

God has been the same God for as long as anyone can remember and for as long as anyone will last.

I assume you have a theory? Please do tell.

 

[Piedpiper123]

In my experience, it is usually the Bible that serves as the evidence being evaluated through reason. I'm not sure I've ever heard of reason and the Bible being used to evaluate God's existence. An interesting thought.

Hi!

Can I ask why you believe or disbelieve in the existance of God(s)? It would help me understand where you are coming from. Thanks

 

[Dannager]

Hope is a seed that blossoms from nothing else but its own energy. Nothing physical can do that.

Except chemical releases in your brain that impart the sensation of hope.

The universe is in decay, it does not move tword a more perfect form that is just a law of the universe. a fact if you would.

Please define "perfect", and explain how it is in decay. The universe is under the effects of the second law of thermodynamics, which states that heat entropy in a closed system will tend to increase. Is that what you mean by decay?

God has been the same God for as long as anyone can remember and for as long as anyone will last.

Really? God's attitude shifted pretty dramatically between the Old Testament and New Testaments of the Bible.

I assume you have a theory? Please do tell.

Actually, I don't. I just want people to examine why they make the assumptions that they make.

 

[Dannager]

Hi!

Can I ask why you believe or disbelieve in the existance of God(s)? It would help me understand where you are coming from. Thanks

As my faith icon indicates, I believe in God. I believe in God because I choose to believe in God, and I do so because it makes me feel more comfortable to believe that a higher power exists. This is, I feel, a very honest answer on my part. God has never demonstrated a miracle to me, nor have I ever asked God to do so. I have never witnessed a shred of evidence for God's existence, but that's okay with me. It is reasonable to come to the conclusion that God may or may not exist, and I choose to believe that God does.

 

[Piedpiper123]

As my faith icon indicates, I believe in God. I believe in God because I choose to believe in God, and I do so because it makes me feel more comfortable to believe that a higher power exists. This is, I feel, a very honest answer on my part. God has never demonstrated a miracle to me, nor have I ever asked God to do so. I have never witnessed a shred of evidence for God's existence, but that's okay with me. It is reasonable to come to the conclusion that God may or may not exist, and I choose to believe that God does.

Thanks for your candid reply. This is a very interesting position. You have clearly used reason in coming to your conclusion and used it to assess what others have regarded as positive or negative proof.

How easy is it for you to 'choose' to believe in God if you know there is a good chance that he/she/it might not exist? Also, how does this chosen belief affect your daily life; how different would life be if you chose not to believe in God?

I'm partly asking as I was wondering a few weeks ago about to what degree can we 'choose' to believe things without a shred of evidence. Can I simply choose today to believe that Father Christmas, reindeers and all, is real. Would a choice based on zero evidence affect me very much.

I realise that many will say that we believe in God / Jesus / Bible etc based on faith without evidence, but I'm convinced that it is not true. If a Christian is asked why they believe in Jesus they will give a 'reason' even if it is something personal and subjective rather than based on hard scientific facts. I already gave some of my 'reasons'.

If you could answer some of my questions in the second paragraph I'd be pleased to learn more about your position and how reason and beliefs work for you.

 

[Dannager]

How easy is it for you to 'choose' to believe in God if you know there is a good chance that he/she/it might not exist?

Very easy. Imagine being offered a choice: you can either enter a lottery for $50 million, or you can choose to not enter. The analogy isn't perfect, but it's close enough. Simply put, I find no benefit behind choosing to not believe in the existence of God.

Also, how does this chosen belief affect your daily life; how different would life be if you chose not to believe in God?

I'd probably be more scared of the thought of death. Aside from that, not much. I don't think I would be any less morally inclined, for instance.

I'm partly asking as I was wondering a few weeks ago about to what degree can we 'choose' to believe things without a shred of evidence.

This is, quite simply, the essence of faith.

Can I simply choose today to believe that Father Christmas, reindeers and all, is real. Would a choice based on zero evidence affect me very much.

In all likelihood, not much at all. Aside from you perhaps being disappointed when he doesn't actually bring you any presents, that is.

I realise that many will say that we believe in God / Jesus / Bible etc based on faith without evidence, but I'm convinced that it is not true.

For some it may not be.

If a Christian is asked why they believe in Jesus they will give a 'reason' even if it is something personal and subjective rather than based on hard scientific facts. I already gave some of my 'reasons'.

There are those who are certainly convinced that an event or series of events important to them was guided by divine power, and they cite this as evidence of God's existence. To be fair, it's not actually evidence in any way shape or form, but if they believe it seriously enough it becomes their rationale for faith.

If you could answer some of my questions in the second paragraph I'd be pleased to learn more about your position and how reason and beliefs work for you.

I hope my answers are of help, then. If you'd like further clarification, let me know.

 

[Piedpiper123]

Thanks for your reply as again it helps me understand more about your belief system. You hold that believing things without a shred of evidence is "the essence of faith" but think that this faith would probably not have any affect on a person, though in your case it affects you by easing your fear of death. This seems to be the gist of your last reply?
Wouldn't it help a person even more to choose to believe in Jesus and his Gospel? You say you have chosen to believe in God why should it be harder of of less benefit to believe in Jesus using the same "essence of faith" you mentioned?

 

[Dannager]

Thanks for your reply as again it helps me understand more about your belief system. You hold that believing things without a shred of evidence is "the essence of faith" but think that this faith would probably not have any affect on a person, though in your case it affects you by easing your fear of death. This seems to be the gist of your last reply?
Wouldn't it help a person even more to choose to believe in Jesus and his Gospel? You say you have chosen to believe in God why should it be harder of of less benefit to believe in Jesus using the same "essence of faith" you mentioned?

It wouldn't be hard at all.

 

[david_x]

I'm done it's like talking to a kindergartener, if I have to explain the laws of physics to someone....

Go look it up.

 

[Dannager]

I'm done it's like talking to a kindergartener, if I have to explain the laws of physics to someone....

Er...you didn't have to explain the laws of physics. I was the one who mentioned the second law of thermodynamics. If you're going to extrapolate that to mean decay, you're going to have to define "decay", and how it relates to the "perfect" state you mentioned earlier.

Go look it up.

...I already know what the second law states.

 

[david_x]

Except chemical releases in your brain that impart the sensation of hope.

Hope triggers the good feeling you get from the "chemicals"

Please define "perfect", and explain how it is in decay. The universe is under the effects of the second law of thermodynamics, which states that heat entropy in a closed system will tend to increase. Is that what you mean by decay?

It's like a river it always wants to take the path of least resistance. Or decaying.

Really? God's attitude shifted pretty dramatically between the Old Testament and New Testaments of the Bible.

Don't say opinions like their facts, God said he was going to do that change.

Actually, I don't. I just want people to examine why they make the assumptions that they make.

"If a man doesn't stand for somthing he will fall for anything."