Richard Dawkins in his book “The God delusion” demonstrates a very poor understanding of Theology and matters of religion. This can be understood in part through his references to the Protestant Reformer, ‘Martin Luther’.
In his chapter “The roots of religion” (Page 190) Dawkins appears to argue that Christianity is against logical reasoning, which is a fallacy in itself and something that any decent Theological faculty would certainly disagree with Dawkins on and prove it by their works. Dawkins apparently quotes Martin Luther and offers a certain quote; “Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God”
Luther wrote in Latin and German and it is hard to define the quote itself due to variant translations and Dawkins offers no confirmation of which translation of Luther he is using, but it most likely comes from ‘Table Talk’ which was not actually written by Luther himself, but was written by students of Luther who are said to have written down what Luther said to them. But anyone who knows about the life and character of Luther will know that Luther’ views often changed. However, it is clear from the context of this passage that Luther is referring to ‘Faith alone’ being sufficient for salvation and not coming to believe in Jesus as savior through human reasoning. It is ‘faith alone’ and when human reasoning stands before the initial response of faith towards Jesus, it becomes an enemy of faith, for it prevents a soul coming to faith. Thus, Luther is not saying for one moment that when a person comes to faith, that reasoning through issues of faith and religion is an enemy of faith, but that when it stands before the coming to the cross, it then becomes an enemy of faith.
What Luther is saying can be explained in simple terms of illustration; I could say that the mind is the worst enemy of swimming, for a child learning to swim often does not want to swim through fear, which is from the mind. For a child who will not learn how to swim does so because he or she is afraid to get into the water through fear in the mind, thus you could say that ‘the mind is the greatest enemy that swimming has, even though we know that when a person learns how to swim, the mind is the greatest asset the swimmer has. Thus, if we take this understanding and apply it to Luther’s quote, we see that reason which stands in the way of taking the step of faith towards believing in Jesus, is in fact the enemy of faith, for it prevents people from believing in Jesus as savior, because of doubt and human reasoning.
Thus, the quote given by Dawkins is problematic when used wrongly in his argument, since Dawkins offers no real footnote in his work or any advice on contextual issues regarding Luther’s theology. It must be interpreted according to what Luther believed and not what Dawkins thinks Luther believed. One other problem which indicates a lack of research on Dawkins behalf is that he refers to a website which is not authoritative and thus he cannot even claim to have researched such a basic Lutheran book as ‘Table Talk’. Thus, it is clear that Dawkins has not read Luther correctly or understood Luther’s theology, if he had he would review what Luther meant by that statement and he would give a book source from either the complete works of Luther in German or in English or a single volume of Luther’s works, which Dawkins does not.
The problem is that Richard Dawkins is quoting a selective passage, not presenting any context or reason why or if this was said by Luther. Luther certainly stood at the Diet of Worms in 1521 and said, “Unless I am convinced by scripture and by plain reason…I cannot and I will not recant”. Note the words, “plain reason” thus, we must conclude that Luther was not against ‘Plain reason’.
This is also confirmed in Luther’s book, “The Bondage of the will” which was written against the views of the humanist and Oxford scholar Desiderius Erasmus. Luther states on (P 138) “We should speak according to a definite rule, in sober and proper terms; for what is wanted in teaching is simplicity and logical correctness, not the high-flown figures of a rhetorical persuasive.” (The Bondage of the will. Martin Luther. 1V. (i) P 138. Translated by J.I.Packer & O.R.Johnston)
This begs the question; Is Richard Dawkins an accurate scholar or able to deal with Theological matters?
I must state that after 2 degrees in Theology I see Richard Dawkins and his ideas about Theology akin to that of a primary school child to that of a University graduate and really, his fundamental error is that he has stepped over from science to Theology, thus he is dealing with Theological issues which I have proved he is not capable of doing.
Simon Peter Sutherland
Simon Peter Sutherland 
#1 by nicholas on December 18, 2012 - 10:24 PM
Well stated
#2 by Henry on June 5, 2015 - 1:51 PM
Apologist. Moron.
