About this topic
Summary David Hume, in Of Miracles (Section X. of An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding), claimed either that, because a miracle would be a ‘violation of the laws of nature’, miracles are impossible or that one cannot have a justified belief that a miracle occurred. This argument has evoked an enormous amount of discussion, both criticising the argument and endorsing the argument. It started right after the publication of Of Miracles and is still going on.
Key works Hume 1748 is the text where Hume presents the argument. Earman 2000 is a rather technical thorough criticism of the argument. Campbell 1839 is one of the many contemporary criticisms of the argument. Mackie 1982 endorses the argument.
Introductions Larmer 1988
  Show all references
Related categories
Siblings:See also:
133 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
1 — 50 / 133
  1. Dennis M. Ahern (1975). Hume on the Evidential Impossibility of Miracles. American Philosophical Quarterly:1 - 31.
    THE ESSAY "OF MIRACLES," IN ADDITION TO BEING ONE OF THE MOST PROVOKING SECTIONS OF HUME’S WRITINGS, IS ALSO ONE OF THE MOST WIDELY MISUNDERSTOOD. HUME CLAIMS HIS ARGUMENT IS SIMILAR TO AN ARGUMENT OF ARCHBISHOP TILLOTSON, AND I EXPLORE THE PARALLEL BETWEEN THE TWO ARGUMENTS IN DETAIL. FUNDAMENTAL TO BOTH IS THE CONCEPT OF EVIDENTIAL IMPOSSIBILITY: A PROPOSITION, P, IS EVIDENTIALLY IMPOSSIBLE IF AND ONLY IF ALLEGED EVIDENCE FOR THE TRUTH OF P WOULD NOT BE EVIDENCE FOR P, WERE (...)
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Wilfried K. Backhaus (1993). Advantageous Falsehood. Philosophy and Theology 7 (3):289-310.
    In Hume’s Of Miracles the person movecl by faith is put in a dilemma between faith and reason . Can one resolve this dilemma as a compleat Humean? The answer is yes. Within the Humean context different approaches can be developed ta overcome Hume’s dilemma. One uses Hume’s theory of utility to defend the belief in the afterlife. The other requires Hume to place faith on a par with beauty and therefore among the passions to which reason must be a (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Matthew C. Bagger (1997). Hume and Miracles. Journal of the History of Philosophy 35 (2):237 - 251.
    "Hume and Miracles" relates Hume’s essay "Of Miracles" to the Port-Royal ’Logic’ and John Locke. It argues that Hume did not, as is often supposed, intend to suggest that well-attested miracle reports defeat themselves by undermining the laws of nature they defy. Instead, Hume argues that the specifically ’religious’ nature of the testimony relating to miracle claims rules out their acceptance because of the frequency of fraud in religious matters. Hume’s views are too austere because one might wish to reject (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. David Basinger (1984). Miracles as Violations: Some Clarifications. Southern Journal of Philosophy 22 (1):1-7.
    SINCE THE TIME OF HUME, A MIRACLE HAS MOST FREQUENTLY BEEN DEFINED IN PHILOSOPHICAL CIRCLES AS A VIOLATION OF A NATURAL LAW CAUSED BY A GOD. I ARGUE THAT THERE IS A MEANINGFUL SENSE IN WHICH IT CAN BE SAID THAT A NATURAL LAW HAS BEEN VIOLATED. BUT I FURTHER ARGUE THAT SINCE AN EVENT CAN ONLY BE A VIOLATION IN THIS SENSE IF IT IS NOT CAUSED BY A GOD, NO MIRACLE CAN BE SAID TO BE A VIOLATION OF (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Steven M. Bayne (2007). Hume on Miracles: Would It Take a Miracle to Believe in a Miracle? Southern Journal of Philosophy 45 (1):1-29.
    Given Hume’s theory of belief and belief production it is no small task to explain how it is possible for a belief in a miracle to be produced. I argue that belief in a miracle cannot be produced through Hume’s standard causal mechanisms and that although education, passion, and testimony initially seem to be promising mechanisms for producing belief in a miracle, none of these is able to produce the belief in amiracle. I conclude by explaining how this poses a (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Francis Beckwith (1989). David Hume's Argument Against Miracles: A Critical Analysis. Univ Pr of America.
