Luther is pretty much defined by his opposition to the Catholic church. One of his complaints is that the Catholic church applies reason to scripture (in the form of a millienium and a half of philosophical and theological debate within the church, at Luther's time) instead of just taking it literally, as it was written. You can't quote him and generalize to all religion from that.

> You can't quote him and generalize to all religion from that.

I'd argue you can generalize pretty much most organized religions from that, but not everything spiritual or peoples actual believes.

Imho religion is merely a institutionalized form of spirituality, enforced on a whole community trough dogma. But dogma is never a good thing especially not for the seeking traveler because by it's very nature it's unreasonable and incapable of change.

The human mind most certainly needs a place to channel it's fascinations for the unknown and unanswerable, I'm just not sure that institutionalized religion is really a healthy way to "fulfill" that need.

He was criticizing Catholicism for relying on reason. You certainly can't then generalize and say Catholicism is anti-reason, so you can't say religion is anti-reason.

What you call dogma is largely a body of knowledge that has been passed down the same way scientific knowledge has been passed down. Ignoring it isn't very different to ignoring the body of published scientific literature and insisting on rediscovering everything for yourself.

> I'd argue you can generalize pretty much most organized religions from that

How can you generalize about organized religion from a quote whose thesis was specifically a disagreement with the largest organized religion in the world?

It was specifically in disagreement with the Catholic church, but that doesn't mean that Luther's suggestions and ideas had been any better in regards to "dogma over reason".

Contrary to popular believe Luther was not that flawless shining beacon of reformation he's often made out as, he and his believes came with their very own issues. Like him being a rampant anti-Semite and his views held a lot of weight with the German people. His influence on those matters can in large parts be directly followed to what happened in the Third Reich where a majority population of Christians (96%+) ruthlessly hunted down all "undesirables".

If nowadays anybody would publish a book called "On the Jews and Their Lies" you'd be hard pressed to defend such a thing without coming across like a total asshole with Neo-Nazi tendencies. For Luther is was merely one publication among many showcasing his deep hatred for Jews, yet this barely gets mentioned when his person is discussed, like it never happened.

Even in Germany, it's a rather recent development for people to shine a light on the questionable past of the "big reformer". During the last German Protestant Church Congress a protest group (they protested to stop government subsidies for churches, yes that's an actual thing in Germany) put up a large statue of Luther with some of his most distasteful quotes [0].

Organizers called police, police declared that these quotes are "Volksverhetzend" aka "hate speech/incitement of the masses" and with that they could ban the protesters from the premises. Mind you: Police declared Luther's quotes as hate speech, not statements made by the protesters.

[0] https://hpd.de/artikel/luther-polizeilich-attestierter-volks...

Well, sure, Luther says that, but Luther doesn't speak for all religion, or even all Christianity. There's a reason the movement he started is called “Protestantism”.

Contrast that quote from Luther and the attitude it expresses toward reason with, e.g., the Catechism of the Catholic Church (para. 159; footnotes excluded):

---

Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth." "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1...

Luther was probably thinking more of philosophers, whose pesky questions challenged his theology's internal logical consistency, or at least its certainty. How religion deals with such matters is its own business, though it seems to me that for the most part, religion pays little heed to analytical theology.

> religion pays little heed to analytical theology

What do you mean by this? There's a very strong, very cerebral theological subculture in Christianity. I think they'd raise their eyebrows to be told they aren't analytical enough. And their works aren't widely read, but they produce memes that filter through popular Christian sermons and books as time goes on.

Or do you mean something specific by "analytical theology"?

I meant that, when compared to the numbers of practitioners, those who actively spend much time thinking analytically about theological issues form a very small minority. It does seem that some/many/most religions go through one or more periods when the outcome of such thinking filters through to everyday observances, and that the reformation, like the Council of Nicea, was one such time.

In Christianity specifically (and perhaps many other religions) there is also the tenet that faith trumps reason, which is what I think Luther was going on about in this quote.

> I meant that, when compared to the numbers of practitioners, those who actively spend much time thinking analytically about theological issues form a very small minority.

Somewhat, but how many people watch Transformers versus read the latest cryptocurrency paper?

And there are many styles of preachers that teach and talk much like an enthusiastic college lecturer. They are very erudite and draw large audiences once a week. To talk about philosophy, ethics, morality, and critical analysis, basically. And it's really common for congregations to break out into smaller groups throughout the week to have similar self-lead conversations.

> ...there is also the tenet that faith trumps reason...

That may be a cultural disposition among some, but it's not a tenet. In fact, Christ himself used reason, for example, when saying, "...[a] house divided against itself will not stand." He was using deductive logic in that case to refute that he was exorcising demons as an agent of the devil.

Luther, whose quote on the matter is the subject of this thread, seems to differ. I imagine he could find a counter-quote somewhere in the scripture.

> Luther, whose quote on the matter is the subject of this thread, seems to differ.

Luther's quote (as is the case of many popular quotes of the founder of Protestantism) was a direct reaction against a view opposing the quote held by the Catholic Church at the time (and, in this case, still today), not expressing a general and unifying belief of all or most religious (or even Christian) people.

So, yes, he would differ, but many religious people and institutions would differ with him on that point. The upthread quote shows Luther's attitude toward reason, but it's offering as illustrating the attitude of religion to reason fails.

I don't get the point of your comment, not even in the context of where I originally made this suggestion. That Luther was not speaking for all christians might be a valid alternative response to the post I was replying to, but that seems orthogonal to the issue of what Luther was railing against.

Does it help to replace 'philosophers' with 'philosophically-minded theologians'?

There was a cut-and-paste error, where a quote from a different post was included rather than the quote I actually was reacting to.

It has been corrected.

I think I was making a smaller point than you imagine - simply that if it came to a duel of biblical quotes, I imagine Martin Luther probably could have matched humanrebar one for one. I know I could not.