#3 by Jack on April 6, 2016 - 3:37 PM
Ad hominem. Incompetent.
#4 by Paul George on December 27, 2015 - 11:34 AM
If a woman becomes weary and at last dead from bearing, that matters not; let her only die from bearing, she is there to do it. Sermon Von dem ehelichen Stande (1519), p. 41 — as quoted in The Ethic of Freethought: A Selection of Essays and Lectures (1888) by Karl Pearson, “The Sex-Relations in Germany”, p. 424
Luther describes Jews as a “base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth.”Luther wrote that they are “full of the devil’s feces … which they wallow in like swine,”and the synagogue is an “incorrigible whore and an evil slut”.In the first ten sections of the treatise, Luther expounds, at considerable length, upon his views concerning Jews and Judaism and how these compare against Christians and Christianity. Following this exposition, Section XI of the treatise advises Christians to carry out seven remedial actions. These are –
for Jewish synagogues and schools to be burned to the ground, and the remnants buried out of sight; for houses owned by Jews to be likewise razed, and the owners made to live in agricultural outbuildings; for their religious writings to be taken away; for rabbis to be forbidden to preach, and to be executed if they do; for safe conduct on the roads to be abolished for Jews; for usury to be prohibited, and for all silver and gold to be removed and “put aside for safekeeping”; and for the Jewish population to be put to work as agricultural slave laborers.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Luther
Would like your comments on the above please Simon. Whether it’s Latin or German or English the sentiments expressed above seem pretty clear to me. Your defence?
#5 by Simon Peter Sutherland on January 8, 2016 - 4:22 PM
Thank you for your comment and quotes.
It is generally stated that Martin Luther had some views which were incorrect and from my perspective Luther had views I would not agree with.
The sermon quote, concerning the woman “dead from bearing” I would not agree with that opinion. If it was said in 1519, Luther was still under the influence of the Roman Catholic church at that point and had not broken away from it. I have never met any Christian who would say that.
In the quote concerning the Jewish people, he appears to reflect opinions concerning Jew’s who reject Jesus as Messiah, of which Jesus Himself was pretty harsh with them (See Matthew 12: 34, 23: 33 & John 5)
The quote where Luther says the Jew’s “boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth.” he was probably referring to St.Paul:
“Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ.“ Philippians 3: 8
“Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.” 1 Corinthians 7: 19
Luther was a product of his time and while that does not excuse some of his views, I would not seek to excuse them. I certainly do not think they are mandate or a position Christians take. There are many views I have read from Luther concerning opinions towards the Jewish people of his day. Many of which reflect his opinions concerning the Jewish people in Germany at his time. However, Luther could not have been ‘anti-semitic’ since Jesus Himself was Jewish as were the Apostles and Biblical authors. Paul was a Jew and he wrote;
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3: 28
I think, even if Luther had opinions that were wrong, it does not mean he was wrong when he was right. In other words, if a man is right about some things, he is right about them. If he is wrong about some things, he is wrong about those. Neither being right or wrong casts a shadow upon the things that a man is right about.
#6 by hisxmark on July 11, 2016 - 8:58 PM
“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.”
“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.”
“Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and … know nothing but the word of God.”
“There is on earth among all dangers no more dangerous thing than a richly endowed and adroit reason… Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed.”
“Reason should be destroyed in all Christians.”
“Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his Reason.”
“To be a Christian, you must “pluck out the eye of reason.”
Maybe Luther never said or wrote those things? Because, of course, what you don’t want to be true isn’t true.
#7 by simonpetersutherland2013 on July 12, 2016 - 9:53 AM
Thank you for your response.
Firstly, can you please provide a source for your quotes?
#8 by hisxmark2014 on July 12, 2016 - 10:38 AM
No, firstly: Do you deny that Luther said or wrote those things?
If you don’t deny that, there is no point in providing chapter and verse. If you do deny that he wrote or said them, and I show that he did indeed, how will you respond? Are you going to double down by retreating into philosophical or theological double talk? Are you going to excuse Luther as “a man of his time”? I am not going to waste time attacking a position that you are simply going to abandon or claim you never held.