    This book is a presentation and critical analysis of Hume’s argument against miracles. In addition, this work contains a critique of contemporary rehabilitations of Hume’s argument by Flew, Nowell-Smith, and McKinnon, and a defense of the kalam cosmological argument for God’s existence. The author concludes that the concept of miracle is perfectly coherent and that it is possible that one can enough evidence to be epistemically justified in believing that one has occurred. This book also includes a discussion on the (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Francis J. Beckwith (1991). Hume's Evidential/Testimonial Epistemology, Probability, and Miracles. Logos 12:87 - 104.
    In this paper I will critically analyze the first part of David Hume’s argument against miracles, which has been traditionally referred to as the in-principle argument. However, unlike most critiques of Hume’s argument, I will (1) present a view of evidential epistemology and probability that will take into consideration Hume’s accurate observation that miracles are highly improbable events while(2) arguing that one can be within one’s epistemic rights in believing that a miracle has occurred. As for the proper definition of (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. David Berman (1980). Hume and Collins on Miracles. Hume Studies 6 (2):150-154.
  9. Larry Lee Blackman (1978). The Logical Impossibility of Miracles in Hume. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 9 (3):179 - 187.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. S. Buckle (2001). Marvels, Miracles, and Mundane Order. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 79 (1):1 – 31.
    Hume’s critique of religion in the first ’Enquiry’ is a unified whole. ’Of Miracles’ is not a free-standing critique of religion, but the first part of a two-stage argument. Hume follows Locke in subordinating evidence for miracles to natural theological arguments for the existence of God--without such supports miraculous claims are incredible (’disproven’ in his special sense). He differs from Locke in arguing, in ’Of a particular Providence’, that no such arguments are available. The decline of natural theology after Darwin (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Thomas Carey (2007). Aquinas (and Hume) on Miracles: Some Thoughts. Think 15 (15):97 - 107.
    Aquinas and Hume view miracles in starkly contrasting ways, as Thomas Carey here explains.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Steve Clarke (1999). Hume's Definition of Miracles Revised. American Philosophical Quarterly 36 (1):49 - 57.
    It is argued that Hume’s definition of miracle stands in need of revision because it fails to be inclusive of acts of supernatural intervention in the world which are non-law-violating. Potential revisions of the definition, due to Paul Dietl and Christopher Hughes are considered and found to be inadequate, and a new definition is put forward; a miracle is "an intended outcome of an intervention in the natural world by a supernatural agent." An objection to this definition is anticipated and (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Dorothy P. Coleman (1988). Hume, Miracles and Lotteries. Hume Studies 14 (2):328-346.
    THIS PAPER ANSWERS RECENT CRITICISMS OF HUME’S SKEPTICISM WITH REGARD TO MIRACLES BY THOSE WHO ARGUE THAT THERE ARE COUNTEREXAMPLES, ILLUSTRATED BY LOTTERIES, TO HUME’S ACCOUNT OF HOW THE TRUTH OF REPORTS ABOUT IMPROBABLE EVENTS MUST BE EVALUATED. THE AUTHOR FIRST SHOWS THAT THESE ARGUMENTS ARE ANALOGOUS TO BUTLER’S CRITICISM OF HUME’S PREDECESSORS IN THE DEBATE ABOUT MIRACLES. IT IS THEN ARGUED THAT EACH OF THESE CRITICISMS COLLAPSES THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PROBABILITIES PERTAINING TO EVENTS QUA UNIQUE OCCURRENCES AND PROBABILITIES PERTAINING (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Gary Colwell (1982). On Defining Away the Miraculous. Philosophy 57 (221):327 - 337.
    HUME AND HIS FOLLOWERS HAVE TRIED UNSUCCESSFULLY TO ESTABLISH THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF MIRACLES BY APPEALING SOLELY TO THE DEFINITIONS OF MIRACLE AND NATURAL LAW. HUME’S ARGUMENT TRADES UPON THAT PART OF THE DEFINITION OF MIRACLE WHICH PERTAINS TO THE NUMERICAL INSIGNIFICANCE OF MIRACULOUS EVENTS. HE DID NOT REALIZE THAT THE LARGE NUMERICAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NON-REPEATABLE IRREGULAR EVENTS AND REPEATABLE REGULAR ONES LOGICALLY CANNOT BE USED AS A CRITERION BY WHICH TO DETERMINE THE EXISTENTIAL STATUS OF NUMERICALLY SMALL NON-REPEATABLE IRREGULAR EVENTS. (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Patrick Corrigan (1990). Hume and the Problem of Miracles. Review of Metaphysics 44 (2):423-424.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. James Danaher (2012). David Hume and Jonathan Edwards On Reason, Miracles, and Religious Faith. Philosophical Inquiry 23 (3/4):141-152.
