A Defense of Hume on Miracles
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Princeton Univ Pr (2003)
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 a matter of fact, no testimony on behalf of a religious miracle has even come close to meeting the appropriate standards for acceptance. (publisher, edited)
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Buy the book||$20.00 new (43% off) $20.00 used (43% off) Amazon page|
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
Peter Millican (2011). Twenty Questions About Hume's “Of Miracles”. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 68:151-192.
Elliott Sober (2004). A Modest Proposal. [REVIEW] Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 68 (2):487–494.
Paul Dicken (2011). On Some Limitations of Humean Disagreement: Miraculous Testimony and Contrary Religions. Sophia 50 (3):345-355.
Elliott Sober (2004). A Modest Proposal. [REVIEW] Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 68 (2):487-494.
Similar books and articles
Chris Slupik (1995). A New Interpretation of Hume's 'Of Miracles'. Religious Studies 31 (4):517 - 536.
Richard Otte (2004). Review of Fogelin, A Defense of Hume on Miracles. [REVIEW] Hume Studies 30 (1):165-68.
Matthew C. Bagger (1997). Hume and Miracles. Journal of the History of Philosophy 35 (2):237 - 251.
Ruth Weintraub (1996). The Credibility of Miracles. Philosophical Studies 82 (3):359 - 375.
Lloyd F. Bitzer (1998). The "Indian Prince" in Miracle Arguments of Hume and His Predecessors and Early Critics. Philosophy and Rhetoric 31 (3):175 - 230.
Robert Hambourger (1980). Belief in Miracles and Hume's Essay. Noûs 14 (4):587-604.
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.
Hendrik Van der Breggen (2002). Hume's Scale: How Hume Counts a Miracle's Improbability Twice. Philosophia Christi 4 (2):443 - 453.
Francis J. Beckwith (1991). Hume's Evidential/Testimonial Epistemology, Probability, and Miracles. Logos 12:87 - 104.
John Earman (1993). Bayes, Hume, and Miracles. Faith and Philosophy 10 (3):293-310.
John Earman (2000). Hume's Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles. Oxford University Press.
Kenneth G. Ferguson (1992). An Intervention Into the Flew/Fogelin Debate. Hume Studies 18 (1):105-112.
Michael Levine (1988). Belief in Miracles: Tillotson's Argument Against Transubstantiation as a Model for Hume. [REVIEW] International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 23 (3):125 - 160.
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.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2012-06-16
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?