Having dealt with religious delusions and denial before, I am somewhat wary of wasting time and effort documenting information that will simply be ignored or dismissed.
And, just to be clear, I regard a degree in theology with the same respect I would grant a degree from Hogwarts or Trump U.
#9 by simonpetersutherland2013 on July 12, 2016 - 5:28 PM
Thank you for your response.
Unless you are willing or able to present a source for this material, there really is nothing to accept, deny or talk about.
#10 by xon on December 14, 2016 - 7:43 PM
A simple search on the web would give you all the quotes and their references:
“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, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-148]
#11 by simon peter sutherland on December 22, 2016 - 12:39 PM
Thank you. Yes, we know the quote is there, but the point mentioned in the article is that Dawkins failed to provide a source for the quote.
As for the meaning behind the quote, we have to look at Luther’s thinking process. For example; when did Luther write or say that? Did always hold to an opinion or did he later change his views?
#12 by hisxmark2014 on December 22, 2016 - 7:23 PM
That Dawkins did not provide a citation is beside the point if the quote was accurate. And the quote says what it says, and if it means something else in context it is up to you to point it out.
#13 by simon peter sutherland on December 23, 2016 - 11:26 AM
I do not see it as “beside the point” that he failed to provide proper sources concerning a Theological topic. Theology demands sources and if a contributing person fails to provide them he is not taken seriously.
Likewise, I have not said that that quote does not mean what it says but that Luther’s thought process progressed. His views changed. Likewise, I have taken into account that the German has not been quoted either. Likewise, I have shown in the above article that Luther did not disagree with “plain reason”. His trial at Worms and other writings express this.
#14 by Coco on July 16, 2017 - 9:19 PM
I wished I could play mouse in this discussion a little longer!
#15 by simon peter sutherland on July 17, 2017 - 11:57 PM
Or cat and rat. Feel free. Anything to add?
#16 by Scientific Christian on February 12, 2019 - 2:22 AM
It appears to me as if the quotes you give of Luther are fake. Later, you give this as the source for the quote;
Martin Luther, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-148
What the hell? This isn’t a “citation”. What year was it published? Whose the author of the translation? Without this information, the reference is impossible to track. Perhaps intentionally.
#17 by Adam on August 21, 2016 - 2:33 AM
Yes he was you *******
#18 by simonpetersutherland2013 on August 21, 2016 - 1:53 PM
USER: Adam. Foul language is not permitted on this website. Any further comments containing bad language, cyber bullying or personal attacks and insults will not be approved.
#19 by hisxmark2014 on December 24, 2016 - 12:21 AM
The title you chose was: ‘Richard Dawkins is wrong: Martin Luther was not against “Reason” or “Logical correctness”
Your argument is that Dawkins was wrong. You can claim that he quoted Luther incorrectly, or that he misunderstood. Since the quote is widely available, and attributed to Luther, it is up to you to show that Luther didn’t say it, or that he retracted it, or explained it, or that it was a mis-translation of the German.
N.B. Just because a statement is not cited, or is unsubstantiated does not mean it is wrong.
If Luther changed his opinion, or his thought processes progressed, then you should indicate this with data supporting your assertion. If the quote was out of context, then you should provide the context.
This is, however, not really about theology. It is about what Dawkins said. You did not claim in your title that Dawkins failed to cite correctly by academic standards. You claimed he was wrong.
Perhaps your simplest alternative is just to say, “Luther was wrong.” That would be a position easier to defend.
#20 by simon peter sutherland on December 24, 2016 - 10:19 AM
Thanks for your comments.
In response, here is a quote from the above article: “Luther certainly stood at the Diet of Worms in 1521 and said, “Unless I am convinced by scripture and by plain reason…I cannot and I will not recant”. Note the words, “plain reason” thus, we must conclude that Luther was not against ‘Plain reason’.
