I'm working at lot this week and I don't have time/stamina/interest in debating the gentlemen at the atheist blog, just this minute. Plus it's almost Christmas.-- I should have my head examined.
However, you will find below some quotes from Luther re: the roles of faith vs. reason. The picture is from Matt Harrison's blog (without permission, hope it's ok). He took the picture of a wall in the town of Schmalkalden.
1. Reason has its sphere: In temporal things and human relations man is rational enough; there he needs no other light than reason. So God does not teach us in Scripture how to build houses, make clothing, marry, wage wars, sail on the seas, and the like; for there our natural light is sufficient. But in divine things, that is, in those which pertain to God and which must be so performed as to be acceptable to Him and obtain salvation for us, our nature is so star-and stone-blind, so utterly blind, as to be unable to recognize them at all. Reason is presumptuous enough to plunge into these matters like a blind horse.
2. Reason is a candle: Reason is also a light, and a beautiful light. But it cannot show or find the way or the path that will lead from sin and from death to righteousness and to life; it remains in darkness... Thus God's Word is a real sun, giving us an eternal day to live and to be glad. We find this Word very richly and beautifully given in the Psalms. Blessed is he who delights in it and gladly sees this light, for it loves to shine. But moles and bats, that is, the people of the world, do not like it.
3. Everyone knows that he is right: Because of sin everyone of us is, from the days of his youth, accustomed to think that he is right, that his head is the best, and to dislike giving way to another person.
4. You may reason in non-religious subjects: the Holy Scriptures requires no controversialist. God has given other branches of learning: grammar, logic, rhetoric, philosophy, jurisprudence, and medicine. Be wise in these subjects; controvert, search, and ask what is right and wrong.
5. Wrong methodology of reason in religion: We find many who have never heard Christ preached, coarse and wild people, who curse and swear as though they were full of devils; yet they begin their religious thinking by trying to determine Why God does this or that. With their blind reason they rise to the light and measure God by their reason. But we should adopt as our mode of procedure the method which God gave St. Paul and should begin at the foundation. The roof will then take care of itself. Let God rest with His hidden counsel, and do not climb up to the roof with your reason. He does not want to have you come up there; He comes down to you. He has made a ladder, a way, and a bridge, to come to you, and says: I descend from heaven to you and become a man in the body of the virgin Mary. I lie in the manger at Bethlehem. I suffer and die for you. So believe in Me, and have the confidence to accept Me as Him who has been crucified for you.
6 comments:
Luther wrote:
"But in divine things, that is, in those which pertain to God and which must be so performed as to be acceptable to Him and obtain salvation for us, our nature is so star-and stone-blind, so utterly blind, as to be unable to recognize them at all."
I can see the merit in a claim like this to a point. But it can be taken in a number of different senses. Does it mean that reason can NEVER be applied to religious claims? So if a relion claimed, say, that God commanded the sun to stand still in the sky, reason could never counter such a claim?
(Luther is reported to have rejected Copernicanism for exactly this reason.)
I've read quite a bit of Luther but never came across anything about Copernicus or an opinion on the sun standing still. Luther's thrusts generally were in completely different directions.
My guess is that it was not an issue. Wasn't Columbus already sailing around the world? Do you have a reference? Everything Luther ever said and wrote seems to be available for checking.
I don't think we are biblicists in the way that every single thing has to be taken completely literally, though we will always go with the literal first. I've spoken with a very conservative Lutheran PHD who thinks he can leave that story to interpretation. Somehow there was more light available on that day and perhaps there can be other explanations...
The remarks I have in mind were attributed to Luther from one of his so-called "table talks".
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit3/response.html
Even if Luther should turn out never to have said anything about Copernicus, I used that only as an example. The broader question is whether reason can ever apply to religious claims, and if so, when and when not? This is an age-old question (the relation between Faith and Reason), that often seems in need of being revisited.
"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."
That's the quote.
Obviously, Luther's understanding of "astronomy" (not his field of expertise) was being challenged. This must not be seen as a doctrine, even though he comes up with scripture to shore up his opinion. He is just gabbing at the table. This sort of thing never comes up in confessional, doctrinal writings.
Let the relationship between faith and reason be revisited. It's a valid discussion. Theology itself is not without the use of great minds and reasonable discussion.
The funny thing here is that Luther may have been skeptical of Copernicus, but he knew about him and his theories through Philip Melenchthon who was an ardent supporter of the theory, and it seems also helped arrange for the publication of Copernicus's work. Philip himself is better known for penning the Augsburg Confession.
Lutherans, contrary to popular opinion, actually hold reason in very high esteem, believing it a gift from God. We apply reason to religious claims quite often. But we also hold it in check, not wanting to over extend its usefulness. There are somethings we just believe to be true, based on other things we know to be true.
Bror writes: "The funny thing here is that Luther may have been skeptical of Copernicus, but he knew about him and his theories through Philip Melenchthon who was an ardent supporter of the theory, and it seems also helped arrange for the publication of Copernicus's work."
Do we have some references for that?
Blessed Christmas to you Bror. I've prayed for you and the other pastors in this happy, busy time.
Post a Comment