In this paper, I provide a novel approach to the issue of religious diversity: I reject classical pluralist approaches to the issue, such as John Hick’s, and argue that their attempts to construe commonalities between the religions are contrived. The reason that they attempt to find commonalities at all costs is that they presuppose a bivalent notion of truth according to which that which is different is false. I suggest that, in order to get a robust theory on religious diversity (...) off the ground, we should rely on the notion of justification rather than that of bivalent truth. Justification is pluralizable, dependent upon the circumstances, whereas bivalent truth is not. Armed with a pluralizable notion of justification, we can acknowledge that other religious beliefs are genuinely different without necessarily being false: They can be justified, given the circumstances a believer of a different religion is in. Perceiving religious differences in this way allows to liberate the interreligious dialogue from the pressure to find commonalities between religions at all costs, to respect the religious Other in her Otherness, and to ‘mirror’ one’s own religion in light of other religions. (shrink)

In this reply, I take up the challenges the five respondents raised. In particular, I deal with the issues of truth, bivalence, tolerance, and justification.

In chapter I, different types of interpretations of Lessing’s ring-parable are introduced. After a summary of them , the different types are sketched and their plausibility is evaluated . I suggest preferring the interpretation according to which Lessing suggests that, although the truth of religion is undecided, we can nevertheless be epistemically justified to continue believing in our Christian, Jewish, Muslim ...religion . In chapter II, I defend the philosophical tenability of Lessing’s solution. He does not advocate the philosophically untenable (...) idea that truth can be relativized . His contentions should be interpreted as not primarily targeting questions of truth proper but, rather, questions of justification. After sketching the difference between accounts of justification and of truth proper, I show in which fashion Lessing answers questions of justification . In chapter III, I show that a solution along Lessing’s lines brings fresh and promising resources to the study of the philosophy of religion. What I call the standard paradigmin the philosophy of religion, viz. the attempt to demonstrate the truth or falsity of religion, has provided inconclusive results in my judgment. And there is little hope that the decisive argument for or against religion will surface in the foreseeable future. Thus I suggest that, rather than devoting our energies to the standard paradigm, we should devote them to what I call the new paradigm. According to the latter, the question whether or not certain religious utterances are epistemically justified rather than the question whether they are true is crucial . Finally, I show in which fashion William James, Alvin Plantinga, and my own coherentist holism are all proponents of this new paradigm, thus intellectual allies of Lessing. (shrink)

English summary: It seems that reason is less a universal principle than something inherently bound to the contexts in which it appears. These contributions to a conference held on the occasion of Christoph Schwobel's 60th birthday explore the character of reason's manifold contexts: the grounding of reason in the inner word of God 's Trinitarian life as well as the disclosure of reason and and its limits in human conversation. German description: Vernunft scheint in der Gegenwart weniger ein allgemeines Prinzip (...) als eine in Kontexte eingebundene Grosse zu sein. Die Beitrage einer Tagung anlasslich von Christoph Schwobels 60. Geburtstag, gehen der Frage nach dem Charakter dieser Kontextbindung nach: der Begrundung der Vernunft im trinitarischen Gesprach wie der Erschliessung und Problematisierung der Vernunft im menschlichen Gesprach. Mit Beitragen von V. Brummer, G. van den Brink, C. Drobe, H. J. Eckstein, D.-M. Grube, J. Halfwassen, S. Heine, F. Hermanni, E. Herms, W. Harle, W. Homolka, W. Jeanrond, R. W. Jenson, D. Kelsey, A. F. Koch, A. Kupsch, V. Leppin, P.-C. Lai, P. Lo, A. Min, J. Moltmann, M. Muhling, P. Peterson, M. Sarot, F. Schweitzer, A. Torrance, J. Webster, M. Welker, M. Wendte, M. Wisse, H. Wisskirchen und L. Zak. (shrink)

ABSTRACTThis paper argues that, historically, Christianity emerges out of Judaism by way of a paradigm shift in Thomas Kuhn’s sense of the word and that this emergence has normative consequences regarding the legitimacy of Christianity. Paradigm shifts are characterized by observational anomalies triggering particular kinds of theoretical modifications, e.g. meaning-changes of key terms, leading to a coherent re-disclosure of reality. The first Christians underwent such a paradigm shift: The anomalous experience that the dead Jesus has risen triggered theoretical modifications – (...) the term ‘Messiah’ underwent a meaning-change – so that reality could be coherently re-disclosed as eschatological reality. If Christianity emerges by way of a paradigm shift, this shift should be the foundation of Christological theorizing: Rather than basing Christology on what the ‘historical Jesus’ did or said, the reconstruction of Jesus as the Christ in the context of this shift is foundational for Christ... (shrink)