This is also confirmed in Luther’s book, “The Bondage of the will” which was written against the views of the humanist and Oxford scholar Desiderius Erasmus. Luther states on (P 138) “We should speak according to a definite rule, in sober and proper terms; for what is wanted in teaching is simplicity and logical correctness, not the high-flown figures of a rhetorical persuasive.” (The Bondage of the will. Martin Luther. 1V. (i) P 138. Translated by J.I.Packer & O.R.Johnston)”
I’ll be happy to speak to you again about this matter, in the New Year.
#21 by hisxmark2014 on December 24, 2016 - 6:29 PM
So, Luther said one thing when he was on trial, and quite another when he was not. I suppose that was the “reasonable” thing to do. I think we’re done.
Happy new year!
#22 by Carleton Wu on September 13, 2017 - 4:49 PM
1)”I do not see it as “beside the point” that he failed to provide proper sources concerning a Theological topic. Theology demands sources and if a contributing person fails to provide them he is not taken seriously.”
If the quote is accurate, then you should grapple with the underlying question. If the quote is inaccurate then you should demonstrate its inaccuracy and be done with it- no point in debunking a quote that isn’t accurate.
But refusing to debate at all until sources are cited- and then moving backwards to a next prepared line of defense- is a transparent delaying tactic deployed by someone less interested in reaching the truth of the matter than in ‘winning’ the debate (ie reaching the conclusion most satisfactory to them personally regardless of whether it’s actually supportable or not).
2)Observing that Luther thought different things (either at different times due to changes in viewpoint, or even at the same time due to a certain amount of inconsistency/dissonance) does not invalidate the existence of one set of viewpoints. It certainly doesn’t allow for you to pick the more personally satisfactory set of viewpoints and dismiss the others.”Luther always disparaged reason” is as unsupportable as “Luther never disparaged reason”.
3)In the original post you pretend that Luther had a single coherent position that you were able to deduce- in comments, where more evidence piles up against this position (evidence that you were almost certainly familiar with), you retreat to observing that Luther said many things, and you like some of them ergo those are the ones that should be considered truly valid. In light of the quotes in the comments that you implicitly acknowledged (by retreating to the many-positions defense) your initial post is fundamentally dishonest.
3)”I have not said that that quote does not mean what it says but that Luther’s thought process progressed. His views changed.”
This was not your original argument at all. Your original argument was that Luther had a single position, deducible from his writings, and that Dawkins had misunderstood or misrepresented this singular position.
I must state that I see your feints, stonewalling, and misrepresentation of both yours and others’ positions as akin to a surly teenager to that of a seeker after truth and really, your fundamental error is that you lack the requisite courage to challenge your own convictions out of an apparent fear that they cannot stand exposure to such a test.
#23 by Emilio Varga on March 21, 2018 - 1:33 PM
I always “love” arrogant theocrats like you who run like cows with mad-cow-disease away from what Luther actually said. He HATED and condemned reason as he also hated and condemned Jews in his “charming” treatise, On Jews and Their Lies, — the “blueprint” for the Nazis treatment of the Jews, they HONORED Luther by staging book-burnings and the Krystallnacht on his birthday and following his plan on what to do with them to the letter as per Section XI of the treatise advises Protestants to carry out seven remedial actions. These area;
1. to burn down Jewish synagogues and schools and warn people against them;
2. to refuse to let Jews own houses among Christians;
3. for Jewish religious writings to be taken away;
4. for rabbis to be forbidden to preach;
5. to offer no protection to Jews on highways;
6. for usury to be prohibited and for all silver and gold to be removed, put aside for safekeeping, and given back to Jews who truly convert; and
7, to give young, strong Jews flail, axe, spade, and spindle, and let them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow
(SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies)
This man was nothing but a vile misogynistic bigot, no better than the Catholic prelates he had the immense hypocrisy to criticise, and NO, I’m not a Catholic (never was one), just not impressed with the vicious people fronted as so “righteous” by supremely arrogant “theologists” (your degrees in theology…what are they really worth in helping make the world a better place?).
#24 by simon peter sutherland on March 21, 2018 - 2:40 PM
Thanks for your comments.
