David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of the History of Ideas 60 (2):241 - 256 (1999)
Hume’s "Of Miracles" concludes with the claim that prophecies, too, are miracles, and as such are susceptible to the same arguments which apply to miracles. However, both Hume and his commentators have overlooked the distinctive features of prophecy. Hume’s chief objection to miracles--that one is never justified in crediting second-hand testimony to miraculous events--does not necessarily apply to the argument from fulfilled prophecies as it was understood in the eighteenth century. Neither was prophecy necessarily thought to entail any breach of the laws of nature. Consideration of Hume’s argument in its historical context shows that it fails to counter the argument from prophecies and was known to have failed
|Keywords||C1 780199 Other 440105 History of Philosophy and History of Ideas|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Peter Harrison (2001). Hume's Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles (Review). Journal of the History of Philosophy 39 (4):592-594.
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.
Michael Levine (1997). Bayesian Analyses of Hume's Argument Concerning Miracles. Philosophy and Theology 10 (1):101-106.
Richard Otte (1996). Mackie's Treatment of Miracles. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 39 (3):151 - 158.
C. M. Lorkowski (2009). The Miracle of Moses. Heythrop Journal 50 (2):181-188.
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.
David Mckenzie (1999). Miracles Are Not Immoral: A Response to James Keller's Moral Argument Against Miracles. Religious Studies 35 (1):73-88.
John Earman (2000). Hume's Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles. Oxford University Press.
Added to index2010-08-10
Total downloads11 ( #135,321 of 1,098,973 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #43,600 of 1,098,973 )
How can I increase my downloads?