An Intervention into the Flew/Fogelin Debate

Hume Studies 18 (1):105-112 (1992)
Abstract
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 marvelous reports are to be legitimately dismissed
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 11,074
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Similar books and articles
R. C. Wallace (1970). Hume, Flew, and the Miraculous. Philosophical Quarterly 20 (80):230-243.
Steve Clarke (1999). Hume's Definition of Miracles Revised. American Philosophical Quarterly 36 (1):49 - 57.
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2011-01-09

Total downloads

5 ( #227,243 of 1,101,562 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

4 ( #81,941 of 1,101,562 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.