The context of this post is that Richard Dawkins has misrepresented what Luther said and stood for. In response to your rant, I do not know that any Christian has claimed that Luther was a perfect man or that he did not say some things against the Jews of his day? On the contrary, Luther’s lack of perfection is what we know as ‘original sin’. He was no better or worse than you or I. But if Luther hated the Jews in the same way that you claim he did, then how can you explain why he loved Jesus Christ, and followed a book written by the Jews? Moses, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, David, the prophets, the Gospels and the letters of St Paul and Peter, James and John were all written by Jews. Can you explain that?
Yes, the Nazi’s did use Luther’s quotes to justify their evil. But Hitler also used the Roman Catholic Church. He used anything, as evil people do, to gain power. No man can be responsible for some evil wretch to twist his words 500 years or so after they were written.
The world can be a beautiful place and it will be one day. But right now, it is a horrible world. If it were not for Luther, many more people would have died. There would have been many men and women who died unmarried and childless, because both priests and nuns were forbidden to marry. There would have been no German Bible for over 300 years or English Bible or King James Bible or the Bible in many languages. There would be no modern English, because Tyndale was inspired by Luther. Democracy in the UK was brought about by Protestants who were inspired by Luther’s reformation. The abolition of the slave trade was brought about by Protestants who were inspired by Luther’s reformation. Who are you to judge Luther? The world is a better place now because of the Reformation.
But when you have set free nuns from Catholic bondage, when you have dared challenge the roman church and had a bounty put up on your life from the Pope, when you have been hated and hunted for what you believe, had your writings burned, condemned a heretic, but still trusted not in your own righteousness, but in Christ, then maybe you might be in a place to judge Luther. Or any other Christian for that matter.
#25 by Ian Truscott on April 1, 2018 - 3:15 AM
I liked your “learning to swim” example of how Luther probably meant his advice re “reason” – not to shun it, but that in certain situations, one is better concentrating elsewhere. I just read, in Dawkins’ “God Delusion” book, the patronizing tedious chapter where he tries to give an explanation for religion, ignoring the obvious “God-shaped vacuum” we each have. His quote of Luther did not ring true; hence my Google search. So I appreciated your explanation.
#26 by simon peter sutherland on April 2, 2018 - 12:55 PM
Thank you, I’m here to help.
#27 by Nicholas Berkley on April 3, 2018 - 5:09 PM
The example of “learning to swim” conflates “fear” with “the mind”. You begin by talking of “fear” and then compare this “to the mind” and state, “you could say that ‘the mind is the greatest enemy that swimming has”. I disagree, no you cannot say that. Fear is not synonymous with the mind.
#28 by simon peter sutherland on April 4, 2018 - 10:59 AM
Any proofs to verify your disagreement?
#29 by XTC on April 13, 2018 - 1:39 PM
A few things:
1. “appears to argue that Christianity is against logical reasoning, which is a fallacy in itself” Explain which logical fallacy has been invoked. It’s literally just the premise. (Let’s leave aside the fact you believe in a magical man in the sky, with no substantive evidence, which itself defies logical reasoning.)
2. “it is clear that Dawkins has not read Luther correctly.” This is always a fun one to read right after “hard to define the quote itself due to variant translations.” How did you come to the conclusion that YOUR personal version was correct?
3. “Thus, Luther is not saying for one moment that when a person comes to faith, that reasoning through issues of faith and religion is an enemy of faith, but that when it stands before the coming to the cross, it then becomes an enemy of faith.” Essentially, what you’re saying here is, use your logic and reasoning all you want, but don’t bring it into church or it’ll get in the way of you worshipping the sky man; put it aside or your blind faith will fizzle out. You don’t appear to understand Dawkins own assertions about the negative effects (war, genocide, denial of social equality, special exemptions from criticism and taxes, and so forth) of religiosity.
#30 by simon peter sutherland on April 13, 2018 - 11:20 PM
Thanks. In all my presentations, I make it known exactly where I stand concerning belief and who I am. So, it would help me understand you if you would care to state where you stand and who you are? However, before then, here are some of my responses.
