Martin Luther on the whore of reason
February 29th, 2008 | Published in Fundamentalism, Quotes, Reason | 23 Comments
What are we to make of these quotes by Martin Luther about reason? Are they out of context (or misquoted), or was this really his attitude regarding reason?
“Reason is the Devil’s greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil’s appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom… Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism… She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets.”
—Martin Luther, Works, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-148.
“Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but—more frequently than not—struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”
—Martin Luther, Table Talks in 1569.
“Heretics are not to be disputed with, but to be condemned unheard, and whilst they perish by fire, the faithful ought to pursue the evil to its source, and bathe their heads in the blood of the Catholic bishops, and of the Pope, who is the devil in disguise.”
—Martin Luther, Table Talks (as quoted in Religious History: An Inquiry by M. Searle Bates, p. 156).
February 29th, 2008 at 10:44 am (#)
I think a great way to frame and understand these comments is to read them in light of Luther’s explanation to the first and third articles of the Apostles’ Creed.
In the first article, Luther writes: “I believe that God has made me and all creatures. He has given me my body and soul, eyes, ears, and all my limbs, my reason, and all my senses, and still preserves them.” Obviously here, reason is a good thing and a gift from God to us to help us figure out life in this world. Of course, in each of the quotes, Luther isn’t talking about figuring out the things of daily life.
Contrast this however with his explanation on the third article he writes, “I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him. But the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith.” Here, when it comes to knowing God, our reason isn’t useful, rather, it gets in the way of the Gospel and grace that is so contrary to our reason. This would be what Luther’s referring to in the quotes.
Like with most of Luther, thinking in and discerning between two realms (before God and before people), is really helpful in understanding what he’s saying.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:13 am (#)
That’s helpful, Joe.
February 29th, 2008 at 12:48 pm (#)
When Luther rails against reason he is (from what I have read personally and what others have said) referring to reason as the ground upon which justification by our good works rests. He says that man in his natural state believes that if we do good God will approve of us – that we can and must contribute something to our salvation. Luther believes this is the default attitude of mankind. That is why he says reason must be drowned in baptism, the act whereby God saves us (in the Lutheran view) and we contribute nothing.
As for the third quote all I can say is that a lot of Luther scholars doubt the accuracy and historical value of the Table Talk. Nevertheless, if Luther said anything like that we cannot agree with him, even if it would have been considered a perfectly acceptable attitude in his time.
February 29th, 2008 at 12:53 pm (#)
By the way, Siegbert Becker has written a book titled The Foolishness of God which, as I understand, discusses Luther’s view of reason. I haven’t read it so I can’t vouch for how well it covers the topic. It may be available at a good research library.
February 29th, 2008 at 5:31 pm (#)
Great post.
March 1st, 2008 at 3:30 pm (#)
I was re-reading Neil Postman’s “The Humanism of Media Ecology.” He reminded us that Martin Luther said of the printing press “it was “God’s highest grace by which the gospel is driven forward.” I would think that we would not have the printing press were it not for the application of reason, and lots of it, and surely Martin Luther would have considered that.
I also think that Martin Luther, like a lot of us, went off on hyperbolic rants from time to time, and that his “whore of reason” quote seems to be an example of that.
June 25th, 2008 at 4:37 am (#)
Why do you even suppose Luther is consistent in all his writing?
I think it is quite likely that he, when reason twarted his purposes, would rant about it.
January 11th, 2010 at 8:20 am (#)
It is easy to try to rationalize and justify Luther’s many antisemitic and anti-reson tirades. But the turht is that Luther underwent a transformation during the course of his life. In the beginning, reasoning with others, loving the Jews, were considered by Luther to be key in winning people, especially the Jews’ to Christianity. However, over time, Luther began to discover that reasoning and “loving” Jews was not gaining him the desired result reult. Thus, he became bitter against both Jews and against reason.
For example, ealry in his career, Luther wrote concerning the Jews:
“I hope that if one deals in a kindly way with the Jews and instructs them carefully from Holy Scripture, many of them will become genuine Christians and turn again to the faith of their fathers, the prophets and patriarchs,”
Later he wrote:
“First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom…”
Joe’s first post is very indicative of how Christians deal with the many inconsistencies of their faith and their history. They simply take things out of historical and literary context in order to rationalize the contradictions.The truth is that christianity is an evolving religion, which changes its doctrines and beliefs according to the changing ways of society, or whatever it feels it needs to propagate itself.Kind of like a virus that continues to mutate when confronted with antibodies.
And no, I am not a Jew.
March 26th, 2010 at 10:45 pm (#)
Fred makes a common mistake of confusing the writings of particular Christians (in this case, Martin Luther), with the defining doctrines of Christianity. The latter was first disseminated by oral reports from eyewitnesses and then codified in the biographies, history, letters, etc. that make up the New Testament. It hasn’t changed since the first century A.D.