SummaryIn this article, I argue that Barth resists the modern “turn to the subject” and that important features of his approach can be explained as being motivated by this resistance. Under the parameters of this “turn”, the human subject occupies a position which should be reserved for God. As an antidote to this turn, Barth suggests an exchange of subjects: The role that the subject occupies under subjectivist parameters should be taken over by a Trinitarian notion of God. This suggestion (...) explains to a great extent the approach he takes since his famous “breakthrough” and explains also his harsh rejection of Brunner.ZusammenfassungIn diesem Aufsatz wird argumentiert, dass eine der treibenden Kräfte von Barths theologischem Ansatz seine Opposition gegen den »turn to the subject« in der Philosophie und der Theologie ist. Er kritisiert alle Formen der Theologie, bei denen das Subjekt im Mittelpunkt steht. Demgegenüber setzt er betont den Gottesbegriff in die Funktion ein, die der Subjektbegriff in der subjektzentrierten Theologie inne hat.Die seit der Moderne verbreitete Idee, dass ein Erkenntnisgegenstand zunächst als möglich aufgewiesen werden muss, bevor über seine Realität etwas ausgesagt werden kann, steht im Mittelpunkt von Barths Kritik seit seiner »Wende«: Während in der englischen Übersetzung vom »Unterricht in der christlichen Religion« dieser Punkt verloren zu gehen droht, wird im deutschen Original deutlich, dass, in theologicis, die Realität der Möglichkeit vorgeordnet wird.Nach einem kurzen Exkurs zur Entstehung der subjektzentrierten Philosophie bei Descartes und Kant wird gezeigt, wie die Theologie durch diesen »turn to the subject« beeinflusst ist. In Kap. VI wird aufgewiesen, dass ein nicht zu entschärfender, prinzipieller Gegensatz besteht zwischen subjektzentrierter Theologie und traditioneller Theologie bezüglich der Frage, wer im Mittelpunkt steht, das Subjekt oder Gott. Nachdem das Thema des Subjektwechsels im »Unterricht« genauer analysiert worden ist, wird gezeigt, dass Barths berühmtes »Nein!« voraussetzt, dass Brunner genau diesen Wechsel nicht mit vollzieht und darum noch subjektzentrierten Kategorien verhaftet ist. (shrink)

This volume synthesizes cutting-edge philosophical reflections on interpretation with their application to the practice of interpreting religious texts, combining new philosophical insights with a thorough analysis of their application to religion.

ZusammenfassungIn diesem Beitrag konzentriere ich mich auf Bayers Interpretation von Luthers Rechtfertigungsverständnis als promissio. In Teil I skizziere ich Bayers zentralen Gedanken, dass dieser Begriff als performativer Sprechakt in Austins Sinne verstanden werden muss, d.h. als ein Akt, der durch seinen Vollzug neue 〉Tatsachen〈 konstituiert und nicht nur schon existierende Tatsachen registriert. Die Worte der Absolution registrieren nicht, dass der Sünder gerechtfertigt ist, sondern vollziehen die Rechtfertigung, wenn sie im richtigen Kontext gesprochen werden.In Teil II beurteile ich die Konsequenzen dieser (...) Interpretation der Rechtfertigung. Einerseits schlage ich vor, dass Bayers Interpretation die Aspekte des Rechtfertigungsverständnisses zum Ausdruck bringt, die für das Luthertum charakteristisch sind und verteidigt werden sollten. Andererseits jedoch kritisiere ich Bayers Behauptung, dass dieses Verständnis der Rechtfertigung als promissio alle Versuche unterminiert, theologische Aussagen zu verifizieren. Ich fasse diese Spannung zwischen der religiösen, pro-lutherischen Perspektive und der philosophischen, Luther-kritischen Perspektive in einem Dialog zwischen dem lutherischen Herzen und dem philosophischen Verstand zusammen.In Teil III stelle ich dar, dass diese Spannung zwischen dem lutherischen Herzen und dem philosophischen Verstand nicht leicht aufzulösen ist, da beide auf ihre Weise wertvoll sind. Trotzdem mache ich in der Konklusion zwei vorsichtige Vorschläge: Der erste besteht darin, dass der Gedanke der 〉Verifikation〈 in einer im weitesten Sinne pragmatischen Form rekonstruiert werden sollte, um aus lutherischer Perspektive akzeptabel zu sein. Der zweite Vorschlag besteht darin, den nicht-relationalen Hintergrund, der vorausgesetzt ist, wenn Rechtfertigung relational interpretiert wird , als ein 〉Vorurteil〈 im Sinne Gadamers zu verstehen, d.h. als in jedem Akt des Verstehens vorausgesetzt und doch jederzeit revidierbar.SummaryIn this contribution, I focus on Bayer's interpretation of Luther's concept of justification as promissio. In part I, I sketch Bayer's central idea that this concept is to be understood as a performative speech-act in Austin's sense, i. e. as an act constituting novel ‘facts’ while being performed rather than registering already existing ones. The words of the absolution do not only register that the sinner is justified but, when being spoken in the proper circumstances, actually do justify him.In part II, I evaluate the consequences of this interpretation of justification. On the one hand, I suggest that Bayer's interpretation captures the aspects of the concept of justification which are characteristic of Lutheranism and should be defended. On the other hand, however, I criticize Bayer's contention that his concept of justification as promissio undermines all attempts to verify theological claims. I summarize the tension between the religious, pro-Lutheran perspective and the philosophical, Luther-critical perspective in a dialogue between Lutheran heart and philosophical mind.In part three, I suggest that there is no easy way out of the tension between Lutheran heart and philosophical mind since both are valuable in their own way. Nevertheless, I offer two cautious suggestions by way of conclusion: The first is that the idea of ‘verification’ should be reconstructed in a pragmatic spirit in order to be acceptable from a Lutheran perspective. The second is that the non-relational background which is presupposed by construing justification in a relational fashion should be construed as a Gadamerian ‘prejudice’, i. e. as being presupposed in every act of understanding, yet, as always being open to revision. (shrink)