  17. James P. Danaher (2001). David Hume and Jonathan Edwards on Miracles and Religious Faith. Southwest Philosophy Review 17 (2):13-24.
    David Hume (1711-1776) and Jonathan Edwards (1703- 1758) had very different reputations concerning the Christian faith. In spite of this, they both had very similar positions concerning miracles and the supernatural. It is argued that although Hume rejects one type of miracle, he acknowledges another type. Edwards does essentially the same thing and rejects the same kind of miracle that Hume rejects, while acknowledging the kind of miracles that Hume acknowledges.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Philip Dawid & Donald Gillies (1989). A Bayesian Analysis of Hume's Argument Concerning Miracles. Philosophical Quarterly 39 (154):57-65.
  19. John M. DePoe (2008). Vindicating a Bayesian Approach to Confirming Miracles: A Response to Jordan Howard Sobel's Reading of Hume. Philosophia Christi 10 (1):229 - 238.
    This paper defends a Bayesian approach to confirming a miracle against Jordan Howard Sobel’s recent novel interpretation of Hume’s criticisms. In his book, ’Logic and Theism’, Sobel offers an intriguing and original way to apply Hume’s criticisms against the possibility of having sufficient evidence to confirm a miracle. The key idea behind Sobel’s approach is to employ infinitesimal probabilities to neutralize the cumulative effects of positive evidence for any miracle. This paper aims to undermine Sobel’s use of infinitesimal probabilities to (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Paul Dicken (2011). On Some Limitations of Humean Disagreement: Miraculous Testimony and Contrary Religions. Sophia 50 (3):345-355.
    As part of his wider critique of the credibility of miraculous testimony, Hume also offers a rather curious argument as to the mutual detriment of conflicting testimony for the miracles of contrary religious worldviews. Scholarship on this aspect of Hume’s reasoning has debated whether or not the considerations are to be understood as essentially probabilistic, and as to whether or not a probabilistic interpretation of the argument is logically valid. The consensus would appear to offer a positive answer to the (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Georg J. W. Dorn (1987). Zu Bolzanos Wahrscheinlichkeitslehre. Philosophia Naturalis 24 (4):423–441.
    Bolzano hat seine Wahrscheinlichkeitslehre in 15 Punkten im § 14 des zweiten Teils seiner Religionswissenschaft sowie in 20 Punkten im § 161 des zweiten Bandes seiner Wissenschaftslehre niedergelegt. (Ich verweise auf die Religionswissenschaft mit 'RW II', auf die Wissenschaftslehre mit 'WL II'.) In der RW II (vgl. p. 37) ist seine Wahrscheinlichkeitslehre eingebettet in seine Ausführungen "Über die Natur der historischen Erkenntniß, besonders in Hinsicht auf Wunder", und die Lehrsätze, die er dort zusammenstellt, dienen dem ausdrücklichen Zweck, mit mathematischem Rüstzeug (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Travis Dumsday (2008). Religious Experience. International Philosophical Quarterly 48 (3):371-379.
    Hume’s destructive account of miracles has been thought by many to exclude the possibility of rationally accepting testimony to supernatural events. Here I argue that even if one grants that his argument works with respect to testimony about miracles, it does not succeed in showing that all testimony to the supernatural is inadmissible, since room is left open for religious experiences, especially those of an intersubjective kind, to function as evidence. If this is so, there is new reason to think (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. John Earman (2002). Bayes, Hume, Price, and Miracles. In Richard Swinburne (ed.), Bayes’s Theorem. Oxford University Press. 91--110.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. John Earman (2000). Hume's Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles. Oxford University Press.
    This vital study offers a new interpretation of Hume's famous "Of Miracles," which notoriously argues against the possibility of miracles. By situating Hume's popular argument in the context of the 18th century debate on miracles, Earman shows Hume's argument to be largely unoriginal and chiefly without merit where it is original. Yet Earman constructively conceives how progress can be made on the issues that Hume's essay so provocatively posed about the ability of eyewitness testimony to establish the credibility of marvelous (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. John Earman (1993). Bayes, Hume, and Miracles. Faith and Philosophy 10 (3):293-310.