1. Why is it a logical fallacy?
You say: “(Let’s leave aside the fact you believe in a magical man in the sky, with no substantive evidence, which itself defies logical reasoning.)
I say, you are wrong. I do not believe in a “magical man in the sky”. God is not a magical man, neither is Christ.
You say: “with no substantive evidence”. Wrong again. There are about 8. 7 million species on the planet, 100 billion stars in the galaxy, over 7 billion people on earth. Do you forget gravity? Consciousness? Human complexity? DNA? Matter and ten thousand times ten thousand more wonderful things in life, yet you say there is no evidence. Sir, you are amazing!!!
And you say: “which itself defies logical reasoning”? Man, I think you need to take the plank out of your own eye, before you attempt remove the spec from mine.
2. I answer thus: I come to my conclusions about Luther, because I read the man himself. Too many critics of people fail to put the time and effort into actually reading the writings of the people they critique.
3. I reject your assumption that I have “blind faith”. On the contrary, the majority of new atheists are the ones guilty of blind faith, because they take the word of atheist scientists as gospel. I have never met a new atheist yet who has actually handled and critiqued the so called evidences for transition. However, I am going to ignore your childish and debased new atheist jargon about the “the sky man”. But, you make a serious point about how Dawkins wrote about the “negative effects (war, genocide, denial of social equality, special exemptions from criticism and taxes, and so forth) of religiosity.”. But again, you are wrong. I actually agree with some of the popular criticisms of “religiosity” which has furthered some of the problems you mention. However, I know there is not a single basis in any New Testament passage to accurately support genocide, or Christian based war, or special exemptions from criticism or of taxes. People are free to criticise Christianity all they want, we expect it and for any Christian to think that Christianity deserves an exemption from paying tax is clearly against Scripture. Jesus said “give to Caesar what is Caesar and to God what is Gods” (Matthew 22: 21)
Carry on…!!!
#31 by Lucas on May 5, 2018 - 11:00 PM
I am not an atheist, but atheism does not require faith. If one tries to define atheism in religious terms, it glaringly misses the point
#32 by simon peter sutherland on May 6, 2018 - 5:42 PM
Firstly, I disagree with your claims that “atheism does not require faith”, and should not be view in religious terms, because, by definition, a religion can imply something or a system that someone is bound to. ‘Faith’ is trust, of which, I accept the New Testament claim that there is only “one faith” (Ephesians 4: 5) and that human faith is not the faith spoken of in the Bible. But if a person trusts someone or something, it is measure of some kind of trust. I’m sure you would agree that ‘atheism’ makes more sense when viewed through the spectacles of Darwinism and that before a person can embrace that system, you must consider it trustworthy and true. That if a person views life and the world around us through Darwinian spectacles, there is little need for God or a god. But, in order to embrace that system or life choice, a person must have some form of ‘trust’ or acceptance that ‘science’ is a way to truth. Which, if you accept that, you have to accept that ‘truth’ is a very real concept, begging the question of where the concept of truth came from in the first place?
‘Atheism’ requires a certain amount of ‘trust’ in modern science and its interpretation of evidence and Darwinism and if a persons lifestyle reflects that atheism, it requires a certain amount of trust in ‘science’.
#33 by Mark A LaJoie on May 6, 2018 - 6:03 PM
In response to post #32: Science earns trust by accurate prediction of reality. Truth is simply the mental model that most closely corresponds to reality. Science observes reality, (facts,) and proposes and tests explanations of those facts.
Religions proposes fantasies to explain reality. These fantasies are called “spiritual” (windy) or “metaphysical” (untestable). All the prayers of all the godly did not rid the world of smallpox. Science did that.
As the enlightenment spread across Europe, Luther fought back attacking reason, and attempted to return to the age of superstition.
#34 by simon peter sutherland on May 8, 2018 - 3:25 PM
Thank you for commenting.
