Graduate studies at Western
International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 43 (3):167-182 (1998)
|Abstract||I examine Hume’s proposal about rationally considering testimonial evidence for miracles. He proposes that we compare the probability of the miracle (independently of the testimony) with the probability that the testimony is false, rejecting whichever has the lower probability. However, this superficially plausible proposal is massively ignored in our treatment of testimonial evidence in nonreligious contexts. I argue that it should be ignored, because in many cases, including the resurrection of Jesus, neither we nor Hume have any experience which is at all relevant to assigning a prior probability to the alleged event|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
David Johnson (1999). Hume, Holism, and Miracles. Cornell University Press.
Bruce Langtry (1990). Hume, Probability, Lotteries and Miracles. Hume Studies 16 (1):67-74.
J. Gill (2001). Hume, Holism, and Miracles. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 79 (3):439 – 440.
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.
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.
Barry Gower (1990). David Hume and the Probability of Miracles. Hume Studies 16 (1):17-31.
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 downloads103 ( #7,494 of 756,449 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,433 of 756,449 )
How can I increase my downloads?