    Recent attempts to cast Hume’s argument against miracles in a Bayesian form are examined. It is shown how the Bayesian apparatus does serve to clarify the structure and substance of Hume’s argument. But the apparatus does not underwrite Hume’s various claims, such as that no testimony serves to establish the credibility of a miracle; indeed, the Bayesian analysis reveals various conditions under which it would be reasonable to reject the more interesting of Hume’s claims.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Joseph Ellin (2011). Again: Hume on Miracles. Hume Studies 19 (1):203-212.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Joseph Ellin (1993). Again: Hume on Miracles. Hume Studies 19 (1):203-212.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Kenneth G. Ferguson (1992). An Intervention Into the Flew/Fogelin Debate. Hume Studies 18 (1):105-112.
    Robert Fogelin has forcefully argued that Hume intended to produce an "a priori" argument to show that miracles are logically impossible, while Anthony Flew is noted for a conflicting view that Hume intended merely to urge caution in accepting miracles solely on the basis of testimony. I furnish text ("Enquiry", Chapter X) which lends aid and comfort to both. But Fogelin’s interpretation forbids "miracles" only under a strict definition, whereas the empirical arguments favored by Flew are also needed if particular (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. James Fieser (1998). Hume on Miracles_, And: Hume on Natural Religion. [REVIEW] Hume Studies 24 (1):195-200.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Antony Flew (1990). Fogelin on Hume on Miracles. Hume Studies 16 (2):141-144.
    This reply to Fogelin argues, simply but sharply, that my view of what Hume was doing in Section X of his first Enquiry and not Fogelin’s is correct, and was also Hume’s own view, as there stated.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Antony Flew (1986). Hume's Philosophy of Religion. Royal Institute of Philosophy Lectures 20 (Supplement):129-146.
    THIS SURVEY WAS ORIGINALLY COMPOSED FOR (IN US TERMS) SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WHO ARE PREPARING FOR A NEWLY ESTABLISHED EXAMINATION IN PHILOSOPHY. ONE OF THE SET-BOOKS PRESCRIBED FOR THIS COURSE IS HUME’S FIRST "INQUIRY". "HUME’S PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION" THEREFORE CONTAINS NO MATERIAL NOT ALTERNATIVELY AVAILABLE: EITHER IN "HUME’S PHILOSOPHY OF BELIEF" (LONDON: ROUTLEDGE AND KEGAN PAUL, 1961); OR IN "DAVID HUME": "PHILOSOPHER OF MORAL SCIENCE" (OXFORD: BLACKWELL, 1986).
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Antony Flew (1979). The Red Queen at Substraction? Hume Studies 5 (2):110-111.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Antony Flew (1959). Hume's Check. Philosophical Quarterly 9 (34):1-18.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Robert J. Fogelin (2003). A Defense of Hume on Miracles. Princeton Univ Pr.
    Arguing that criticisms have--from the very start--rested on misreadings, Fogelin begins by providing a narrative of the way Hume’s argument actually unfolds. What Hume’s critics (and even some of his defenders) have failed to see is that Hume’s primary argument depends on fixing the appropriate standards of evaluating testimony presented on behalf of a miracle. Given the definition of a miracle, Hume quite reasonably argues that the standards for evaluating such testimony must be extremely high. Hume then argues that, as (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Robert J. Fogelin (1990). What Hume Actually Said About Miracles. Hume Studies 16 (1):81-86.
    Contrary to the standard interpretations, this essay shows that Hume, in Section X of the Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, explicitly put forward an a priori argument intended to show that, by the nature of the case, there must always be adequate empirical evidence establishing that a reported miracle could not have taken place.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. James E. Force (1982). Hume and Johnson on Prophecy and Miracles: Historical Context. Journal of the History of Ideas 43 (3):463 - 476.
    A CLOSE READING OF HUME’S ESSAY, "OF MIRACLES", REVEALS THAT HUME SPECIFICALLY AIMS HIS SCEPTICAL ARGUMENT AT THE PROOF OF CHRISTIAN REVELATION VIA FULFILLED PROPHETIC PREDICTIONS AS WELL AS AT MIRACLES. JOHNSON IS UNAWARE OF THIS FACT AND SO I CONCLUDE THAT HE HIMSELF HAD NOT READ THE ESSAY CLOSELY, THAT HE PROBABLY ONLY KNEW THE GENERAL OUTLINES OF THE ARGUMENT AT SECOND HAND THROUGH BOSWELL.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. James E. Force (1977). Hume in the Dialogues, the Dictates of Convention, and the Millennial Future State of Biblical Prophecy. Southwestern Journal of Philosophy 8 (1):131-141.