In response to #33: I could argue with evidence that ‘science’ as an organisation or global system, is no more trustworthy than any other man made institution. It certainly is not always “accurate” or “reality” based.
Neither does it always observe “reality, (facts,) and proposes and tests explanations of those facts.”. On the contrary, it does have facts, of course, but it mainly has evidences, but the interpretation of those evidences, are not always factual, but theoretical. There is a difference between ‘evidence’ and ‘fact’.
I do not entirely reject your claim that “Religions proposes fantasies to explain reality.” but I reject that claim in the context of ‘Biblical Christianity’. Jesus Christ is not a fantasy or a propagated fantasy. Neither are were the lives of the New Testament Apostles.
Likewise, I reject your comment concerning Luther, because you have not provided any proofs. So, until you do, I am not interested in those claims.
As for your comments: “All the prayers of all the godly did not rid the world of smallpox. Science did that.” my response, at this time, is; let us take a common situation or situations. ‘Two people are born from different families. Both born with unusual gifts. As they grow older, those gifts manifest and they are demonstrated to be unusual or genius. One person says the gift came from God in the first place, so he can’t take much credit for it, because God gave him the gift in the first place, so all he can claim credit for is using the gift wisely.’
‘The other person outright denies the gift came from God, but from himself alone or his DNA, alone. He denies any claim of a Divine being or a creator but claims humans are just matter, not soul or spirit. The other person says, but who gave DNA in the first place? Who created consciousness? Who created life? Who created the human mind? Who created the world we live in and time, space and matter?
So, in light of those two people, if the first person is correct, who deserves the credit for the initial gift?
I’m thinking, you take too much for granted!
#35 by Lucas on May 5, 2018 - 10:56 PM
It’s too funny that Luther’s views on reason have to be apologized for, and that because his views on reason require qualification by scripture. Your argument is not valid
#36 by simon peter sutherland on May 6, 2018 - 5:16 PM
Thank you for your comments.
Care to expound a little?
#37 by Elmore on August 21, 2018 - 12:23 PM
Dawkins is right. Luther’s simple message to the faithful is, be stupid and you will be saved.
#38 by simon peter sutherland on August 21, 2018 - 2:11 PM
Proofs?
#39 by David on November 26, 2018 - 7:32 PM
You article ends in with a false dichotomy and an ad hominem but worse, given the latter you are in no position to reasonably comment on Dawkins for he is doing science, not theology. I don’t agree with that, but it is a consequence of your attack.
#40 by simon peter sutherland on November 28, 2018 - 10:32 AM
Thank you for your comments. However, could you further explain your “false dichotomy” comment?
As for your other comments, you are wrong!!! For two reasons:
1) There is no “ad hominem”. Ad Hominem is by definition is directed at a person, rather than a position they are maintaining. There is not a single personal attack on his character or person.
2) You claim that “you are in no position to reasonably comment on Dawkins for he is doing science, not theology”. That is wrong also. Dawkins has crossed the line over from ‘Science’ to ‘Theology’.
By your own redefinition of ‘ad hominem’ it sounds more like you are guilty of the very same thing you say against me.
#41 by tenashas on December 31, 2018 - 9:15 PM
“thus he is dealing with Theological issues which I have proved he is not capable of doing” was the laugh I needed. Going back to reading the God Delusion. Happy new year
#42 by Scientific Christian on February 12, 2019 - 2:19 AM
Not only is Dawkins misrepresenting Luther, but is the quote even real? I mean, was it something that accurately reflect’s Luther’s words or a wholesale invention? Have you actually seen the quote in any reliable translation of Luther’s works?
#43 by simon peter sutherland on February 12, 2019 - 11:04 AM
Thank you for your comment. I appreciate any contribution you may make to the conversation.
#44 by simon peter sutherland on March 6, 2019 - 4:48 PM
NOTE: Comments that contain any form of mind games, cyber bullying or personal attacks and insults will not be approved.
