Miracles and principles of relative likelihood
International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 18 (3):123 - 131 (1985)
| Abstract | I EXAMINE VARIOUS SUGGESTED PRINCIPLES FOR WEIGHING TESTIMONY TO PAST EVENTS AND IDENTIFY ONE WHICH SEEMS TO BE BOTH TRUE AND ROUGHLY IN THE SPIRIT OF DAVID HUME’S ESSAY. I ARGUE THAT HUME FAILS TO PROVIDE GOOD REASONS FOR SAYING THAT THIS PRINCIPLE, WHEN APPLIED TO REPORTS OF MIRACLES PURPORTING TO SUPPORT RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, WILL ALWAYS LEAD US TO REJECT THE OCCURRENCE OF THE MIRACLE | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,653 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesStephen Mumford (2001). Miracles: Metaphysics and Modality. Religious Studies 37 (2):191-202.
By John Whipple (2008). Hobbes on Miracles. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 89 (1):117–142.
Jacqueline Mariña (1998). The Theological and Philosophical Significance of the Markan Account of Miracles. Faith and Philosophy 15 (3):298-323.
Keith Chrzan (1984). Vindicating the “Principle of Relative Likelihood”. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 16 (1):13 - 18.
Bruce Langtry (1988). Mackie on Miracles. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 66 (3):368 – 375.
John Earman (2000). Hume's Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles. Oxford University Press.
Travis Dumsday (2008). Locke on Competing Miracles. Faith and Philosophy 25 (4):416-424.
Richard Otte (2004). Review of Fogelin, A Defense of Hume on Miracles. [REVIEW] Hume Studies 30 (1):165-68.
Michael Almeida (2007). Martin on Miracles. Philo 10 (1):27-34.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads3 ( #201,695 of 548,977 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,511 of 548,977 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