It’s perfectly true that various Christian individuals and institutions throughout history have shifted either closer towards, or further away, from these core doctrines. The fact is no more relevant than (e.g.) the various evolving theories on physics, chemistry, astronomy, etc. Just as the Universe is what it is regardless of what any given researcher claims about it, Christianity is what it is regardless of what any given theologian writes about it.
To come to the original question… to make anything of the first quote, you’d have to understand just what Luther was reacting to. It’s doubtful that mere abstract “Reason” would provoke such fury, more likely it was a specific use (or misuse) of Reason to construct anti-Christian arguments.
The third quote doesn’t even address “reason” at all and the reference is secondhand at that — so what’s to discuss? Without stronger sourcing it represents simple hearsay.
But I’m plainly astonished by the second quote and it’s forcing me to re-evaluate everything I believe about this individual named Martin Luther. If he was still speaking and authoring such things in 1569 — more than 20 years after his death in 1546 — then surely his words must carry a weight and authority the world had never imagined. (-:
And yes, I am a Christian.
August 16th, 2010 at 4:46 pm (#)
It’s useful to remember When Luther writes about “reason” it’s not just using our mind or skill. He’s not railing against having a good theological education either (he was a PhD after all)
He’s talking about Reason (let’s denote it with a capital ‘R’). At that time there was a strong emphasis in using Aristotilian logic (Scolasticism, Aquinas was it’s biggest star)to explain theological things. If it didn’t pan out in Reason, it didn’t have authority.
The biggest things about Luther’s theology like God’s grace, Theology of the Cross,etc. were things that contradicted Reason(Aristotilian or otherwise.) It had to be grasped by faith not worked out in Reason.
People were saying – God is loving, benevolent, even when we’re so bad and awful? God gave Jesus to us to die on a cross? We really eat God’s body and blood? It doesn’t make sense. It’s not reasonable. The math doesn’t work out.
He saw that Reason often directly contradicted faith. (And it does!) Therefore it was a whore (he was very hyperbolic too!)
The Foolishness of God is a great book and actually the review on Amazon from 2001 is very enlightening in itself!
March 25th, 2011 at 8:48 am (#)
Why do we have to waste so much time on such discussions. Religion is a complete waste – a cancer in man.
September 4th, 2011 at 1:36 pm (#)
The evolution of Christianity that Fred mentions is not just in latter christian writings. We see it in the new testament. The oldest New Testament writings ,such as the Pauline epistles (Ephesians is undisputed as the first writing) and gospel of Mark(the first gospel written), make no mention of the deity of Christ. It is most clearly taught in the gospel of John, and in his revelation.
September 4th, 2011 at 1:38 pm (#)
I forgot to say that both the gospel of John and revelation are substantially latter than Paul’s epistles or the gospel of Mark
September 6th, 2011 at 10:43 pm (#)
Without reason all is superstition. And anyone who discounts reason is a danger to humanity.
The religious rebel against reason because they yearn for gullibility.
January 11th, 2012 at 10:25 pm (#)
Fred,
Atheism is a virus and, in any case, far more lethal than anything Christianity could ever hope to achieve. Atheism has done more harm to humankind than any other religion in history put together. One has only to examine history: the Reign of Terror, the Cult of Reason, the widespread burning and persecution of churches, clergy, and religious citizens in the French Revolution (the kind exemplified today in such barbaric countries as North Korea), and so on. Who can deny the atrocities that Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and a host of others, all committed in the name of an ideology that was explicitly atheistic and anti-religious? Who can dispute their claims to establish a “new man” and a religion-free utopia? These were mass murders performed with atheism as a central part and core of their ideological inspiration, they were not mass murders done by people who simply “happened to be atheist.”
Most historians believe that the Inquisition, in both its Medieval and Spanish sects, caused about 6000 deaths in the course of 500 years. Most historians believe that around 1.5 million deaths were caused by the Crusades. But these numbers pale in comparison to the atheistic atrocities of the last century and beyond. These explicitly atheistic and anti-religious regimes caused around 150 million deaths in the course of a century alone.
These weren’t people who just “happened to be atheist.” These were people who had atheism, along with a materialistic view of history, at the very heart, core, and center of their ideology, with an aim of eliminating religion and establishing nothing short of a religion-free utopia… murdering countless millions of people in the process, of course.
March 5th, 2012 at 12:38 pm (#)
Well, why am I not surprised. Just goes to show the intellectually bankruptcy of Protestantism.
June 22nd, 2012 at 1:57 pm (#)
Carlos is mistaken. Atheism is the lack of a belief in god(s). Stalin and Pol Pot were not implementing a directive from a book that all Atheists embrace as true – quite the contrary. Stalin and Pol Pot were not embracing reason in rejection of religion. They were despots using any means necessary to stay in power. Atheism does not teach that – it does not “teach” anything.
