Daniel von Wachter

Some have tried to make miracles compatible with the laws of nature by re-defining them as something other than interventions. By contrast, this article argues that although miracles are divine interventions, they are not violations of the laws of nature. Miracles are also not exceptions to the laws, nor do the laws not apply to them. The laws never have exceptions; they never are violated or suspended, are probably necessary and unchangeable, and apply also to divine interventions. We need to reconsider not miracles but laws. The main claim of this article is that laws of nature do not entail regularities, and therefore that miracles do not violate the laws. We need a new theory of the laws of nature: the tendency theory.

Friedrich Schleiermacher suggested that his project was to make Christianity compatible with reason and with the natural sciences. This article argues that Schleiermacher re- jected Christian doctrine und developed a religion which he called ‘Christian’ but which does not contain the Chris- tian doctrine and which is not rational. The article sketches Schleiermachers rejection of Christian doctrine, examines his claim that the natural sciences exclude miracles, criti- cises Schleiermachers non-cognitivism, and sketches the role of doctrine in Christianity.

If God brings about an event in the universe, does it have a preceding cause? For example, if the universe began with the Big Bang and if God brought it about, did the Big Bang then have a preceding cause? The standard answer is: yes, it was caused by a divine willing. I propose an alternative view: God’s actions, unlike human actions, are not initiated by willings, undertakings, or volitions, but God brings about the intended event directly. Presenting a solution to the dilemma of free will I explain what ‘bringing about directly’ means and show that the question of what an action begins with is distinct from the question whether it is a basic action.

Einige versuchen, Wunder mit den Naturgesetzen vereinbar zu machen, indem sie „Wunder“ als etwas anderes als göttliche Eingriffe definieren. Dieser Aufsatz behauptet hin- gegen, daß Wunder die Naturgesetze nicht verletzen, obwohl sie göttliche Eingriffe sind. Wunder sind auch keine „Ausnah- men“ der Naturgesetze, noch treffen die Naturgesetze nicht auf sie zu. Naturgesetze haben nie Ausnahmen, sie werden nie verletzt oder ausgesetzt, sie sind wahrscheinlich notwen- dig und unveränderlich, und sie treffen auch auf göttliche Ein- griffe zu. Wir sollten nicht unsere Vorstellung von Wundern, sondern unsere Vorstellung der Naturgesetze in Frage stel- len. Die Hauptthese dieses Aufsatzes ist, daß Naturgesetze keine Abfolgeregelmäßigkeiten implizieren und daß deshalb Wunder die Naturgesetze nicht verletzen. Wir brauchen eine neue Theorie der Naturgesetze: die Tendenztheorie.

Branden Thornhill-Miller and Peter Millican as well as Janusz Salomon put forward versions of supernaturalism that avoid the existence of a religion which alone provides the true revelation and the only way to salvation and which teaches that God acted in this world. Their rejection of revealed, exclusive religion is based on an argument from religious diversity and an argument from natural explana- tions of religious phenomena. These two together form the ‘common-core/diversity dilemma’. In this article I refute these two arguments by arguing that explaining the origin of belief in supernatural agents does not provide a reason for not believing in the existence of supernatural agents.

English: Between 1960 and 2000 many German-speaking professors of philosophy confined their research to the history of philosophy, they did not defend their own answers to philosophical questions. This article describes some possible causes of this phenomenon, makes a plea for defending answers to philosophical questions, and gives some guidelines for doing so which anticipate some objections. German: Zwischen 1960 und 2000 beschränkten sich viele deutschsprachige Philosophieprofessoren auf Philosophiegeschichtsschreibung, sie verteidigten nicht ihre eigenen Antworten auf philosophische Fragen. Dieser Aufsatz beschreibt einige mögliche Ursachen dafür, ruft dazu auf, wieder Antworten auf philosophische Fragen zu verteidigen, und schlägt einige Leitlinien dafür vor, welche einigen Einwänden vorbeugen sollen.

Die liberale Theologie geht davon aus, daß man die traditionelle christliche Lehre heute nicht mehr glauben kann und daß man sie deshalb verändern muß. Sie will sich nicht vom Christentum offen absagen, sondern das Christentum verändern oder eine neue Version des Christentums einführen. Radical Orthodoxy (RO), vor allem von John Milbank gegründet, will eine Gegenbewegung dazu sowie zum Säkularismus sein: „A theology which claims to be radical and orthodox“. In diesem Aufsatz möchte ich untersuchen, ob sie es wirklich ist, und ich werde Indizien dafür vorstellen, daß sie es nicht ist. Vor diesem Hintergrund werde ich dann die Analytische Religionsphilosophie (oder Analytische Theologie) als Alternative vorstellen.

This paper argues that there are true synthetic modal claims and that modal questions in philosophy in general are to be interpreted not in terms of logical necessity but in terms of synthetic necessity. I begin by sketching the debate about modality between logical positivism and phenomenology. Logical empiricism taught us to equate being tautological with being necessary. The common view is that tautologies are necessary in the narrow sense but that there is also necessity in a wider sense. I argue against this that we should distinguish necessity from analyticity and possibility from consistency.

A theory of causation with ‘tendencies’ as causal con- nections is proposed. Not, however, as ‘necessary connec- tions’: causes are not sufficient, they do not necessitate their effects. The theory is not an analysis of the concept of causation, but a description of what is the case in typical cases of causation. Therefore it does not strictly contradict any analysis of the concept of causation, not even reduct- ive ones. It would even be supported by a counterfactual or a probabilistic analysis.

This article argues against Benjamin Libet's claim that his experiment has shown that our actions are caused by brain events which begin before we consciously undertake the action. It clarifies what exactly should be meant by saying that the readiness potential causes, initiates, or prepares an action. It shows why Libet's experiment does not support his claim and why the experiments by Herrmann et al. and by Trevena \& Miller provide evidence against it. The empirical evidence is compatible with strong libertarian free will. Neither the readiness potential nor the lateralized readiness potential cause our actions.

While other philosophers have pointed out that Libet's experiment is compatible with compatibilist free will and also with weak libertarian free will, this article argues that it is even compatible with strong libertarian free will (SLF), \ie a person's ability to initiate causal processes. Contrary to what Libet suggested, the actions in the experiment were motivated by urges. It is in accordance with SLF that the urges had preceding unconcious causes. Furthermore, Libet's observation that vetoing is possible confirmes SLF.