In dieser Aufsatzsammlung werden die Probleme und Konsequenzen des Offenbarungsbegriffs im Denken Paul Tillichs untersucht. Zunächst wird dieser Begriff näher thematisiert anhand der Fragen, wie dieser gewonnen wird und welche Rolle dabei die Phänomenologie spielt, ob dessen Ausarbeitung zu stark von subjektivistischen Voraussetzungen geprägt ist und wie sich die Offenbarungserkenntnis zur wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnis verhält.Im Anschluss daran werden charakteristische Aspekte von Tillichs Theologie analysiert: sein Postulat mystischer Unmittelbarkeit als Grund von Offenbarung, die Frage nach der Rolle der Erfahrung bei der Begründung (...) von Offenbarungserkenntnis, seine Korrelationsmethode, d.h. die Zuordnung von philosophischen Fragen und theologischen Antworten, sowie die Bedeutung von Tillichs Christologie - in der Spannung zwischen absoluten Geltungsansprüchen und deren Relativierung - für den interreligiösen Dialog heute. Auf diese Weise wird deutlich, dass die Impulse von Tillichs Ansatz von bleibender Bedeutung für die gegenwärtige Theologie sind, besonders was das Gespräch mit den nicht-christlichen Religionen und der Philosophie angeht. (shrink)

The relationship between religion and contingency is investigated historically and systematically. Its historical part comprises analyses of important philosophers’ interpretation of this relationship, viz. that of Leibniz, Kant, Lessing, Jaspers, and Heidegger. Its systematic part analyses how this relationship should be currently interpreted.

In Karl Barth’s famous ‘Epistle to the Romans’, Second edition, the negation seems to be dominant: Each and every possibility to ‘have’ God, i.e. to cognize Him, is denied. More precisely speaking, Barth proposes a dialectics of negation and affirmation within which the negation seems to be dominant: He alludes frequently to the possibility to cognise God but then denies that possibility. An important question in Barth-research is thus how this dialectics is to be interpreted. Most Barth-researchers approach this question (...) via ‘ideengeschichtliche’ means, i.e. via the question what the background of Barth’s dialectics consists of. In chapter I, I scrutinize both of the currently prevailing paradigms for explaining the background of Barth’s dialectics: In line with the majority of current researchers on the issue, I suggest that the neo-Kantian ‘dialectics of origin’ has influenced the formulation of the dialectics in Romans II. Karl Barth became familiar with that dialectics through his brother Heinrich Barth, a neo-Kantian . However, against a recent trend in Barth-research, I suggest that the influence of Sören Kierkegaard’s ‘dialectics of existence’ should not be underestimated. Karl Barth used both sorts of dialectics side by side . In chapter II, I draw the systematic consequences of the ‘ideengeschichtliche’ considerations of chapter I. First, I suggest that philosophical explanations of the above sort account for the basic ‘raison d’être’ for there being such a dialectics, non-philosophical explanations for its specific shape. That is, the classical psychological explanations of the dialectics of Romans II explain the reason why he emphasizes the negation within the dialectics that strongly but cannot sufficiently explain the fact that there is such a dialectics. In II, 2, I utilize the above considerations to answer the classical question whether the negation has priority over the affirmation. I deny that. Barth emphasizes the negation within the dialectics of affirmation and negation strongly in order to reject the thendominant Liberal Theology. Yet, conceptually, his dialectics presupposes a more fundamental affirmation, viz. that God is totaliter aliter. But is the affirmation that God is ‘totaliter aliter’ not inconsistent? Either He is ‘totaliter aliter’ – in this case we cannot say anything meaningful about Him, not even that He is ‘totaliter aliter’. Or, else, we can say something meaningful about Him. But then He is not truly ‘totaliter aliter’. I suggest that a transcendental strategy provides interesting possibilities for getting out of that impasse: By holding that God is to be postulated on transcendental grounds rather than to be cognized in the proper sense of the word, it becomes possible to hold both that God is ‘totaliter aliter’, non-approachable and that we can claim that in a meaningful fashion. I admit, though, that applying transcendental strategies for theological purposes is not without problems. Yet, the prospects they provide for theological theorizing makes it worth investigating them further in spite of their problems. (shrink)

