> 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.