Abstract :
Responding to my claims in ‘Schleiermacher and Otto on religion’,A. D. Smith has argued that there is ‘nothing to distinguish’ Schleiermacher andOtto on the topics of the naturalistic explanation of religion and divine interventionin the natural order. There are respects in which Smith seems not to haveunderstood my arguments, and his most significant challenge to my claims aboutSchleiermacher rests on a conflation of two different questions at issue inSchleiermacher’s discussion of the incarnation. Further, Smith’s correct observationthat I have misinterpreted Otto on an important matter is itself coupled with asimilar misreading on his part. Smith’s arguments prompt me to revise my view ofOtto, but not to abandon the idea that he and Schleiermacher assumed differentpositions on the topics at issue
