Graduate studies at Western
Journal of the History of Philosophy 35 (2):237 - 251 (1997)
|Abstract||"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 the religious interpretation of an anomaly while accepting that the anomaly occurred|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Michael Levine (1997). Bayesian Analyses of Hume's Argument Concerning Miracles. Philosophy and Theology 10 (1):101-106.
Richard Otte (1996). Mackie's Treatment of Miracles. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 39 (3):151 - 158.
J. Gill (2001). Hume, Holism, and Miracles. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 79 (3):439 – 440.
Rodney D. Holder (1998). Hume on Miracles: Bayesian Interpretation, Multiple Testimony, and the Existence of God. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49 (1):49-65.
M. Jacovides (2008). Review Of: Hume, Holism, and Miracles; Hume's Abject Failure; A Defense of Hume on Miracles. [REVIEW] Philosophical Review 117 (1):142-147.
Chris Slupik (1995). A New Interpretation of Hume's 'Of Miracles'. Religious Studies 31 (4):517 - 536.
John Earman (2000). Hume's Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles. Oxford University Press.
Richard Otte (2004). Review of Fogelin, A Defense of Hume on Miracles. [REVIEW] Hume Studies 30 (1):165-68.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads428 ( #223 of 722,941 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,087 of 722,941 )
How can I increase my downloads?