Graduate studies at Western
Religious Studies 45 (3):325-338 (2009)
|Abstract||Contemporary commentators on Hume’s essay, "Of Miracles" have increasingly tended to argue that Hume never intended to suggest that testimonial evidence must always be insufficient to justify belief in a miracle. This is in marked contrast to earlier commentators who interpreted Hume as intending to demonstrate that testimonial evidence is incapable in principle of ever establishing rational belief in a miracle. In this article I argue that this traditional interpretation is the correct one|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
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.
Robert Larmer (2008). C. S. Lewis's Critique of Hume's “on Miracles”. Faith and Philosophy 25 (2):154-171.
Yiftach J. H. Fehige (2012). Miracles and Science: Mora Than a Miraculous Relationship. Toronto Journal of Theology 28 (1):159-163.
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.
John Earman (2000). Hume's Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles. Oxford University Press.
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.
Added to index2009-07-28
Total downloads50 ( #25,140 of 739,575 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,680 of 739,575 )
How can I increase my downloads?