#45 by simon peter sutherland on March 6, 2019 - 5:14 PM
A further source on this topic by theologian, priest, intellectual historian, scientist, Christian apologist, and public intellectual Alister McGrath, appears to affirm a similar argumentation as myself. Quote:
“In the God Delusion, he cites a few choice snippets from the sixteenth-century Protestant writer Martin Luther, culled from the internet, demonstrating Luther’s anxieties about reason in the life of faith.” The Dawkins Delusion? Atheist fundamentalism and the denial of the divine by Alister McGrath & Joanna Colicutt McGrath. Deluded about God? SPCK. P 6.
“Dawkins, God Delusion, 190. The web source provided is a list of citations, all in English translation, without the original German or Latin, or any indication of their sources, and making no attempt at scholarly engagement.” Notes, Deluded about God? Footnote 10.
#46 by Cal on March 6, 2019 - 5:15 PM
I think the real point here is that it was a comment that stemmed from a theist’s mind. Whether Luther or someone close to him, it happened, repeatedly, and it happened at the hand of a theist in a position of influence. Yes it’s attributed to Luther but does it really matter if it was him or someone else? Dawkins could have easily qualified his position in these terms and then this counter point would be moot, but he likely didn’t think it mattered. It certainly wasn’t an atheist behind the quotes.
Denying Luther authorship doesn’t erase the sentiment from history and quite frankly, even if the quote never occurred, the sentiment is still effortlessly demonstrated to be the stance of every single theist on the planet in regards to their faith. There’s no escaping the reality of it. Attempting to pry a name from a quote, or find a tiny flaw in Dawkins’ thorough position changes nothing. To elusidate, reaching to squeeze a tiny fallacy out of an extremely qualified position doesn’t falsify the position in its entirety. Yet, that appears to be the goal.
All supernatural explanation exists outside of reason. Whether deities or unicorns, the supposition occurs after reason is abandoned. Of course reason stands to be the enemy of the supernatural faith, it is anti-reason.. hence the many fallacies (rules) in place to expose the flaws. Did it fallacy- wish thinking -argument from ignorance, incredulity -divine fallacy -appeal to heaven, hearsay, faith -stolen concept -special pleading -unfalsifiability.. and so on, all fallacies that the supernatural subscribers absolutely depend on to maintain the held position. These listed are catastrophic to a position, yet, the very people guilty of them are attempting to say a minor, and unsubstantiated contextomy is irreconcilable? Not much integrity in that logic.
Even attempting to defend a position of faith by reason is a stolen concept. I’m willing to admit that Dawkins should’ve qualified the position by simply stating the quotes have been attributed to Luther but that he has no absolute affirmation of it. That said, the fact that he didn’t dot that I doesn’t weaken his position in the least, since it was irrelevant to the body of the argument in the first place.
Reason is and will always be an enemy of unfalsifiable faith. The two are mutually exclusive. Luther or no Luther, whomever said it was on the right track.
#47 by simon peter sutherland on March 7, 2019 - 11:11 AM
NOTE: Comments that contain any form of Gaslighting, manipulation tactics, psychological manipulation, framing flattery, time dominance, intimidation by numbers, will not be approved.
#48 by Loyce S Pinto on November 10, 2020 - 9:05 PM
Well the quote is of course used by Luther, Dawkins was incorrect in not citing it properly. Now I do not think he understood the quote properly that is true but I mean if we understand Luther’s anthropology we can come to the conclusion to which Dawkins reaches. Whether Dawkins understood it or not is another thing. (edited at request)
#49 by simon peter sutherland on November 11, 2020 - 10:03 AM
Thank you for commenting and engaging with this discussion.
It is interesting to note that Alister McGrath in his book “The Dawkins Delusion” (1. Deluded about God?) P. 6 and footnote 10, raises the same objection as I.
#50 by Loyce S Pinto on November 11, 2020 - 8:38 PM
Hi Simon can you delete my comment since I think I gave the wrong quote as this is another one? But yes I do agree with you and Alister, Dawkins does not quite understand what he is speaking off.
#51 by simon peter sutherland on November 12, 2020 - 10:06 AM
Yes, I’ve edited the quote in the comment. Thanks