uliar mutual relation and attraction. For, if we think out the
relation clearly, we must see that all real and consistent belief in
miracles demands as its most effective background the clearest
possible explicability of nature. It pictures to itself two natures,
so to speak: nature and supernature, and the latter of these
interpolates itself into the former in the form of sudden and
occasional interruptions; that is to say, as miracles. The purpose
of miracles is to be recognised as such, as events absolutely
different from the ordinary course of happening. And they are most
likely thus to be recognised when nature itself is translucent and
mathematical. Thus we find that supernaturalism quite readily
accepts, and even insists upon a rationalistic explanation of
nature. But this is quite incorrect. Nature is not so thoroughly
rationalised and calculable as such a point of view would have us
believe.

The really religious element in belief in miracles is that it, too,
in its own way, is seeking after mystery, dependence and providence.
It fails because it naively seeks for these in isolated and
exceptional acts, which have no analogy to other phenomena. It
regards these as arbitrary acts, and does so because it overlooks or
underestimates the fact that they have to be reckoned with
throughout the whole of nature.

2 Not even after the scholastic manner of regarding eternity as a
"nunc stans," a stationary now, an everlasting present. "Present" is
a moment in our own time, and an "everlasting" present is nonsense.

3 "Reden ueber die Religion, an die Gebildeten unter ihren Veraechtern."
Neu herausgegeben von R. Otto. 1906.

4 Kgl. Preuss. Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1876.

5 Some of these subsidiary factors are difficult to harmonise with the
main principle of selection; they endanger it or it endangers them,
as we shall see when we consider the controversies within the
Darwinian camp.

6 H. Friedmann, "Die Konvergenz der Organismen," Berlin, 1904.

7 It is somewhat confusing that even Weismann in his most recent work
professes to give "Lectures on the Theory of Descent," and in
reality only assumes it, concerning himself with the Darwinian
theory in the strict sense. The English translation is more
correct