In Karl Barth’s famous ‘Epistle to the Romans’, Second edition, the negation seems to be dominant: Each and every possibility to ‘have’ God, i.e. to cognize Him, is denied. More precisely speaking, Barth proposes a dialectics of negation and affirmation within which the negation seems to be dominant: He alludes frequently to the possibility to cognise God but then denies that possibility. An important question in Barth-research is thus how this dialectics is to be interpreted. Most Barth-researchers approach this question (...) via ‘ideengeschichtliche’ means, i.e. via the question what the background of Barth’s dialectics consists of. In chapter I, I scrutinize both of the currently prevailing paradigms for explaining the background of Barth’s dialectics: In line with the majority of current researchers on the issue, I suggest that the neo-Kantian ‘dialectics of origin’ has influenced the formulation of the dialectics in Romans II. Karl Barth became familiar with that dialectics through his brother Heinrich Barth, a neo-Kantian . However, against a recent trend in Barth-research, I suggest that the influence of Sören Kierkegaard’s ‘dialectics of existence’ should not be underestimated. Karl Barth used both sorts of dialectics side by side . In chapter II, I draw the systematic consequences of the ‘ideengeschichtliche’ considerations of chapter I. First, I suggest that philosophical explanations of the above sort account for the basic ‘raison d’être’ for there being such a dialectics, non-philosophical explanations for its specific shape. That is, the classical psychological explanations of the dialectics of Romans II explain the reason why he emphasizes the negation within the dialectics that strongly but cannot sufficiently explain the fact that there is such a dialectics. In II, 2, I utilize the above considerations to answer the classical question whether the negation has priority over the affirmation. I deny that. Barth emphasizes the negation within the dialectics of affirmation and negation strongly in order to reject the thendominant Liberal Theology. Yet, conceptually, his dialectics presupposes a more fundamental affirmation, viz. that God is totaliter aliter. But is the affirmation that God is ‘totaliter aliter’ not inconsistent? Either He is ‘totaliter aliter’ – in this case we cannot say anything meaningful about Him, not even that He is ‘totaliter aliter’. Or, else, we can say something meaningful about Him. But then He is not truly ‘totaliter aliter’. I suggest that a transcendental strategy provides interesting possibilities for getting out of that impasse: By holding that God is to be postulated on transcendental grounds rather than to be cognized in the proper sense of the word, it becomes possible to hold both that God is ‘totaliter aliter’, non-approachable and that we can claim that in a meaningful fashion. I admit, though, that applying transcendental strategies for theological purposes is not without problems. Yet, the prospects they provide for theological theorizing makes it worth investigating them further in spite of their problems. (shrink)

In this article, evidentialism is refuted by relying on William James’ article ‘The Will to Believe’. After an introduction into the notion of ‘evidentialism’ and James’ attack on it , I distinguish between two sorts of evidentialisms, truth-oriented evidentialism and quiescent evidentialism . In 2.3–2.5, I criticize these forms of evidentialism on the grounds that the first has very limited applicability and the second leads to absurd consequences when applied in the moral domain. In section 3, the evidentialist challenge to (...) religion is refuted by arguing that, first, truth-oriented evidentialism is of only very limited applicability for criticizing religion and second, that quiescent evidentialism cannot be applied in certain situations , particular religious claims being among them. (shrink)

In the first part of this essay, some of the strategies atheists use to claim undeserved privileges for their position are analyzed. In particular, the connection between evidentialism and the idea that atheism is the natural starting position (“presumption of atheism”, Anthony Flew) is discussed. In addition, the extent to which the elimination of agnosticism as the third option between theism and atheism contributes to the discursive privilege of atheism is examined (with Paul Cliteur). In the second part, evidentialism is (...) reconstructed as a context-dependent theory of justification and the (A) theism problem is situated in the context of action instead of the context of knowledge. This avoids one-sided distribution of the burden of justification, especially the atheistic attempt to to burden the theist with the full burden of justification and at the same time to free the atheist from all burdens of justification. In this way, the discourse on the (a) theism problem can be reconstructed without assigning undeserved privileges. (shrink)