    THE PURPOSE OF THE ARTICLE IS TO SUPPORT KEMP SMITH’S INTERPRETATION THAT PHILO, IN THE "DIALOGUES", SPEAKS FOR HUME "FROM START TO FINISH." THIS INTERPRETATION HAS RECENTLY BEEN QUESTIONED BY PROFESSOR JAMES NOXON WHO BELIEVES THAT PHILO IS A TRUE PYRRHONIAN SCEPTIC AND THEREFORE DOES NOT REPRESENT THE MITIGATED SCEPTICISM OF HUME. I SUPPORT KEMP SMITH’S INTERPRETATION BY SUGGESTING WHY PHILO SEEMS TO REVERSE HIMSELF AT THE END OF THE "DIALOGUES" AND TO ACCEPT THE DESIGN ARGUMENT AS SUPPORT FOR A (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Don Garrett (2002). Hume on Testimony Concerning Miracles. In Peter Millican (ed.), Reading Hume on Human Understanding: Essays on the First Enquiry. Clarendon Press.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. J. C. A. Gaskin (2007). A Defence of Hume on Miracles - by Robert J. Fogelin. [REVIEW] Philosophical Books 48 (2):166-168.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. J. C. A. Gaskin (1985). Contrary Miracles Concluded. Hume Studies 1985 (Supplement):1 - 14.
    ONE OF HUME’S ARGUMENTS IN "OF MIRACLES" CONCLUDES (A) THAT MIRACLES IN DIFFERENT RELIGIONS ARE CONTRARY FACTS, AND (B) THAT ANY MIRACLE IN FAVOR OF ONE RELIGION IS EVIDENCE AGAINST ALL OTHERS. I ARGUE THAT WHILE (A) IS ABSURD, (B) IS APPLICABLE TO CHRISTIANITY IN VIRTUE OF ITS EXCLUSIVIST CLAIMS. IT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE EARLY FATHERS AND STILL HAS TO BE ASSUMED BY ALL BUT THE MOST DIFFIDENT CHRISTIANS.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. J. C. A. Gaskin (1964). David Hume and the Eighteenth-Century Interest in Miracles. Hermathena 99:80 - 91.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. J. Gill (2001). Hume, Holism, and Miracles. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 79 (3):439 – 440.
    Book Information Hume, Holism, and Miracles. By David Johnson. Cornell University Press. Ithaca. 1999. Pp. xi + 106. Hardback, £22.95.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. J. Gill, Hume, Holism, and Miracles. By David Johnson. Cornell University Press. Ithaca. 1999.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Donald Gillies (1991). A Bayesian Proof of a Humean Principle. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 42 (2):255-256.
    Hume bases his argument against miracles on an informal principle. This paper gives a formal explication of this principle of Hume’s, and then shows that this explication can be rigorously proved in a Bayesian framework.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. J. Golden (1996). The Hume, Campbell, and Whately Debate on Miracles. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 2.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Barry Gower (1990). David Hume and the Probability of Miracles. Hume Studies 16 (1):17-31.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. John Goyette (2002). Hume's Abject Failure. [REVIEW] Review of Metaphysics 55 (3):625-627.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. William Grey (1993). Hume, Miracles, and the Paranorrnal. Cogito 7 (2):100-105.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Alan Hájek (2008). Are Miracles Chimerical? In , Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion, Volume 1. Oxford Univ Pr. 82-104.
    I analyze David Hume’s "Of Miracles". I vindicate Hume’s argument against two charges: that it (1) defines miracles out of existence; (2) appeals to a suspect principle of balancing probabilities. He argues that miracles are, in a certain sense, maximally improbable. To understand this sense, we must turn to his notion of probability as ’strength of analogy’: miracles are incredible, according to him, because they bear no analogy to anything in our past experience. This reveals as anachronistic various recent Bayesian (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Alan Hájek (1995). In Defense of Hume's Balancing of Probabilities in the Miracles Argument. Southwest Philosophy Review 11 (1):111-118.
    I vindicate Hume’s argument against belief in miracle reports against a prevalent objection. Hume has us balance the probability of a miracle’s occurrence against the probability of its being falsely attested to, and argues that the latter must inevitably be the greater; thus, reason requires us to reject any miracle report. The "flaw" in this reasoning, according to Butler and many others, is that it proves too much--it counsels us to never believe historians, newspaper reports of lottery results, and so (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 133