Religious murders on the other hand, from Moses killing the Midianites (Numbers 31) to the Taliban murdering 3000 on 9/11, were undertaken upon instructions from god. The Bible and Koran call for death of non-believers and some Christians in history have taken that on as their personal responsibility. I won’t mindlessly throw out phrases like “Hitler was Christian” so long as you don’t attribute atheism as the root of evil creating power-hungery maniac savages like Pol Pot.
November 18th, 2012 at 9:41 pm (#)
“Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason – I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other – my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen.” – Martin Luther
January 1st, 2013 at 5:44 pm (#)
If you are not aware of who Aleister Crowley is, he is the Author of “The Book of the Law” wherein Crowley claims to have received communications via the demon Aiwass. The communications or channelings (from Aiwass to Crowley) constitute the bulk of the text of the Book of the Law. Here is a comment on the book made by Crowley himself some years after the publication of the Book of the Law…
“32. Aiwass now leaps to the supreme stroke. Reason itself is a lie. He explains that this must be the case in the nature of things. The Reason may be in perfect order and never make a mistake, that is, within the limits of its powers. But it can never be certain of being right unless its knowledge is complete, which of course can never happen. In fact, being bound by its own laws, it has no means of finding out whether in any one case there may not be some factor vital to the problem of whose very nature it has no knowledge at all. Its axioms themselves merely state its limits. It is as if a bishop on a chess board were to assert that it could never move except in an oblique straight line, which is only true in respect of the laws of the game, and takes no account of the laws of motion as such. Aiwass asserts that some such factor always lurks in every problem which may be put to reason. He calls it “a factor infinite and unknown”–unknown since no mind can ever contain the whole of the facts of nature which may apply. It must therefore be content to work within narrow limits and state its results under the reserve that they are only correct if we assume that its data suffices. The factor is also infinite in the same way as an atom in the world of solid bodies is greater than the greatest surface. More, the plane is not real at all to the solid; it is no more than a way which the real being has chosen to express one item of his knowledge of nature. The reason of man should never allow itself to forget that it is only real in the hardly likely case of the world ending with itself. It is wiser to keep in mind that all Events, however true and real they seem (and are, as measured by the laws of the game) are after all signs of a code which Hadit has designed in order to express his nature in terms of its acts of love under will with one or other part of Nuit.”
March 9th, 2013 at 10:38 am (#)
It is statements like that that Luther made about reason that sent me to Byzantine Catholicism.
May 7th, 2013 at 4:01 pm (#)
Reason IS a whore. Reason can be used to prove anything you want to prove, so long as you start with the right assumptions.
You believe the church can grant indulgences? Find some proof-texts, apply Reason, rake in the money.
You believe God is evil? Cherry-pick your data, apply Reason – BAM! You get your reasons to hate God.
You believe there is no God? Start with your assumption that God doesn’t exist, churn Reason, and you get atheism back out.
You believe life could have arisen by chance? Assume that all opposing evidence is rubbish, work your Reason on what’s left, and how could anybody doubt you?
You believe that God is real, that His Word is truth? Apply yourself diligently to study His Word, and to meet Him, and He will fill your heart with His truth, against which Reason can raise no objections (not on the basis of the Scriptures, anyway).
This is why Scripture must be used with plain reason in order to generate truth – Reason will analyze whatever you give it, and output the appropriate results. It doesn’t care whether you fed it lies or truth; so be careful where you get your data, what assumptions you start with, and above all believe that what God says is true. Reason might get confused at some points, but when you trust God to see you through these storms, Reason will ultimately bow to God’s Truth. And then it might finally spit out a usable answer, after God’s Spirit has already led you where you need to be anyway.
May 7th, 2013 at 4:14 pm (#)
I guess what I’m trying to say is that Reason is only a tool; and if you let yourself believe that all of your thinking comes from pure Reason alone – well, then, so are you.
May 7th, 2013 at 4:58 pm (#)
I find that I still worry that I may be mistaken as saying that reason is evil. That is not what I am saying; nor do I believe that Martin Luther was saying this. On the contrary, I believe (and there is evidence that Luther also believed; else why did he call reason “the most important and the highest in rank among all things and, in comparison with other things of this life, the best and something divine”?) that Reason is one of the most important attributes that Man (as a collective entity, thus the capitalization) possesses.
The problem with Reason lies not in an inherent evil within Reason itself, but in the weakness in the mind and heart of Man that think himself the pinnacle of Reason and perfection; and therefore assumes that all that he reasons is correct; which weakness comes from the stain of sin.
But when the Spirit of God lives in a man (or woman), this faculty is raised up to a new level that is capable of witnessing the Truth and Glory of God. Not flawlessly, for while we are yet on Earth, we still retain the trappings of the sin nature; yet the sanctified Man will be enabled to see glimpses of a more pure Reason which properly gives Glory to God, thus functioning as it was intended.
Perhaps it would be better to say that this Reason finally gets the proper foundation on which to begin reasoning; but even the processes of Reason are fallen within Man as he is on this earth, as can be readily seen on the Wikipedia page for Logical Fallacies.