Graduate studies at Western
International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 39 (3):151 - 158 (1996)
|Abstract||A recent discussion of Hume’s argument concerning the rationality of accepting a belief that a miracle has occurred is given by J. L. Mackie in The Miracle of Theism. Mackie believes that Hume’s argument is essentially correct, although he attempts to clarify and strengthen it. Any version of Hume’s argument depends upon one’s conception of miracles and laws of nature; I will argue that Mackie commits a simple logical error and that given his conception of laws of nature and miracles there is no reason to reject rational belief in miracles.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
John Earman (2000). Hume's Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles. Oxford University Press.
J. L. Schellenberg (2005). The Hiddenness Argument Revisited (II). Religious Studies 41 (3):287 - 303.
Steve Clarke (2003). Response to Mumford and Another Definition of Miracles. Religious Studies 39 (4):459-463.
Stephen 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.
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.
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 index2009-01-28
Total downloads36 ( #38,062 of 722,935 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #36,863 of 722,935 )
How can I increase my downloads?